The age of minorities

[Greyblades]

Problem occurs when minorities are allowed privileges: extra consideration in education and workplace, social pressure to silence any criticism, exceptions in the law for foriegn practices.

There are the selfish and psychopathic in every denomination of humanity and all efforts of appeasement will inevitably accrue abuse. Our ability to counter such abuses so far have been curtailed by the very same that demanded the priveledges to begin with.

[Gilrandir]

2. Generally most would like to be left alone and live their life in peace.

This one is about sexual minorities, right? So holding pride parades has the aim of being left alone? To my mind, such public demonstrations carry the message "we are fun, join us".

Then we're opening up some philosophical questions beyond the question of individuals' comfort. Do you have a framework in mind? It can't just be "weird people know your place."

The whole thread has a rather philosophical bias without which one can't answer the question "Do we live in the age of minorities?"

Gilrandir didn't list women. That's indeed a weakness of the source article, which sounds like it tried to populate everything into its "minorities" thesis - to the point of listing the fashion industry.

First of all, I didn't list women because the source article didn't.
Second of all, if the author of the said article didn't hence he doesn't consider them a minority. And he is right. Statistically speaking, they are a majority.

Problem occurs when minorities are allowed privileges: extra consideration in education and workplace, social pressure to silence any criticism, exceptions in the law for foriegn practices.

Probably, this was the aim of the article I quoted. And this arises a question: should minorities receive any legal privileges - a stipulated percentage of employees, students, MPs and so on?

[Greyblades]

No. To give privleges to minorities would be to betray the very ideal of equality for which thier persecutions were ended.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No. To give privleges to minorities would be to betray the very ideal of equality for which thier persecutions were ended.

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

[Pannonian]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

Eg. toilets.

[HopAlongBunny]

In some way this is the theme of https://www.amazon.ca/White-Trash-40.../dp/0670785970

Since before the founding of America as a nation, one of the most lively debates has been over: "Who will occupy the bottom wrung"
As such the question is not always about "rights" exactly, but who possesses effective rights. Even if you occupy the same wrung economically, there is a grim satisfaction to be had from knowing you can actually claim the rights you are granted, where this might not be true of everyone.
Loss of status can thus amount to no more than everyone actually being able to exercise their rights.

[Montmorency]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

In the West the whole point is, of course, to end white heterosexual male affirmative action; people who claim to be against "special treatment" for others tend to stand to benefit from special treatment of their in-group.

It would be much more interesting to see arguments for maintaining "stale pale male" affirmative action, rather than operating under the pretense that minority groups want "special privileges" that aren't available to others.

[HopAlongBunny]

An article that goes a little deeper (and is actually about the current situation) to what I referenced above.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-do...t-i-asked-them

Mainly, its culture/victim identity as grievance. The themes from White Trash... are revived, only now to identify as "victim" is to lay claim to power that some perceive they have been denied.

[Husar]

Look, I know it’s hard to feel like you really know white people after doing a few interviews. But I understand now that we’re dealing with a deeply-ingrained instinct to feel threatened by any small bit of upward movement by black people in general. Because whiteness and blackness are social constructs with no real scientific meaning—they are political groups created to help rich white people maintain power by creating an underclass—then called Negroes—that was, by definition, lesser than poor whites. If the definition of blackness changes, if the sociological stock price of blackness goes up, then that changes not only the value of whiteness but its very meaning.

So basically a clash with reality then? Instead of fixing the actual problem of being poor due to rich people, some would rather fix the perception by being able to continue to view blacks as inferior.

That sounds like an example of 'wealth is relative'. It does not matter whether someone has two or three TVs, what matters is that someone else has fewer TVs.

[Gilrandir]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

The question is WHEN this reverting will happen. Who is to determine this time? What are the conditions for reverting? Won't those who are affected by the reverting clamor that they are again discriminated against?

[Greyblades]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

A) Any plan of action that ignores the principle of innocent until proven guilty is unconscionable for a society that holds the values that make this line of thought relevant. If you cannot prove wrongdoing there is nothing to rectify, if you can prove it any retribution is for the courts to decide, not the government. Without proof you would be acting on what we call conspiracy theories, I believe that such things are something of a contentious issue at the moment.

B) Define level playing field; Equality of opportunity demands that individual benefit from the same level of support from the government as the majority. If an individual recieves this support and performs below average; unless they can prove outside hinderance the responsibility for thier underperfoming is soley down to them.

Minority status should have no bearing upon that evaluation and the only case I can identify that it would require reperations is in the case of those that were denied the support due to being born in a time where that support was available to the majority but not the minority.

For example I would agree that those adult blacks who were denied basic education due to being born before it was provided by the state should be given free access to an equivalent adult course that would provide the same qualification, though in my country that would be somewhat difficult to rectify as such denied people are long dead.

[CrossLOPER]

This one is about sexual minorities, right? So holding pride parades has the aim of being left alone? To my mind, such public demonstrations carry the message "we are fun, join us".

It's more of a "I wish to cast off darkness and shame, this is who I truly am" sort of thing. It's about being honest about who you are. You finally are able to come out and tell the world what you are and see that there are so many like you and know that you are not alone.

[Gilrandir]

You finally are able to come out and tell the world what you are and see that there are so many like you and know that you are not alone.

Why do you need to tell the world of your sexual mores? Should we expect parades from BDSM or oral sex fans? Or swingers?

[Greyblades]

Why do you need to tell the world of your sexual mores? Should we expect parades from BDSM or oral sex fans? Or swingers?

You evidently have never been in the mall during july, every summer the pride parades come a knocking like overlubricated clockwork.

Of course it has to be summer else the gimps risk losing thier nipples to frostbite

[Husar]

You evidently have never been in the mall during july, every summer the pride parades come a knocking like overlubricated clockwork.

Of course it has to be summer else the gimps risk losing thier nipples to frostbite

Aren't malls heated in the UK?

[Greyblades]

The london mall is the road between buckingham palace and trafalgar square.

[Fragony]

It's more of a "I wish to cast off darkness and shame, this is who I truly am" sort of thing. It's about being honest about who you are. You finally are able to come out and tell the world what you are and see that there are so many like you and know that you are not alone.

Maybe if you live in a country where it is difficult/dangerous to be homosexual. In the Netherlands the gay-pride is more about wearing leather SM-gear and putting flamingo-feathers in your ass. Thankfully it's only a minority that attends it, but that is what you see

As Rory said earlier, most probably want to be left alone

[Gilrandir]

Maybe if you live in a country where it is difficult/dangerous to be homosexual. In the Netherlands the gay-pride is more about wearing leather SM-gear and putting flamingo-feathers in your ass. Thankfully it's only a minority that attends it, but that is what you see

As Rory said earlier, most probably want to be left alone

I see. The surefire recipe for being left alone is putting flamingo-feathers in your ass.

[Fragony]

I see. The surefire recipe for being left alone is putting flamingo-feathers in your ass.

Not exactly no, that's why I said most probably want to be left alone. They think that one out of ten males is gay or bisexual, there are about 7,5 males in the Netherlands so about. A few thousands go to these prides to stick flamingo-feathers in their ass. Majority of gays must really apreciate these exhibitionists who make a liestyle out of it and really look like the worst stereotype one could make up. I know I forget the lesbians here.

[CrossLOPER]

Why do you need to tell the world of your sexual mores? Should we expect parades from BDSM or oral sex fans? Or swingers?

I like how you equate non-traditional orientation with fetishes.

Maybe if you live in a country where it is difficult/dangerous to be homosexual. In the Netherlands the gay-pride is more about wearing leather SM-gear and putting flamingo-feathers in your ass. Thankfully it's only a minority that attends it, but that is what you see

As Rory said earlier, most probably want to be left alone

The local parade last month in Atlanta had a bunch of gay normies walking home from it. I saw one woman cosplaying Wonder Woman and some dude wearing hotpants.

Really, are you going to pick out one "extreme" example of how someone wants to express themselves and use it as a template for everyone else in a particular group? Do you think its limited to these groups? Are you going to tell me that I should think of the children?

Please. Is that gimp mask what is going to cause the downfall of the West?

I also think its somewhat disingenuous to assume that just because a country doesn't publicly behead homosexuals with a .50 cal riveted to a pickup truck, that it makes it somehow "easy" to be gay or trans.

[Fragony]

Meh, minority rule naturally in what used to be Amsterdam, no more black-pete because of a few SJW. You try explaining that black-pete is not a black slave and exists in different forms all over Europe to people of whom half of them don't even know who their father is. (or have a fatherrrrrr)

[Montmorency]

Meh, minority rule naturally in what used to be Amsterdam, no more black-pete because of a few SJW. You try explaining that black-pete is not a black slave and exists in different forms all over Europe to people of whom half of them don't even know who their father is. (or have a fatherrrrrr)

What's wrong with "Chimney Pete"?

All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

What if it's not so much the sexual preferences as the community of people and their maintenance of recognition?

[Gilrandir]

b) as long as we can't leave the planet...

... and some creatures keep coming from other planets.

I like how you equate non-traditional orientation with fetishes.

All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

[Fragony]

^- what he says

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

Actually, everything you named on your "non traditional" list has been part of some "traditional" cultures in divers places and times. Some of them have even been religious requirements for a traditional culture. I think necrophilia may be among the few fetishes that I have never read about being an accepted part of some culture/some when. But as you mean 'traditional' according to the definition accepted in Western Culture from the Victorian era through WW2, within that limitation you are quite correct.

Regarding your comment about "sport them for others to see," the issue is less one of sexual preference than identity. Many of those taking part in pride-parades do so to assert that they 'are who they are' and have a right to be acknowledged as being who they are publicly without recrimination. In the past, too many of those in these minority groups would have been shunned or worse simply for making public a basic aspect of their identity. Call it overcompensation if you wish, but the ability to be yourself and be so acknowledged by others is an important aspect of identity and few basic needs are more important to any of us then is our sense of our own identity.

Those of us who more or less conform to the classic Western tradition simply assume that our identity is acceptable and that we need not even 'declare' who we are because it is the norm. Should someone who does not conform to that tradition really feel the need for public (and sometimes over-the-top) efforts to declare their identity as normal and equal? No, they should not. However, I have never (following high school when I was unformed) had to repress my expression of self identity from fear of harassment and abuse. Any number of those 'pride parade' folks have. So I just roll my eyes a bit at the excesses of a few of them and move on.

[CrossLOPER]

All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on.

I wouldn't class child rape and animal abuse in the same group as a group of consenting adults, but when you compound upon this with:

But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

As I have posted, repeatedly, those pride parades generally include marginalized groups that were, until fairly recently, deprived of basic rights because "they ain't right". The pride parade allows people to come out into the open and rejoice that things are improving.

I wish you would finally understand this. Just let them have it.