Things that annoy you.com ,The new thread by Ad7 - HAPPY DAYS!

Karl wrote:Do you guys accept that a gay black woman will experience certain difficulties and dangers that a straight white guy typically wouldn't?

That's due to a cultural power dynamic that puts the former demographics in a position of vulnerability compared to the latter.

Yes, we are aware of that, pretty sure we all went to school and studied Humanities. But so would a gay man (WAY more likely to be assaulted for example) or middle Eastern man (way more likely to be the victim of racism)

Point being, if we want equality we have to treat everybody's problems with equal respect. Not try and minimise them because of their gender or skin colour. You can't stop predjudice by encouraging predjudice.

I know it's nice and easy to just go "Men have it easy, women have it hard" and while that's somewhat true, people are still individuals and that is not the case for every man and every woman. It is unfair to minimise their problems. I don't understand how people can't see the irony of saying a man who they know nothing about has it easy because he's a man. Yes, he very well might do, but he also might not, and by assuming he does you're just encouraging more sexism to exist by encouraging the whole "Man up, you don't have any problems you're a man" thing, when the guy may want to kill himself because of abuse he's recieving from other men.

I don't believe these kinds of social justice campaigns against sexism "only for women" are saying that men have no problems. Neither do I think protecting a particular group is the same as prejudice towards the opposite group in a binary or dualism like the male/female gender model. Its seems likely to me that you get personally upset when it is suggested by inference that men have it easier, by saying that women need additional protections, when you disagree with that, to the extent of pointing out there are fractionally more women than men in the world, which honesty was a bit of a stretch. It makes sense to reflect on broad policy making decisions from a personal perspective, and I understand that, but it rarely addresses the issue the policy maker is trying to solve.

It's impossible to form policy taking into account the personal whim of every individual of society, and so while it might seem pragmatic for you to highlight that is bad, it's a bit of a fallacy. I've spoken about this before. And honesty it does make it look like you jump into any instance of anti-sexism and ask where the protections for men are in all of this. And a lot of other people will be saying in response to that, they don't need protection (assuming they are men which mostly they are, on here). I come from a single mother family and I have previously detested the behaviour of "men" (or a man), and I've always gotten on better with women than men my entire life. My family was a victim of bad male behaviour, emotional abuse etc. A man was also responsible for making my mother a cripple (completely separate incident). So I have more cause then most to lament the bad behaviour of some men, who are of course, just people. Just some context.

Anyway what you're championing, is a view against positive discrimination, or additional protections favouring a particular class. But what you struggle to understand, in my view, is the practical realities of trying to solve all problems for everyone. Government is reactive, not proactive, and it responds to the needs of the people as they arise. That's why things come about, that's why "current affairs" is even a thing. It's by no means perfect, but naturally people are going to corral around a particular issue and somewhat overreact and inevitably create new injustices whatever measures are put in place to adjust the problem. It's a never ending cycle, but my point is, it requires this kind of activism to check policy constantly and revise it. That's what activism is and why it is important.

I'm not really sure what else my point is, I suppose I would just say not to worry about it too much. It's extremely unlikely in my view that more men are going to have problems with thought-crime and freedom of speech than women are protected from some pretty horrible gooseberry fool as a result of any government intervention in law, polciymaking, policing, censorship etc. Maybe that makes me a mix of apathetic and utilitarian, I respond to some challenges with sarcasm and humour because I don't actually have a solution to the problem and so just complain a lot. I guess the only way you can put to use the clear alienation you feel faced with measures against the discrimination of only women because men have problems and stuff, is start some kind of movement yourself. You will however face a lot of accusations of misogyny in doing so, potentially making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. And we're back to sarcasm and this topic just bitching about stuff.

@Fade:

No-one is saying "all men have easy lives". The point is that the typical man isn't due to their gender consistently placed in a position of vulnerability by our established cultural norms.

Recognising that certain demographics require extra protections due to a prevalence of prejudice against them doesn't diminish the problems of people who do not fall into those demographics.

I don't know who you're arguing against because no-one in this thread has said any of those things. I think you just have some pretty big misapprehensions when it comes to ideas associated with 'social justice'. To be honest it seems to me like you think recognising the struggles typically faced by broad-stroke demographics in a way that doesn't explicitly include you takes away from the validity of your own story as an individual, which I genuinely don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously suggest in years of hanging out & chatting with people very passionate about social justice.

When the things that annoy you thread gets sidetracked by serious discussion rather than being things I can laugh at.

Karl wrote:misapprehensions

That is a very good word! Not because of what it literally means, but because of the harmony of the word "apprehension" i.e. anxiety. It explains a lot about stuff everyone gets upset about when it has very little impact on their day to day lives, or invisibly so. It's sometimes interesting how often those kinds of issues are given so much attention compared to stuff that is blatantly and flagrantly wrong in the world.

/thread

yeah but complaining is fun

I might say that sometimes this is necessary.. I'm not sure in this case.

It reminds me of the policy in some areas of South Africa for example, where black people are given priority access to jobs, to reverse apartheid. It is surely the argument of tipping the balance to address some injustice.

I guess others feel government intervention is heavy handed, whereas government intervention has helped with many things, for example, teaching people to read this and preventing disease. A more relevant example would be mandating that girls also attend school.

Lucien wrote:Regardless of if that's true or not, there's no reason to campaign for misogyny laws versus campaigning for laws that cover everyone.

Huh? There are already laws that cover everyone. The contention is that a crime is made worse if it is motivated by the victim belonging to a protected demographic. And that's reasonable, because a hate crime by definition reinforces a cultural power dynamic that we as a society have decided we wish to dismantle.

I think you guys have the wrong idea of equality.

The long game is everyone treats everyone equally and everyone has the same opportunities as everyone else, right now that is not the case. So for now we have to tip the scales legally speaking in favour of those at a disadvantage because if you don't people won't give them the same opportunities etc. because of deep ingrained reasons and in the same of some people just not being nice people.

Overtime this equal treating of people "because you have to" becomes the norm and the laws become not needed any more and can be scrapped because at that point people finally all see each other as equal and are treated fairly.

It would be wonderful if we could legally make it all the same however the reality is gooseberry fool head exist that do exploit others and treat other differently giving the white dude the advantage, so I don't think it is wrong to have laws specifically giving protection to people that need it in the short term to help change and improve attitudes in the long term.

When you just want the working week to be over because your brain officially stopped caring way too early in the week.

strawberry float, is it the weekend yet????

Squinty wrote:When you just want the working week to be over because your brain officially stopped caring way too early in the week.

strawberry float, is it the weekend yet????

Tell me about it! I woke up convinced it was Friday today...

Lucien wrote:If you commit [a hate crime] it doesn't matter what the dominant demographic is

Crikey. There it is.

Can we please take any further chat around hate crime to a separate thread. Thanks.

Albear wrote:Can we please take any further chat around hate crime to a separate thread. Thanks.

Why don't you just go ahead and split it out into a new thread? Underused Mod tool.

things annoy things

Passive aggressive mod bickering in public.

Knoyleo wrote:

things annoy things

Passive aggressive mod bickering in public.

Knoyleo wrote:

things annoy things

Passive aggressive mod bickering in public.

Huh? I like Albear, I wasn't being passive aggressive. Was it the " "? I sometimes forget that's perceived as sarcastic on here.

EDIT: I am actually a bit upset that you perceived it that way. I don't think of myself as being a particularly passive aggressive person.

I'm only on the wind up m8, I know you and Albear are bbz

Karl wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

things annoy things

Passive aggressive mod bickering in public.

Huh? I like Albear, I wasn't being passive aggressive. Was it the " "? I sometimes forget that's perceived as sarcastic on here.

EDIT: I am actually a bit upset that you perceived it that way. I don't think of myself as being a particularly passive aggressive person.

After that post I think Knoyleo is basically guilty of a hate crime against Karl.

But is Karl a dominant demographic as an admin, or is he a minority because admins are few in number?

I mean, if we're talking about persecution against Karls, there's certainly a history of violence. They've had their brothers killed, been hanged, shot, portrayed as terrorists in the media....