Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Firstly, yes there is discrimination against people for being white, rich, or heterosexual. Regardless as to what you perceive as being a reasonable or unreasonable amount, it happens. And personally I think all discrimination is bad.
When you look at the big picture of discrimination, the vast majority of it happens to people who are not white, heterosexual, rich people, and the vast majority of the serious discrimination occur against people who are not white, heterosexual, rich people. My argument is that the fact that occurs to those groups in small amounts is irrelevant to the fact that the vast majority of all cases do NOT occur to them.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I think you make some very unfair comparisons (and an unrealistic piece of fiction). For starters, obviously a lot of white people are rejected from jobs because the employer doesn't want to look like a racist. This is pretty common in all 1st world nations. I doubt a white with a record would be prioritized over a black without, people with records are far more discriminated against than either party.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf
22nd page. White man with a record had a 3% higher chance of being called back for an interview compared to a black man without a record.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
"systemic discrimination from my own government" is obviously a very localized statement, and unless you tell me more about your country I can't really respond. In Australia white people are also the victim of "systemic discrimination from our own government", so I can sympathize with the homosexuals in your country. We find it harder to receive state support, welfare, income support, pension, etc. I also can't access various support systems because regardless of my situation my parents worked hard enough to make the government assume that they will support me for life. And obviously all heterosexuals receive the unpleasant stereotype of being intolerant by default towards LGBT.
I can't say I know your government's system very well. However, welfare is often designed to benefit the groups who have suffered historically and are at a disadvantage in the modern day because of it. That being said, I'm in no way familiar with your welfare system, so I cannot adequately comment on it.
However, I can say it's a load of shit when you say all heterosexuals receive the stereotype of being intolerant by default. You only earn that little label when you do something to justify it. Every LGBT group I've worked with has been nothing but nice towards heterosexuals, because they recognize that not being nice to them does nothing to further their push for equal rights. If anything, every LGBT group I've worked with has had to been comforting and nice to heterosexuals who show any interest in the group because other people are often either openly or indirectly hostile towards heterosexuals who show any interest in being an LGBT ally. There's the weird assumption that by being OK with homosexual rights that you must be homosexual yourself, and that you're not capable of sympathizing with another group unless you are that group. If anything, the closest I've seen an LGBT group to being openly discriminatory to heterosexuals is plain cautiousness because of too many heterosexuals thinking that somehow every homosexual in the world is somehow attracted to them and that they'll get raped because of it.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Needless to say, if you think discrimination towards X group of people or based on Y attribute or situation doesn't exist or doesn't exist in 'non-negligible quantities' then you probably aren't looking very hard. And those cases that you think "oh it's negligible" probably don't feel negligible to those who have been discriminated against.
Here's the difference. I don't hear "you dumb cracker" as often as I hear "you dumb nigger". I don't hear "you fucking hetero" as much as I hear "you fucking homo". I don't hear "you rich snob" as much as I hear "you hobo". Again, it's not the fact that discrimination occurs, but upon whom the majority of it occurs to. And white, heterosexual, rich males are the least likely to be discriminated against out of every possible racial, economic, sexual demographic out there. And there's a term for this perceived perception of being discriminated against for being white. It's called white privilege, and it's something you wouldn't notice when you live in the circle of whiteness. You don't realize how much you take for granted until you see how little everybody else has to work with because they aren't white, because they aren't even middle class, let alone rich, because they aren't heterosexual.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle
When you look at the big picture of discrimination, the vast majority of it happens to people who are not white, heterosexual, rich people, and the vast majority of the serious discrimination occur against people who are not white, heterosexual, rich people. My argument is that the fact that occurs to those groups in small amounts is irrelevant to the fact that the vast majority of all cases do NOT occur to them.
"Racism against X group is not important"...
I'm sure the many white South Africans who were kicked out of their houses, had their money and possessions taken from them, and possibly their lives or the lives of their families, just because they were white, would agree with you.
Originally Posted by Oracle
http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf
22nd page. White man with a record had a 3% higher chance of being called back for an interview compared to a black man without a record.
As you can see that study is not designed to compare racial differences directly, even the researchers said the difference is insignificant. You are latching on to something well within the margin of error. It's interesting that they are similar, but the study cannot be considered reliable to make that comparison.
Originally Posted by Oracle
I can't say I know your government's system very well. However, welfare is often designed to benefit the groups who have suffered historically and are at a disadvantage in the modern day because of it. That being said, I'm in no way familiar with your welfare system, so I cannot adequately comment on it.
However, I can say it's a load of shit when you say all heterosexuals receive the stereotype of being intolerant by default. You only earn that little label when you do something to justify it. Every LGBT group I've worked with has been nothing but nice towards heterosexuals, because they recognize that not being nice to them does nothing to further their push for equal rights. If anything, every LGBT group I've worked with has had to been comforting and nice to heterosexuals who show any interest in the group because other people are often either openly or indirectly hostile towards heterosexuals who show any interest in being an LGBT ally. There's the weird assumption that by being OK with homosexual rights that you must be homosexual yourself, and that you're not capable of sympathizing with another group unless you are that group. If anything, the closest I've seen an LGBT group to being openly discriminatory to heterosexuals is plain cautiousness because of too many heterosexuals thinking that somehow every homosexual in the world is somehow attracted to them and that they'll get raped because of it.
Every heterosexual I've worked with has been nothing but nice towards homosexuals.
"too many heterosexuals thinking that somehow every homosexual in the world is somehow attracted to them and that they'll get raped because of it"
I like how you end your post by perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes. All your fluff about LGBT being nice and tolerant then you end it like that...
Originally Posted by Oracle
Here's the difference. I don't hear "you dumb cracker" as often as I hear "you dumb nigger". I don't hear "you fucking hetero" as much as I hear "you fucking homo". I don't hear "you rich snob" as much as I hear "you hobo". Again, it's not the fact that discrimination occurs, but upon whom the majority of it occurs to. And white, heterosexual, rich males are the least likely to be discriminated against out of every possible racial, economic, sexual demographic out there. And there's a term for this perceived perception of being discriminated against for being white. It's called white privilege, and it's something you wouldn't notice when you live in the circle of whiteness. You don't realize how much you take for granted until you see how little everybody else has to work with because they aren't white, because they aren't even middle class, let alone rich, because they aren't heterosexual.
So in the end your entire argument and perspective is just based on anecdotal evidence.
I want you to think about this "And there's a term for this perceived perception of being discriminated against for being white. It's called white privilege". There is an extreme assumption that all white people are well off, are racists, have easy lives, that no one is ever racist towards them. This is insanity. Even in your post you discriminate towards heterosexuals (saying they fear being raped by homosexuals) and towards whites (saying they are delusional). I've heard people insulted for being "cis-gender" more times than for being homosexual, I've known people who have had their families slaughtered for being white.
You either live in a very sheltered enclave, or you eat up a lot of propaganda if you think all whites drive BMWs and golf on the weekend.
Would you call bullshit if I talked about how well off Tiger Woods is, and used it to prove non-whites have it better?
By the way white privilege has nothing to do with perceived racism towards whites... White privilege is perceived social benefits from being white. It's generally accepted as a proxy for class or social standing rather than actually "oh you are white have some free stuff".
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
"Racism against X group is not important"...
I'm sure the many white South Africans who were kicked out of their houses, had their money and possessions taken from them, and possibly their lives or the lives of their families, just because they were white, would agree with you.
I'm also sure there are many more black South Africans who had to live for several generations under Apartheid would like to have a word with you.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
As you can see that study is not designed to compare racial differences directly, even the researchers said the difference is insignificant. You are latching on to something well within the margin of error. It's interesting that they are similar, but the study cannot be considered reliable to make that comparison.
Calling bullshit on your claim about the paper, because the very same page I mentioned says that their findings corroborates previous findings of another study that show that racial discrimination plays a factor in hiring. In fact, on that very page, "The rank ordering of groups in this graph is painfully revealing of employer preferences: race continues to play a dominant role in shaping employment opportunities, equal or greater than the impact of a criminal record." So don't go saying I'm stating any falsehoods when you're either outright not reading the paper, or you're going to be making some yourself.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Every heterosexual I've worked with has been nothing but nice towards homosexuals.
"too many heterosexuals thinking that somehow every homosexual in the world is somehow attracted to them and that they'll get raped because of it"
I like how you end your post by perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes. All your fluff about LGBT being nice and tolerant then you end it like that...
So in the end your entire argument and perspective is just based on anecdotal evidence.
Taking my words and pulling them farther than I say them. I did not say "ALL heterosexuals think that X," I said "TOO MANY heterosexuals think that X." This is not a prejudice, this is a statement of opinion. I have not lumped all heterosexuals into a group, heck I haven't even lumped the majority of them based on my wording. I said "too many" which could be as many as 1 person if I had a zero tolerance for that sort of thought. I'm stating that there are indeed people who think like that, and that their are too many who do think like that.
And your arguments are completely anecdotal, whereas I've at least presented some evidence to support my side. So if you're going to say MY entire argument and perspective is based on anecdotal evidence, you better start posting some studies to at least make sure you aren't the kettle calling the pot black.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I want you to think about this "And there's a term for this perceived perception of being discriminated against for being white. It's called white privilege". There is an extreme assumption that all white people are well off, are racists, have easy lives, that no one is ever racist towards them. This is insanity. Even in your post you discriminate towards heterosexuals (saying they fear being raped by homosexuals) and towards whites (saying they are delusional). I've heard people insulted for being "cis-gender" more times than for being homosexual, I've known people who have had their families slaughtered for being white.
You either live in a very sheltered enclave, or you eat up a lot of propaganda if you think all whites drive BMWs and golf on the weekend.
Would you call bullshit if I talked about how well off Tiger Woods is, and used it to prove non-whites have it better?
No it's not. Again, you're taking my words and drawing them into places they are not describing. I have not attributed all whites to being more well off, to being racist, or to having easy lives, let alone that nobody is racist to them. You've made a mountain out of a molehill with this one. You even quote my sentence. Nowhere in it do I make any of these claims, I make the claim that this perceived discrimination when the white group as a whole has more benefits than other groups to begin with is the result of white privilege. Admittedly, I could have phrased it better, but you're taking my argument and making a strawman out of it to make you argumentation easier. I feel no need to defend myself from your claims because they are in no way representative of what I have said or believe.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
By the way white privilege has nothing to do with perceived racism towards whites... White privilege is perceived social benefits from being white. It's generally accepted as a proxy for class or social standing rather than actually "oh you are white have some free stuff".
It has everything to do with perceived racism against whites. The white person who complains that Affirmative Action takes away from his chances to getting into college is blind to his white privilege. The white person who complains that black people are lazy and need to find a job are blind to their white privilege. By being born white, you have a statistical advantage to being born into a family that is not in poverty, into a neighborhood with better education, less likely to stopped by police regardless of actual criminality, and generally start off several steps ahead of people who are not born white, and have the benefits later on in life of being white, such as better pay, and more job advancement opportunities.
This is not a universal occurrence, but it is a majority occurrence. It is not the giving of free stuff to whites, but the given availability of said benefits to whites. And it's fair to say that not all of them are justifiably earned. A lot of these benefits come from centuries of systematic favoritism towards whites and systematic discrimination against non-whites. White people have had centuries to further their race, whereas every other race has been actively inhibited by Western civilization, in particular blacks.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
He didn't form the opinion that homosexuality is a sin on his own - the tell would be that he specifically referred to the bible and called it a 'sin', not 'wrong'. He doesn't think homosexuality is wrong as such, he is just aware that anyone who commits this sin will be at the mercy of God. His opinion is "I believe in my religion", the religion's opinion is "homosexuality is a sin".
QED, he believes homosexuality is a sin.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
He is saying that regardless if he disagrees with you (either because he believes you are committing a sin or if he just doesn't find male ass attractive) he will still show respect. To me, he is a paragon of tolerance.
A paragon for calling a different sexuality a sin that condemns its owners to hell. A paragon. You typed this.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I think it's unfair to have to hide your opinion, pro-X should not be allowed to persecute anti-X, and vice versa. And certainly both sides should show respect. If someone says "I respectfully disagree" I don't think they should be ostracized.
If what you respectfully disagree with is "being different is okay" then you should be ostracized.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I think you misinterpreted his language, he is saying "let's start by talking about homosexuality, and these other topics which are also sins". He definitely isn't saying homosexuality is a gateway to bestiality or homosexuals are likely to cheat. That's absolutely absurd.
Ah, absolutely absurd! Except for where it's exactly what he's saying: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,"
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I just think persecution of heterosexuals has gone a bit far.
HAHAHAHA OH MY GOD PACK IT UP EVERYONE, DISCUSSION'S DONE
EDIT:
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Every heterosexual I've worked with has been nothing but nice towards homosexuals.
AS A STRAIGHT MAN I JUST DON'T SEE WHAT ALL THESE GAYS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT
EDIT 2:
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I've known people who have had their families slaughtered for being white.
THIS NEVER HAPPENED BTW
Last edited by Boredpayne; Jan 4, 2014 at 11:53 AM.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
QED, he believes homosexuality is a sin.
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)
Is this somehow unclear? In the eyes of Christianity, homosexuality is a sin.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
A paragon for calling a different sexuality a sin that condemns its owners to hell. A paragon. You typed this.
His religion believes that. If someone does something you believe is wrong yet you still respect them, that is tolerance.
"I tolerate icecream" is only ever said in a humorous fashion, you can't tolerate something you agree with.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
If what you respectfully disagree with is "being different is okay" then you should be ostracized.
What? How did you magically change the argument to something so random? Teach me your ways Imperial Wizard Boredpayne!
Someone should not be ostracized for respectfully disagreeing with ANYTHING. This is the problem with pro-homosexuals, they are, as a rule, intolerant.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
Ah, absolutely absurd! Except for where it's exactly what he's saying: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,"
What? Your alchemy of words strikes once again, it seems you are the one who is morphing the conversation and the words that you dislike.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
HAHAHAHA OH MY GOD PACK IT UP EVERYONE, DISCUSSION'S DONE
Denying anti-heterosexual discrimination /is/ anti-heterosexual discrimination.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
EDIT: AS A STRAIGHT MAN I JUST DON'T SEE WHAT ALL THESE GAYS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT
Totally missing the point. Looks like this time Imperial Wizard Boredpayne miscast invisibility, whoops!
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
EDIT 2: THIS NEVER HAPPENED BTW
What is South Africa.
Have you guys been fed extreme amounts of propaganda or something? Why do you have no knowledge of international issues?
-----
Originally Posted by Oracle
I'm also sure there are many more black South Africans who had to live for several generations under Apartheid would like to have a word with you.
Why do you even say this? You think only discrimination against 1 group at a time matters? Discrimination against all groups matters. Why do you think because of apartheid blacks are /justified/ in their persecution of whites? They do not get a free pass. Do you think the current generation of whites who are being persecuted should get a free pass to murder blacks? Your line of logic is insane.
Blacks are the majority group in Africa anyway, so by your previous logic doesn't that mean that discrimination towards blacks does not exist? It's just black privilege right? Your logic doesn't really hold up...
Originally Posted by Oracle
Calling bullshit on your claim about the paper, because the very same page I mentioned says that their findings corroborates previous findings of another study that show that racial discrimination plays a factor in hiring. In fact, on that very page, "The rank ordering of groups in this graph is painfully revealing of employer preferences: race continues to play a dominant role in shaping employment opportunities, equal or greater than the impact of a criminal record." So don't go saying I'm stating any falsehoods when you're either outright not reading the paper, or you're going to be making some yourself.
I read the paper, read page 21. They outright say the study is inadequate to draw that kind of conclusion, and I agree.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Taking my words and pulling them farther than I say them. I did not say "ALL heterosexuals think that X," I said "TOO MANY heterosexuals think that X." This is not a prejudice, this is a statement of opinion. I have not lumped all heterosexuals into a group, heck I haven't even lumped the majority of them based on my wording. I said "too many" which could be as many as 1 person if I had a zero tolerance for that sort of thought. I'm stating that there are indeed people who think like that, and that their are too many who do think like that.
You are splitting hairs and grasping at straws. If I said "too many blacks commit crime" it would be considered racist.
Originally Posted by Oracle
And your arguments are completely anecdotal, whereas I've at least presented some evidence to support my side. So if you're going to say MY entire argument and perspective is based on anecdotal evidence, you better start posting some studies to at least make sure you aren't the kettle calling the pot black.
Pot calling the kettle black is the point, if you are presenting anecdotal evidence I will present counter anecdotal evidence. If you think that is 'good enough' then why shouldn't I do it too?
By presenting a mirror reflecting your own strategies, you an see why what you are doing is not valid.
Originally Posted by Oracle
No it's not. Again, you're taking my words and drawing them into places they are not describing. I have not attributed all whites to being more well off, to being racist, or to having easy lives, let alone that nobody is racist to them. You've made a mountain out of a molehill with this one. You even quote my sentence. Nowhere in it do I make any of these claims, I make the claim that this perceived discrimination when the white group as a whole has more benefits than other groups to begin with is the result of white privilege. Admittedly, I could have phrased it better, but you're taking my argument and making a strawman out of it to make you argumentation easier. I feel no need to defend myself from your claims because they are in no way representative of what I have said or believe.
Unfortunately despite what you may think, you are being discriminatory towards whites. Those who are accused of racism towards blacks find themselves in a similar situation where they believe what they said was completely fine and justified and not at all racist.
Originally Posted by Oracle
It has everything to do with perceived racism against whites. The white person who complains that Affirmative Action takes away from his chances to getting into college is blind to his white privilege. The white person who complains that black people are lazy and need to find a job are blind to their white privilege. By being born white, you have a statistical advantage to being born into a family that is not in poverty, into a neighborhood with better education, less likely to stopped by police regardless of actual criminality, and generally start off several steps ahead of people who are not born white, and have the benefits later on in life of being white, such as better pay, and more job advancement opportunities.
So having a higher statistical chance of being born into a good neighbourhood makes it OK for racism against whites to exist, because hey, whites had a higher chance of getting in to a good neighbourhood!
I think it's ridiculous that you think using white privilege as a proxy to discriminate against whites based on circumstances out of their control is acceptable, but discriminating against blacks based on circumstances out of their control is unacceptable.
"It's ok to discriminate against whites because they are born that way, but it's not ok to discriminate against blacks based on them being born the way they are". Absurd, and totally ignorant.
Originally Posted by Oracle
This is not a universal occurrence, but it is a majority occurrence. It is not the giving of free stuff to whites, but the given availability of said benefits to whites. And it's fair to say that not all of them are justifiably earned. A lot of these benefits come from centuries of systematic favoritism towards whites and systematic discrimination against non-whites. White people have had centuries to further their race, whereas every other race has been actively inhibited by Western civilization, in particular blacks.
It's not universal, yet you use it to generalise.
"blacks steal", it's not universal, but is it ok for me to use it to generalise?
Hopefully by holding a mirror to all your arguments you can see how discriminatory they are. Saying 'all whites are privileged because some of them live in good neighbourhoods' is as racist as saying 'all blacks are criminals because some of them steal'.
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Jan 4, 2014 at 02:37 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
