When it comes to human rights issues, is that really an acceptable timeline to work on?
We’d be severely lacking in notable civil rights improvements if we waited around for enough people to get comfortable. Pronouns are too far, but so was marriage at one point (still is to a lot of people, are we really comfortable enough?). So was just engaging in regular activities without being arrested before that. At what point was the American south culturally ready to accept desegregation? Were we conveniently ready for women’s suffrage at the right time?
To your first question, of course it would be great if everyone could get on board today and we move on with our lives, but that is Lannys point and why this thread exists. There are lots of people that need to take things slowly and the 'too far, too fast' they experience causes more pushback and can set things back even further.
I think its kind of demonstrated in your examples at the end. Was it any less outrageous how the American south operated in the 1910's, 20's 30's, etc? Of course not. And I am sure through the decades there was plenty of work being done to change it. But it took the right circumstances in the 60's to finally turn the tide and change things.
Look I would love if we could all just be accepting of who we identify as and who we love, but living in deep red America has taught me we are still really far from that. I think one of the realities that progressives need to face is that sometimes you need to lose a battle to win the war. One example I think that applies here is the trans sports issue. It is a red herring that really gets a lot of folks riled up. I think it is a specific topic that may do more harm than good when considered in the overall context of the fight for equal rights.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
Wow, now I'm a victim blamer. It is amazing how quickly you can get labelled for trying to explain a position that is counter to the minority and explain why something may not be the way the minority perceives it. Really getting tired of being labeled as something I am clearly not just because one person does not like the terms or explanation put forward.
You may not think of yourself as "a victim blamer" but it is what you did. Your comment placed the responsibility for current acts of bigotry directly upon those people who are themselves the victims of that bigotry, this is exactly what victim-blaming is, if you can present a different definition of victim blaming, by all means present it.
Quote:
And yes, many DEI programs are forced. When institutions have a requirement to adopt a DEI Officer to maintain accreditation, that is forced. When you a mandatory requirement to use or enforce the usage of terms, that is forced. When a program is the result of political pressure rather than operational efficiency, that is forced.
Operational efficiency? I'm having trouble following your line of thinking here. Are you stating that businesses and organizations should only adopt DEIJ policies and programs when they believe those policies and programs will enhance the 'bottom-line'? (whether that be profit or, say for an educational institution, quality of instruction)
Furthermore, how, other than through political pressure, do you suggest marginalized and oppressed groups make their needs known to those with power?
Quote:
What you seem to forget is that justice is represented by balance. When you provide special treatment to one group and introduce specific ways that you have to treat that group, you affect the balance of the scales. It is why I stated these things must evolve organically so balance is maintained. When a thumb is kept on the scale the outcome is never just and never one to be broadly accepted. You may not like the schedule at which the adoption takes place, but the natural adoption is more permanent than the one where people feel the oppressive hand of regulation on their shoulder. When you regulate to provide for the minority you can make victims out of the majority.
On August 25, 1963, three days before the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Martin Luther King Jr. and Roy Wilkins - Executive Secretary of the NAACP - appeared on NBC's Meet the Press.
Quote:
...Richard Wilson of Cowles Newspaper Publications said to King that some felt he was “pushing too far too fast.”
“I don’t agree,” King said calmly. “The Negro has been extremely patient for our God-given rights. We are at the bottom of the economic ladder. We are the victims of segregation.” The march, King said, would “help not only the Negro cause, but the rest of the nation.”
Wilson asked whether “moderation” wouldn’t be a better path.
“If moderation means moving to justice, then…we must pursue it,” King said. “But if it means capitulation, it would be immoral.”
Spivak, the creator of Meet the Press asked whether it would not be better for Negroes to be given “time to digest” what they had already achieved rather than push for new laws now.
Wilkins replied: “It is incumbent on the Negro population to keep asking for more. They have been deprived so long. We cannot [reduce] the pressure for the end of evil.”
Many white people, even well-meaning ones, were not used to hearing such terms. They thought the civil rights movement was a fight to sit at the same soda fountains as whites. Now they were being told it was a struggle against evil. And they might be the evil ones.
You'd be burying your head in the sand if you think it could possibly not affect other people's lives. Complaints are made against people who may not use the pronoun of choice, whether it be intentionally or unintentionally. Those complaints have led to additions to workstation files, disciplinary action, or termination. The introduction of cancel culture and these rights battles has led to some very interesting dynamics. Careers have been limited, damaged, or destroyed because of something that supposedly doesn't affect them. That is without looking at public pressure and the impact it can have directly on businesses or stock prices for what appears to be simple decisions.
Wow, now I'm a victim blamer. It is amazing how quickly you can get labelled for trying to explain a position that is counter to the minority and explain why something may not be the way the minority perceives it. Really getting tired of being labeled as something I am clearly not just because one person does not like the terms or explanation put forward.
And yes, many DEI programs are forced. When institutions have a requirement to adopt a DEI Officer to maintain accreditation, that is forced. When you a mandatory requirement to use or enforce the usage of terms, that is forced. When a program is the result of political pressure rather than operational efficiency, that is forced.
What you seem to forget is that justice is represented by balance. When you provide special treatment to one group and introduce specific ways that you have to treat that group, you affect the balance of the scales. It is why I stated these things must evolve organically so balance is maintained. When a thumb is kept on the scale the outcome is never just and never one to be broadly accepted. You may not like the schedule at which the adoption takes place, but the natural adoption is more permanent than the one where people feel the oppressive hand of regulation on their shoulder. When you regulate to provide for the minority you can make victims out of the majority.
There is zero tolerance for folks who push back against LGBTQ2+ culture. In a way I admire a young generation of LGBTQ2+ fighting for themselves so hard, But I also see how this increases tension. ( NOT to say that LGBTQ2+ are forcing people to hate them, its the opposite really, its peoples who already harbor homophobic feeling's are made to feel vindicated).
This may well be the only way, I don't know, I don't want to moralize it, I am only pointing out something that I noticed.
As an additional point there is still a large section of society that is on the homophobic spectrum, and I don't think we ignore that or make those people feel comfortable. Though I don't know if he can show them peaceful ways by force. So to speak.
I find it difficult to make the case for a social movement being problematic because it isn't 'organic'. Was the racial inequality or gender discrimination of the 20th century 'organic' and happened according to some preferred textbook definition?
To say that a social movement isn't happening 'organically' is to say there is never a convenient time or method that would ever satisfy the complainant. Human institutional frameworks do not evolve like that and people should accept it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
I mean, I'm sure I'm going to get trashed for this but its pretty wild to see such a huge issue for such a small percentage of the population. I feel like LGB was pretty commonplace and hasn't been a talking point for a while like transgender has lately. The trans community is less than 2% of the population yet its all over headlines, discussions, forums. We're debating curriculums, parenting rights, public funds, use of public spaces, etc. It's insane. I guess I don't understand the desire of governments and people to put so much time and resources into such a tiny minority.
This literally just means you're entrenched in the Right-Wing Outrage Machine, primarily The Daily Wire subset of #######s.
Literally take a peek at this awful Juwanna Mann/Ladybugs wannabe they're releasing this month.
It's extremely obvious to normal people that the only people obsessing over Trans issues are these bigots.
The fact you even know about that video shows you’re tapped into your own outrage machine.
In all fairness, facebooks advertising algorithm seems to think I am the target demographic as well. I'm not sure what I accidentally clicked on at some point, but they send me the dumbest ads that I am definitely never going to click on. Maybe they're counting on a rage click? Who knows.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
The fact you even know about that video shows you’re tapped into your own outrage machine.
Why? The DW is probably the largest right-wing media outlet outside of Fox News, and growing larger by the day. They are incredibly well-funded and very good at manipulating social media algorithms to ensure their content is distributed as widely as possible.
Being tapped into it is necessary to understand modern right-wing politics, especially in the U.S.
You may not think of yourself as "a victim blamer" but it is what you did. Your comment placed the responsibility for current acts of bigotry directly upon those people who are themselves the victims of that bigotry, this is exactly what victim-blaming is, if you can present a different definition of victim blaming, by all means present it.
Operational efficiency? I'm having trouble following your line of thinking here. Are you stating that businesses and organizations should only adopt DEIJ policies and programs when they believe those policies and programs will enhance the 'bottom-line'? (whether that be profit or, say for an educational institution, quality of instruction)
Furthermore, how, other than through political pressure, do you suggest marginalized and oppressed groups make their needs known to those with power?
]
Actually, I never did mention any one group. That was you. I placed the blame at the feet of the institutions for their poor handling of these groups and then using bad structures like DEI to try and force acceptance. Look at what I posted again.
"The momentum of the swing was leveraged by every queer sub-culture and fractured it into too many facets for people to grasp. Worse, the cultures began to be rammed down the throats of everyone with forced diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. That is how you get people to push back and push back hard. Instead of allowing acceptance to develop organically the acceptance of these lifestyles was forced. You can't tell people what terms to use or pronouns that are acceptable. You have to teach them over time and allow that change to happen organically. When corporations started to go overboard with adopting queer people as representatives so they could display their wokeism it alienated a lot of customers. When they do forced DE&I programs they force people to make choices about perceptions and acceptance, and some of those choices are not going to be positive. This is the mistake and what caused the pushback IMO."
Where does it point a finger at anyone that is a member of any group? My criticism has been the attempt to force acceptance of any group rather than just raise awareness and show them to be no different than any other group. When we view all groups the same and provide equal rights to all groups in the same fashion that is when true equality is achieved. You can't force that, otherwise you will get negative responses. Ironically, the more the victim card gets played the more people want to take a step back because it sounds like someone wants something different or special.
Like it or not the role of an institution is to execute its charter and produce value. It is the same for private and public sector organizations. Their job is not to worry about individuals but instead be concerned about creating an environment where the institution will perform to its maximum efficiency. That should mean making sure that all employees are treated the same way. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
How should people who have concerns about their treatment take on such challenges? Work through existing processes / governance frameworks while trying to educate people on the issues and allow them to become accepting on their own. The reason racism still exists so strongly in the southern United States is not because of an inherent hatred towards African Americans, it's because of forced desegregation and being forced to do something they didn't want at the time (the South never forgets). You want to get into a fight in Alabama, bring up Brown v Board of Education. The response is irrational, but it is based on forced acceptance. The same attitude exists on many subjects. Look at vaccines. You can't force acceptance on everyone.
The solution to this is to treat everyone the same. EVERYONE.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Being outraged by something genuinely outrageous is not equivalent to being manipulated into being outraged by something benign.
Understanding the difference would go a long way toward understanding what the term “outrage machine” even means before pointing a finger and saying some elevated version of “no u.”
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Using the term "lifestyles" doesn't do your argument any favours. Also "You can't tell people what terms to use or pronouns that are acceptable." No? Because I remember having that beaten into my head as a kid. "Mr, Mrs, Sir" etc. Signs of respect, you know? Ring a bell?
Why? The DW is probably the largest right-wing media outlet outside of Fox News, and growing larger by the day. They are incredibly well-funded and very good at manipulating social media algorithms to ensure their content is distributed as widely as possible.
Being tapped into it is necessary to understand modern right-wing politics, especially in the U.S.
The Daily Wire has 890k paid subscribers.
For context:
New York Times 10.75 million
Washington Post 2.75 million
Wall Street Journal 3 million
LA Times 4.4 million
‘We need to be vigilant and outraged about the far right to understand what’s happening in politics’ is the same justification the right have for their brand of outrage-mongering. It all just feeds off each other.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Being outraged by something genuinely outrageous is not equivalent to being manipulated into being outraged by something benign.
When it comes to politics and culture, the difference between outrageous and benign is largely subjective. If it wasn’t, politics and culture wouldn’t be divisive in the first place.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
‘We need to be vigilant and outraged about the far right to understand what’s happening in politics’ is the same justification the right have for their brand of outrage-mongering. It all just feeds off each other.
Yes, because # of subscribers is the most important metric here . That video has 13M views on Youtube. The DW's YT channel has close to 4M subscribers.
But sure, whip out the Cliff Fletcher special: "both sides are bad," while completely ignoring any context or nuance.
Last edited by rubecube; 12-04-2023 at 11:21 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Yes, because # of subscribers is the most important metric here . That video has 13M views on Youtube.
But sure, whip out the Cliff Fletcher special: "both sides are bad," while completely ignoring any context or nuance.
I expect half of the views are from people like Psycnet.
That’s the beauty of outrage in the attention economy: you generate as much revenue from people who are opposed to your culturally contentious thing as you do from people who support it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-04-2023 at 11:26 AM.
As a middle ground, the question to ask a far right person: why do you want all LGBTQ+ dead?
The question to ask a far left: why do you want a person to go to jail for not calling the preferred pronouns?
At face value, one side still believes that the other should live ( just that they're in jail for it). While the other side wants them all dead. Given this context, the extreme left position is still more reasonable than the extreme right.
Is the middle then that 50% of far right bigots go to jail while 50% of LGBTQ+ are dead? To me, this is still absurd.
No, that's just reducing absurdism. Middle ground is talking about things like the swimming that was brought up above and looking for solutions.
A trans woman probably doesn't want to compete in male events.
Biologically female athletes probably don't want all the college scholarships/awards to go to athletes who have the significant physiological advantage of being born biologically male.
Trans male athletes probably don't want to compete as females, but are probably not competitive with male-at-birth athletes.
Maybe there needs to be 4 categories for college athletics?
I think it's reasonable to want to support trans athletes without taking away the hard fought Title IX rights from female-at-birth athletes.
No, that's just reducing absurdism. Middle ground is talking about things like the swimming that was brought up above and looking for solutions.
A trans woman probably doesn't want to compete in male events.
Biologically female athletes probably don't want all the college scholarships/awards to go to athletes who have the significant physiological advantage of being born biologically male.
Trans male athletes probably don't want to compete as females, but are probably not competitive with male-at-birth athletes.
Maybe there needs to be 4 categories for college athletics?
I think it's reasonable to want to support trans athletes without taking away the hard fought Title IX rights from female-at-birth athletes.
I think there should be two.
1 open, anyone can play
1 closed, for people who don't want to play against men.
. That video has 13M views on Youtube. The DW's YT channel has close to 4M subscribers.
