|
On June 26 2013 05:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:48 Shiori wrote:On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission. You do realize that a vast area of social justice activism is concerned with trying to get people to not say things that might hurt someone's feelings, right? Kinda the reason why every SJ blog has "trigger warnings" at the top. IMO, there are some things people can reasonable implore others not to say, and other things they can't. Privilege falls into the latter category, but so does talking about eating healthily (which could trigger overweight people, apparently) discussing risk factors for sexual assault (e.g. walking through a poorly lit area by oneself at 3am, accepting drinks from strangers etc) and so on. Frankly, I've never really understood the point of telling someone "you're privileged" because it doesn't really accomplish anything. Like, what's it supposed to do? Make them feel bad about being born the way they were? How does that help anyone? Everyone in a Western society is privileged versus people living in war-torn areas of Africa, but saying so doesn't really accomplish anything. We want people in war-torn Africa to have the same opportunities that we do, not begrudge ourselves opportunities we deserve. God do you suck at conversing in the real world too?
Charming. I'm sure you're an old hand at discussing things civilly in the real world.
No one's running around randomly screaming at white people that they're assholes for being privileged.
The poster who started this thing about privilege literally came into the thread and lamented typical cisgendered white straight males. There was no substance to what they said, nor any specificity. They just damned an entire demographic by appealing to their privilege, as if that inhibits their ability to think clearly. This kind of statement is indicative of a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.
Really...who does that?
Nowhere have I claimed that people did this, although it is demonstrably true if one browses Tumblr for a few minutes that, on the internet at least, people can and do run around accusing pretty much everything of privilege biases.
It's a term used when it's relevant to the conversation. So usually when people say "I don't understand why we need gay pride parades, why do they have to shove it in our faces that they're gay?" That becomes an appropriate time to mention privilege.
Except, as far as I know, "typical" privileged people are not opposed to gay pride parades. Ascribing some argument to "typical" white/cisgendered/male/straight people implies that this argument is common to or integral to that demographic, which is false, offensive, and prejudiced.
Jesus Christ have you people never had a conversation outside an internet forum before?
As someone who overcame a debilitating anxiety disorder which made it near-impossible to leave my own house, I'd like to advise you to check your fucking privilege.
|
On June 26 2013 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. Umm...sorry the truth about your social status hurts? Last I checked it wasn't anyone's job to coddle your feelings, especially not with omission.
Read my earlier post, he is talking about pragmatism, you are not, you are missing the point completely, please re- read his statements if you still dont understand after the following:
For christs sake, this discussion has been going on far too long. The point, the simple, simple easy to grasp point, that Plansix was trying to make is this. If you want to bring people to your side of the discussion, avoid putting their backs up.
Simple right? we can all agree to that, now lets look at this instance of "putting peoples backs up" The term "Privilege"
So the claim here, is that the concept it represents is -not- offensive, merely the way the concept is put across.
ok
BUT WAIT you say, the meaning of "privilege" is...!!! blah blah blah, it doesn't -matter- what the intended meaning is for his point.
If the majority of people take this word badly, even if they are wrong in doing so then you are still going to shut down a lot of potentially otherwise enlightening discussions by putting someone's back up and making them feel like a dick.
His point is simply, that if you want to -actually help the movement- you might want to consider another way of phrasing that tricky subject that you already know is going to be difficult for people to come to terms with and admit if they have not previously thought about it.
------------------------------------
To just quickly sum up the issue you are have with understanding what he is saying:
He is talking about PRAGMATISM, you are talking about what you think is NORMATIVELY correct.
Example: A gay friend is going to go out in a dodgy part of town, and wants to know what he should wear.
A NORMATIVE answer would be, "You SHOULDn't -have- to worry about looking gay, just because that area is infamous for acts of violence against gay people, wear what you want to wear!"
A PRAGMATIST answer would be "Well, if sucks but you know what that area is like, i would dress pretty conservativly if I were you"
Do you notice the difference? Once is about what SHOULD be the case, and one is about what IS the case. This is the distinction, listen to what he is saying, and argue about why it is not PRAGMATIC or, agree with him, do not bring irrelivant things into it about whether or not a gay person: SHOULD have to be the bigger person in each conversation.
Becuase its not about if they SHOULD have to, its about if it would be more effective in achieving change.
This isnt to say the discussion about what people should and shouldnt have to do isnt important, it just isnt the issue in THIS ARGUMENT.
|
On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true.
You should not feel offended by that, it's not your fault, the society you live in defines who is privileged and who isn't... The only thing you can do is to try actively to improve your surroundings so that maybe one day nobody has to be underprivileged. Even if it's just a small gesture, like a colorful logo somewhere on the internet.
|
|
|
On June 26 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On June 26 2013 05:45 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:42 Shiori wrote:
I think the problem is that ascribing privilege to some group is really just a fancy way of saying "I'm more oppressed than you are," which is definitely not an ideal state of affairs, but is ultimately irrelevant to discussions except in the instance that someone refuses to acknowledge that some particular group is mistreated. Furthermore, categorizing a demographic as privileged at the outset as part of your indictment of a particular view implies that this view is integral to that demographic, which is provably false (since there are many people from privileged backgrounds who hold reasonable viewpoints about social justice issues).
I guess the real way to look at it is: yes, white, cisgendered, straight, able-bodied and healthy males are probably in one of the highest rungs of privilege, but it's not unjust that this group is treated well; it's unjust that other groups aren't treated equally well.
There are also areas of privilege which aren't indicative of a fundamental social injustice. For example, people often lament that mainstream American TV shows are oversaturated with white, straight people. Well, this isn't necessarily indicative of a social justice problem. While it's certainly true that there are more white/straight/whatever people on TV than other groups, there also tend to be a lot more, say, straight, cisgendered people in the world than homosexual or trans* people. In this respect, the abundance of shows with several white, straight protagonists versus the virtual non-existence of shows with predominantly homosexual, PoC protagonists makes a lot of sense, because most people aren't, say, homosexual, and therefore most writers and audiences aren't going to, on average, make homosexuality the main focus of their TV consumption. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be unfair to criticize a given TV show for not having gay people in it, because lots of situations, social groups, and so on exist in practice in which sexuality is either irrelevant or in which there aren't gay people. If I wrote a comedy about 5 teenagers partying their post-graduation summer, it wouldn't be bigoted of me to make them all be white and straight, because lots of such groups exist which are comprised of white, straight people.
Nah. Privilege doesn't describe anything about the views that people hold. It merely describes a social status conferred by race, gender, or orientation. Sorry you wrote out that whole post for nothing. When you reply to an argument dismissively with "typical cisgendered, white, straight males" that is definitely making allusions to an argument viz. one's privilege. Let's call a spade a spade. The person who wrote what I mentioned above was associating the privilege of some demographic with certain arguments as if that somehow affects their validity (since said poster didn't offer any actual counterarguments). I replied dismissively because you got the definition of privilege wrong within the first paragraph of your post. It kinda rendered most of what what followed from that moot. And is it really that hard to believe that people that argue against the relevance of gay pride parades tend to be from the social status that has never had a pride issue? And yes, I will agree that if someone genuinely wants to understand then writing them off and moving on isn't very diplomatic. But c'mon, read the goddamn thread. How many people in here genuinely wanted to understand?
If a society can be categorized into varying groups according to the rights, social biases, and impressions that they uniquely experience, then group A is more privileged than group B iff group A possesses more rights, positive social biases, and/or tends to impart positive impressions to average people. WTF is wrong with that definition?
If you don't have a problem with that definition, then it really is a matter of one group being more oppressed than another, because oppression is unjust subjugation, which is essentially what biased granting rights/opportunities/favourable opinions to some group (unjustly) actually is.
This thread is 76 pages long. It's unfair to require that someone read all 76 pages before commenting. I made a lengthy post in around page 30 disputing someone's comments that opposition to homosexuality is morally justified and makes any sense at all. I am a white, straight, cisgendered, able male from the middle-class. For whatever it's worth, I am privileged. Nevertheless, my argument was correct, and my privilege had absolutely nothing to do with its validity.
|
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic.
Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread.
If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^
|
On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic.
This has been addressed like 50 times and by the owners of the site. They don't are and will take stances on social issues. If you don't like it, don't read.
|
On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic. Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread. If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^
Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports.
|
On June 26 2013 06:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On June 26 2013 05:45 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 05:42 Shiori wrote:
I think the problem is that ascribing privilege to some group is really just a fancy way of saying "I'm more oppressed than you are," which is definitely not an ideal state of affairs, but is ultimately irrelevant to discussions except in the instance that someone refuses to acknowledge that some particular group is mistreated. Furthermore, categorizing a demographic as privileged at the outset as part of your indictment of a particular view implies that this view is integral to that demographic, which is provably false (since there are many people from privileged backgrounds who hold reasonable viewpoints about social justice issues).
I guess the real way to look at it is: yes, white, cisgendered, straight, able-bodied and healthy males are probably in one of the highest rungs of privilege, but it's not unjust that this group is treated well; it's unjust that other groups aren't treated equally well.
There are also areas of privilege which aren't indicative of a fundamental social injustice. For example, people often lament that mainstream American TV shows are oversaturated with white, straight people. Well, this isn't necessarily indicative of a social justice problem. While it's certainly true that there are more white/straight/whatever people on TV than other groups, there also tend to be a lot more, say, straight, cisgendered people in the world than homosexual or trans* people. In this respect, the abundance of shows with several white, straight protagonists versus the virtual non-existence of shows with predominantly homosexual, PoC protagonists makes a lot of sense, because most people aren't, say, homosexual, and therefore most writers and audiences aren't going to, on average, make homosexuality the main focus of their TV consumption. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be unfair to criticize a given TV show for not having gay people in it, because lots of situations, social groups, and so on exist in practice in which sexuality is either irrelevant or in which there aren't gay people. If I wrote a comedy about 5 teenagers partying their post-graduation summer, it wouldn't be bigoted of me to make them all be white and straight, because lots of such groups exist which are comprised of white, straight people.
Nah. Privilege doesn't describe anything about the views that people hold. It merely describes a social status conferred by race, gender, or orientation. Sorry you wrote out that whole post for nothing. When you reply to an argument dismissively with "typical cisgendered, white, straight males" that is definitely making allusions to an argument viz. one's privilege. Let's call a spade a spade. The person who wrote what I mentioned above was associating the privilege of some demographic with certain arguments as if that somehow affects their validity (since said poster didn't offer any actual counterarguments). I replied dismissively because you got the definition of privilege wrong within the first paragraph of your post. It kinda rendered most of what what followed from that moot. And is it really that hard to believe that people that argue against the relevance of gay pride parades tend to be from the social status that has never had a pride issue? And yes, I will agree that if someone genuinely wants to understand then writing them off and moving on isn't very diplomatic. But c'mon, read the goddamn thread. How many people in here genuinely wanted to understand? If a society can be categorized into varying groups according to the rights, social biases, and impressions that they uniquely experience, then group A is more privileged than group B iff group A possesses more rights, positive social biases, and/or tends to impart positive impressions to average people. WTF is wrong with that definition?
There is nothing wrong with that definition outside of it not being in line with what the term privileged historically and outside of discussions pertaining to social justice has meant. Had this been laid out from the start I honestly doubt the past 20 pages would have occurred.
The protests surrounding "privileged" has all boiled down to that the term "privileged" in its traditional sense (and thus how it was perceived initially for those of us new to social justice discussions) suggest that group A possesses SPECIAL rights of which they are undeserving instead of suggesting that group B, C, E ...... suffers from a lack of BASIC rights.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic. Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread. If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports.
Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little.
|
On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic. Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread. If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports.
Nah, I think you can handle that on your own. They pretty much handle it in the same way we did, only with more swear words.
|
On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic.
I don't know if any admins gave a reason, other than the obvious (it's the right thing to do). One admin mentioned somewhere that this was the least contentious social/political issue among the admins, if I remember correctly.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
Can we get back on topic rather than argue unrelated semantics? Cheers ;/
On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic. Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread. If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports.
We don't think this is politics, it's humanism. Since TL is more than a gaming news site, but also a community with people we feel we can voice our opinion on stuff like this 
|
Here you go:
On June 24 2013 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 23:14 Big-t wrote:
I love rainbows, but I hope that´s not the beginning of a pro-gay-TL....
It's not the beginning of a pro-gay-TL. Because TL has been pro-gay since it's conception. It is absolutely going to stay pro-gay though, and this is out way of vocalizing this. The reason why gay pride is the first social issue that made us funk up our banner, is that gay pride is the single social issue with the least amount of internal disagreement. Gays not being treated equally, everywhere, isn't really an anachronism, because there's no historical period where this inequality feels "correct", but it is still one of the most important issues of our time and age, and the internet is crucial for the enlightenment of people through the world.
|
On June 26 2013 06:08 Pholon wrote:Can we get back on topic rather than argue unrelated semantics? Cheers ;/ Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic. Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread. If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. We don't think this is politics, it's humanism. Since TL is more than a gaming news site, but also a community with people we feel we can voice our opinion on stuff like this
No problem, we did get a bit off topic there. The logo is sweet and we need more theme horse logos in support other issues. If it works for Google, it should work for TL.
|
Can someone explain to me why homosexuality is «one of the most important issues of our time and age»? Thanks.
|
On June 26 2013 06:00 dr.fahrenheit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. You should not feel offended by that, it's not your fault, the society you live in defines who is privileged and who isn't... The only thing you can do is to try actively to improve your surroundings so that maybe one day nobody has to be underprivileged. Even if it's just a small gesture, like a colorful logo somewhere on the internet.
You never eliminate the underprivileged. You simply exaggerate the more petty differences, ad infinitum.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:11 Potling wrote:
Can someone explain to me why homosexuality is «one of the most important issues of our time and age»? Thanks.
Not homosexuality, inequality
|
On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic. Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread. If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little.
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
