Random Thoughts Thread

[Hobie-wan]

If I'm talking about someone I know, I'll just say their name or say my mother/friend/mortal enemy. If I'm directing someone toward my friend Darryl across a room full of people that has never met him I'd opt for "the dude in the Green Lantern shirt" if he had that on, else if he was one of 5 people in a blue shirt I'd probably say "the big black dude". He wouldn't be offended. Likewise at his wedding if someone was directed to the table I was sitting at with several mutual friends, it might have been referred to as the "the table of white people on the left". I'm not offended.

As long as it is used for clarification without malice, I don't see a problem.

[AppleQueso]

5 hours tonight just trying to get a background to load up

coding sucks

but i like it

[Luke]

AFAIK, no one's ever been lynched simply for being one-handed or hairy.

With all respect, are you familiar with birth practices of the middle east or Asia? You do understand that being born with any physical disability (or being born without a wiener) can mean death following birth?

What society hasn't been oppressed at some time? Is there a "First Jew to win an Oscar"? Nope. "First gay man to win an Oscar"?. Nope.

Again, pointing out our differences does nothing to bring everyone together but separates us. It's dumb.

[dsheinem]

AFAIK, no one's ever been lynched simply for being one-handed or hairy.

With all respect, are you familiar with birth practices of the middle east or Asia? You do understand that being born with any physical disability (or being born without a wiener) can mean death following birth?

What society hasn't been oppressed at some time? Is there a "First Jew to win an Oscar"? Nope. "First gay man to win an Oscar"?. Nope.

Again, pointing out our differences does nothing to bring everyone together but separates us. It's dumb.

I'm referring to contexts in which said groups have been systematically oppressed. Your examples aren't relevant as they mix contexts.

FYI, no openly gay man has won an Oscar for best actor: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/02/why- ... in-oscars/

[Luke]

FYI, no openly gay man has won an Oscar for best actor: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/02/why- ... in-oscars/

My context is certainly relevant. Death at birth is pretty oppressive.

And fyi: That's because no one wants to be labeled as "The first gay man to win an Oscar". They don't want to be labeled.

[dsheinem]

FYI, no openly gay man has won an Oscar for best actor: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/02/why- ... in-oscars/

My context is certainly relevant. Death at birth is pretty oppressive.

your example was "first disabled man winning an Oscar" mixed with "countries with oppressive birth laws". These aren't the same context, and it isn't a support of your argument.

And fyi: That's because no one wants to be labeled as "The first gay man to win an Oscar". They don't want to be labeled.

how can you know this?

[Luke]

You're talking in circles.

You said something close to "But dude, people with physical disabilities don't get lynched". I was all "Um dude, yes they do, and in some places they are killed at birth for it". And then you were all "Nuh-uh. Not the same". And I'm all "Dude! If people beat you up or kill you for being different, there is no difference", and then you were all "Nuh-uh. You're talking about births in different countries". And I'm all "I don't care if it happens in India or Indiana, it still happens".

You are also straying away from my main argument: Pointing out our differences does nothing to bring society together.

People should be rewarded for their accomplishments and what they do with their life, not for how they were born.

[Blu]

There are several good points that should be discussed. Heritage days or months serve as affinity groups for people of a particular social identity. Preserving culture, highlighting struggles and challenges are areas where these celebrations are needed. For someone who comes from an agent identity in nearly all of my social identities (white, male, straight, affluent, physically able) it's hollow-hearted and insensitive to dismiss others' needs for rallies and celebrations such as LGBT month or Hispanic Heritage month. The moment we accept the importance of these differences, we make collective progress forward to a more inclusive world.

As to the part about placing labels, it's about never making assumptions, EVER. Being aware of what social identities you have and how they might intersect with others is so important. For example, from the lens of someone who is lesbian and with their partner might take offense if someone was oblivious and asked if they were sisters. Not every hispanic, black, gay, lesbian, transgender, or disabled person wants to be the spokesperson for that social identity. I bet if you asked your friends how frequently they are asked questions that put them in this position, it's more often than you think.

I have so much more to say, but I don't want to be the only voice in this discussion.

[dsheinem]

You're talking in circles.

You said something close to "But dude, people with physical disabilities don't get lynched". I was all "Um dude, yes they do, and in some places they are killed at birth for it". And then you were all "Nuh-uh. Not the same". And I'm all "Dude! If people beat you up or kill you for being different, there is no difference", and then you were all "Nuh-uh. You're talking about births in different countries". And I'm all "I don't care if it happens in India or Indiana, it still happens".

perils of typing on an iPad between rounds of Twisted Metal, I suppose...

My point was that you can't compare "first black woman to win best actress" to "first one handed person to win best actor" or "first Jewish person to win best actor" etc. because there isn't the same shared cultural context of oppression going on in any of the relevant contexts. The horrors of childbirth laws in an Asian country isn't really a relevant part of the cultural context for a Hollywood awards ceremony.

You are also straying away from my main argument: Pointing out our differences does nothing to bring society together.

People should be rewarded for their accomplishments and what they do with their life, not for how they were born.

But not everyone starts from the same place, and some accomplishments - because of how they were born - are more impressive. Jackie Robinson was a great ballplayer who didn't make race an issue, but his chief accomplishment is nonetheless as an inspirational figure to a group of people that had been left out of pro sports league because of the color of their skin. Barack Obama hasn't run as "the black President" but his election/re-election certainly marks an important historical moment for African Americans and an important moment in the history of a country that has been defined by its uneasy melting pot/racial tension dichotomy.

[Erik_Twice]

Sorry but this kind of praise is utterly dehumanizing to me. All this focus, all these noise means just one thing.

"You are important because you are black, not because you are a good actor."

And when people value the color of your skin more than your actual skills, the actual reason behind the trophy and everything you have done you are being treated like a strawman and not a like a real person.

If you care so much about fairness, then be fair! Treat them as you would with anyone else, not because of their skin colour. You don't solve bias with bias.