Remove ads

Ordering people to stop being prejudiced makes them more prejudiced

Status
Not open for further replies.
They are both virtually the same, just in differing degrees of severity. The effectiveness of measures backed by coercive power is directly related to how people feel.
 
thesevenwielder said:
Context, my dear. A lot of the time that word is used, it is not in an offensive manner. Why, there's a member I don't like who used the word 'trap' in a non-offensive manner. Yes, it was referring to a guy looking like a girl, but it wasn't meant to offend in the least.

Since I don't like the guy, I reported him for using the word 'trap' in an offensive manner, even though he wasn't. And yes, he did get infracted for it. All too easy to abuse the system. And the best part is, while they may be able to get at me for Rules Lawyering (you'd think that Prefect, as a lawyer, would be proud), they can't actually remove the infraction from that guy without undermining their whole system.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Man, I dunno what you think you're up to, but you're not as clever as you imagine. I guess thank you for, in your attempt at spite, finding a rules violation for us?
 
Fernandel said:
Come on, man. Only the fewest people have completely hard-set in stone unshakeable opinions, and if the article is actually reflective of reality, "naming and shaming" and treating them like irredeemable assholes might just increase resistance to achieving practical social justice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On a personal note, while i was initially opposed to gay marriage up to a few years back, my stance has softened considerably, not because i was shouted at to change my viewpoints but because after a year of chatting regularly with @Kei i thought to myself, "she really deserves to be happy and she should get the chance to marry her soulmate, if things progress to that stage."
 
Last edited:
thesevenwielder said:
Context, my dear. A lot of the time that word is used, it is not in an offensive manner. Why, there's a member I don't like who used the word 'trap' in a non-offensive manner. Yes, it was referring to a guy looking like a girl, but it wasn't meant to offend in the least.

Since I don't like the guy, I reported him for using the word 'trap' in an offensive manner, even though he wasn't. And yes, he did get infracted for it. All too easy to abuse the system. And the best part is, while they may be able to get at me for Rules Lawyering (you'd think that Prefect, as a lawyer, would be proud), they can't actually remove the infraction from that guy without undermining their whole system.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is the system working as intended. The Mods dont want the word used in that fashion, lo and behold, when someone gets reported for it being used in that fashion, they get infracted. Unless the decision to infract over the word is in and of itself abusive, there is nothing abusive about this systems, you complete tool.

And stop acting like you are smarter, you just come off as an arrogant tool.
 
Last edited:
FriedIce said:
Dude, you're missing the point.

I was on your side until the rhetoric behind the Social Justice cause pissed me off enough that I went and campaigned for our equivalent of the Republicans, because at least they didn't tell me what a terrible person I was for holding views which didn't perfectly match up with the orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Uh.

Yeah they do, just on different things.

I'm all for "we should use honey not whips to motivate people" but like, you can't just let people be prejudiced because it's not actually about the prejudiced people, it's about the people who they're prejudiced against who want to use the same spaces.
 
firefossil said:
Look at the BLM movement, which is the latest rendition of racial conflict in society. Guess what is happening? Lots of assholes are doing their best to portray the BLM movement as more assholey than they are... and it works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I always have to roll my eyes whenever someone talks about how terrible BLM is, when, like the worst behavior I've seen from them is litteraly talking too loud In a library

Chloe Sullivan said:
This wasn't done by convincing bigots they were wrong, it was (in large part) done by making Gay characters -and accepting homosexuality- socially normal by including them in TV show casts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Notably this is something that's often cited as being an example of authoritarian cultural engineering, or at least it used to be. People hated being "beaten over the head by the gay agenda", until they got used to it and decided their newfound tolerance was a good way to demonize Muslims.
 
thesevenwielder said:
Context, my dear. A lot of the time that word is used, it is not in an offensive manner. Why, there's a member I don't like who used the word 'trap' in a non-offensive manner. Yes, it was referring to a guy looking like a girl, but it wasn't meant to offend in the least.

Since I don't like the guy, I reported him for using the word 'trap' in an offensive manner, even though he wasn't. And yes, he did get infracted for it. All too easy to abuse the system. And the best part is, while they may be able to get at me for Rules Lawyering (you'd think that Prefect, as a lawyer, would be proud), they can't actually remove the infraction from that guy without undermining their whole system.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know you're trying to show us how the system is awful and can be easily abused

But all I'm getting from this that even though you hate a very specific application of a rule, you used it anyway to silence someone's you didn't like

Thus setting a precedent that the rule exists and can be validly interpreted this way

Thus continuing its existence and making sure it can be continuously used against others and yourself, even though you hate it

And this doesn't strike you as incredibly counterproductive to your goal because?!?

Like, the end result is still that the slur's not gonna be used on SV, a private space, and I'm surprisingly okay with that. But I'm just baffled that you're trying to claim moral superiority for using a rule you dislike to hinder someone you dislike.
 
Last edited:
Flectarn said:
I always have to roll my eyes whenever someone talks about how terrible BLM is, when, like the worst behavior I've seen from them is litteraly talking too loud In a library



Notably this is something that's often cited as being an example of authoritarian cultural engineering, or at least it used to be. People hated being "beaten over the head by the gay agenda", until they got used to it and decided their newfound tolerance was a good way to demonize Muslims.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought it was more how people started having relatives, siblings and children coming out and lawmakers started to face the prospect of demonizing their family or supporting acceptance of homosexuals.
 
Professor Vesca said:
I thought it was more how people started having relatives, siblings and children coming out and lawmakers started to face the prospect of demonizing their family or supporting acceptance of homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In some cases? Yes. Anywhere near universally? Well, compare-contrast the hetero / LGBT youth homelessness rates, existence of "conversion" camps, how many people remain (in several cases rightfully) afraid of coming out in their households, etcetera. Then keep in mind that non-heterosexual individuals did not magically spike in population by several OoM in recent generations (or, in other words, that many families still had kin coming out / fearfully in the closet all the way back to the "sterilize the gays" era(s) and still accepted / endorsed / tolerated aforementioned policies).

Personally knowing and being friends with non-hetero persons helps, no question, but if it were the be-all or overall most-effective thing then barring very small / isolated communities the issue should have been resolved in the U.S. Decades ago.
 
Drachyench said:
In some cases? Yes. Anywhere near universally? Well, compare-contrast the hetero / LGBT youth homelessness rates, existence of "conversion" camps, how many people remain (in several cases rightfully) afraid of coming out in their households, etcetera. Then keep in mind that non-heterosexual individuals did not magically spike in population by several OoM in recent generations (or, in other words, that many families still had kin coming out / fearfully in the closet all the way back to the "sterilize the gays" era(s) and still accepted / endorsed / tolerated aforementioned policies).

Personally knowing and being friends with non-hetero persons helps, no question, but if it were the be-all or overall most-effective thing then barring very small / isolated communities the issue should have been resolved in the U.S. Decades ago.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do we actually have any statistics on this?
 
FBH said:
Uh.

Yeah they do, just on different things.

I'm all for "we should use honey not whips to motivate people" but like, you can't just let people be prejudiced because it's not actually about the prejudiced people, it's about the people who they're prejudiced against who want to use the same spaces.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think I see Friedice's situation. Letting people be prejudiced isn't his goal. It's just pushback because the not so great part of the SJ crowd denigrated him to the point where he just gave up on our side completely. At least with his switch, he isn't overtly being called a terrible person and all.

And I do see the problem there. I mean, while it's not great that he went and jumped ship, I would probably do the same if the people who were ostensibly on the same side I was yelled at me constantly for not marching in lockstep with their beliefs. While I'm not a fan of the whole "right side of history" idea, I would at least think that the people who believe in that would avoid stooping down to the same level as the people who are on the "wrong side". Vinegar's one thing, shitflinging's another.
 
Drachyench said:
Mobile ATM and heading back on the clock, but just going back ~21 years: The prevalence of homosexual behavior and attraction in the United States, the United Kingdom and France: results of national population-based sample... - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean more, how prevalent were reeducation camps versus the population at large? Was this a small issue restricted to fundamentalist families that was really well known due to all the bad shit that happened? Or was it really as wide spread as you imply?
 
So let me get this straight.

The article says that ordering people to stop being prejudiced only makes people double down on their point of view.

Posters immediately start trying to shove their opinion down each other's throats.

Wow, what a bunch of goddamned morons.
 
Last edited:
pyrite said:
I think I see Friedice's situation. Letting people be prejudiced isn't his goal. It's just pushback because the not so great part of the SJ crowd denigrated him to the point where he just gave up on our side completely. At least with his switch, he isn't overtly being called a terrible person and all.

And I do see the problem there. I mean, while it's not great that he went and jumped ship, I would probably do the same if the people who were ostensibly on the same side I was yelled at me constantly for not marching in lockstep with their beliefs. While I'm not a fan of the whole "right side of history" idea, I would at least think that the people who believe in that would avoid stooping down to the same level as the people who are on the "wrong side". Vinegar's one thing, shitflinging's another.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem is that it's not like the defectors are innocent here. There's a percentage of the population that...well, it seems as if they want to see excess. They want to see things being "shoved down their throat cause PC" and so on. They feel this sort of vague suspicion that someone else is getting one over.

It's not a surprise that people have grown callouses over the endless cries of "you lost my vote over this thing I totally felt was valid because you annoyed me" from "moderates", especially since a lot of those supposed victims go over to the other side and, whaddayaknow, all of a sudden obnoxious things on that side are being overplayed by the media, really it's about such and such and that's not really enough to condemn the entire group and so on.

Not that any particular apostate is not coming from a genuine place and all, just saying, there's a reason everyone isn't immediately sympathetic.
Professor Vesca said:
I thought it was more how people started having relatives, siblings and children coming out and lawmakers started to face the prospect of demonizing their family or supporting acceptance of homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right, but that just pushes it a step back. Why did they decide to come out then?
 
Cunuroi said:
The problem is that it's not like the defectors are innocent here. There's a percentage of the population that...well, it seems as if they want to see excess. They want to see things being "shoved down their throat cause PC" and so on. They feel this sort of vague suspicion that someone else is getting one over.

It's not a surprise that people have grown callouses over the endless cries of "you lost my vote over this thing I totally felt was valid because you annoyed me" from "moderates", especially since a lot of those supposed victims go over to the other side and, whaddayaknow, all of a sudden obnoxious things on that side are being overplayed by the media, really it's about such and such and that's not really enough to condemn the entire group and so on.

Not that any particular apostate is not coming from a genuine place and all, just saying, there's a reason everyone isn't immediately sympathetic.

Right, but that just pushes it a step back. Why did they decide to come out then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, why would anyone come out?

They were sick of living a lie and took a risk, they thought their family would accept them, they were encouraged by other success stories and/or their associates to try?

Those are the three I came up with off the top of my head.
 
Professor Vesca said:
Well, why would anyone come out?

They were sick of living a lie and took a risk, they thought their family would accept them, they were encouraged by other success stories and/or their associates to try?

Those are the three I came up with off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No. You're missing my point.

Anyone can come out for any reason. Why would:
  1. more people come out recently?
  2. those people coming out create a positive feedback loop that propelled gay rights into fast prominence?
Why now and not...at any other point in history where coming out could apparently not have achieved the same result?

It seems to me that it's clearly not just people coming out. There had to have been something else since this option was always available.
 
It may just be the lack of sleep but, this comes off to me as something akin to what I call the Trump gamble.

"He's an asshole! Don't vote for him!"
"No one tells me what to do!" *votes for Trump *

"You're all idiots for voting for him!"
*DOUBLES DOWN *
See no one likes being called an ass, or being treated like one. No one sees themselves as an ass but if they're treated like a villain they'll double down in their surety of rightness
 
Cunuroi said:
No. You're missing my point.

Anyone can come out for any reason. Why would:
  1. more people come out recently?
  2. those people coming out create a positive feedback loop that propelled gay rights into fast prominence?
Why now and not...at any other point in history where coming out could apparently not have achieved the same result?

It seems to me that it's clearly not just people coming out. There had to have been something else since this option was always available.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A complex web of changing social conditions stretching far back from the founding of the Roman Empire and antiquity, through the rise of Christianity, through the medieval age.

Homosexuality in medieval Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Times change, views change, early christian views on sexuality were informed by the early pagan, roman, and greek views, and Christianity at first viewed homosexual acts the same way they viewed any other sex acts, with sex being reserved specifically for procreation (during earlier inquisitions, homosexuals were not punished for such acts alone but for challenging the churches stance, same as anyone else). In addition, platonic romantic relationships between males and females occured, especially in monastaries where monks would declare other monks to be their 'brother'. As time went on society began to adopt more conservative views, and punishments became harsher, before swinging back around into the modern age, where people accused of homosexuality would be abducted and beaten, before eventually finding acceptance again.

In other words, why now? Why dont you tell me why social acceptance of homosexuality has swung back around again.

TLDR: Its fucking complicated.
 
Last edited:
Professor Vesca said:
TLDR: Its fucking complicated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is what I said?

I mean, if we're trying to explain why all of this happened now (including looking back at other social movements like Christianity in the Ancient Roman empire) I don't see why it's unfair to ask "why now?" in response to an explanation that utilizes a solution that's been available for a while.

Plenty of things happened that theoretically could have happened at other points.The "now" is the point no?
 
Cunuroi said:
Which is what I said?

I mean, if we're trying to explain why all of this happened now (including looking back at other social movements like Christianity in the Ancient Roman empire) I don't see why it's unfair to ask "why now?" in response to an explanation that utilizes a solution that's been available for a while.

Plenty of things happened that theoretically could have happened at other points.The "now" is the point no?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...



I dont even know what we are talking about anymore. I think your question was 'well why do you think people outed themselves now'?

It certainly wasnt because the government dictated a change in behavior! Or that society just woke up one day and said them gay folks is alright! We were already on a track towards increasing relaxation of our attitudes towards sex and sexuality, and had been for a long time.

As attitudes relaxed and people mellowed out from our puritan roots some 200 years hence, people became more comfortable taking risks. This continued, in a natural fashion, until popular celebrities (George Takei, I choose you!) and the relatives/siblings/children of major political figures felt comfortable enough/bold/brave enough to out themselves, or had the choice made for them when they were outed as they took more risks and hid their activity less.

When this happened, society was presented with a choice. Demonize our childhood heroes, idols, and rolemodels, and our popular celebrities, and our own family members, or accept them.

We chose to accept them.

It wasnt any one thing though. It was a complex network of interrelated attitudes and taboos.
 
Last edited:
Professor Vesca said:
I dont even know what we are talking about anymore. I think your question was 'well why do you think people outed themselves now'?

It certainly wasnt because the government dictated a change in behavior! Or that society just woke up one day and said them gay folks is alright!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You brought up the medieval thing. I don't know what I said that implied that my question had anything to do with that. I never claimed that our view of sexual identity was universal so I also don't know what we're talking about.

Here's a summary of what just happened, in my mind:

  • Question through the last pages of the thread: "how do minority movements gain power?".
  • One potential answer from you :"well, in this case gay people came out and sort of neutralized the bigotry of their own family".
  • My question:"but they could have done this at any time (implicit here being "since homophobia as we recognize it existed", I'm not sure why we need to talk about medieval peoples) . If we don't know why they didn't then we haven't answered the question, anymore than saying "barbarians destroyed Rome" without understanding why they utterly failed in the past doesn't explain why it fell.
  • Answer: Something about medieval people.
I don't mean to be dismissive but that really was a tangent to me.
 
94 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads
Back
Top