|
Grex > Agora41 > #234: I choose more than mere tolerance | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 97 responses total. |
bhelliom
|
|
response 50 of 97:
| 
Jun 11 21:19 UTC 2002 |
Cool. Point for me! Though I must admit, my explanation was a tad bit
cluttered.
|
md
|
|
response 51 of 97:
|
Jun 12 12:05 UTC 2002 |
#0 struck me as playing with words to make yourself feel superior to
others, something politically-persuaded folks of the right and left
enjoy doing. Martin Buber said that what people want from each other,
the irreducible minimum of humanity, is simply to be acknowledged as
humans. He talked about being greeted on the street with a
look "devoid of curiosity," which seemed wrong to me the first time I
read it (*shouldn't* we be curious about each other?) but which seems
profoundly true the more I think about it.
Apropos tolerating gays as opposed to killing them, we all understand,
I hope, that hardly anybody every kills gays for being gay in this
country. It's so unusual that whenever it does happen it makes
headlines and is anguished over for the next few years, as it should
be. (Gays killing gays -- the "rough trade" incidents I used to hear
about all the time when I lived in New York -- seems more frequent, but
there the cause isn't "intolerance.")
|
orinoco
|
|
response 52 of 97:
|
Jun 12 15:40 UTC 2002 |
It is easy to trick yourself into thinking you understand someone. It's
rare to meet someone these days who will admit, even to himself, that he
is racist or sexist, or even homophobic. I imagine most of us do think
we treat others in a way that Buber would approve of. But it's obvious
that some of us are wrong: there _are_ racists and sexists and homophobes.
I think that's the reason for a lot of the liberal self-examination that
is so easy to mock. Nobody wants to be one of those poor deluded souls
who think they're living up to Buber's ideal because "some of my best
friends are gay." And, really, nobody _should_ want to be deluded like
that.
But being a self-deluded homophobe is no worse than suffering from some
other, less politicized delusion. That's where many liberals go wrong, by
failing to realize this. Unintentional homophobia is right at the same
level as any other social flaw that keeps you from seeing people as human:
anger, say, or impatience, or self-righteousness, or narcissism. If you'd
rather be called a self-important asshole than a mild homophobe, your
priorities need fixing.
|
brighn
|
|
response 53 of 97:
|
Jun 12 15:59 UTC 2002 |
I have prejudices about non-whites, females, and gays.
This is a serious question, not a troll, bait, or sarcasm:
What would you say is the difference between, say, someone who has racial
prejudices (which, frankly, everyone does) and a racist?
I've beent rying to figure that out for years, and most of the time when I
ask it, the conversation bogs down in PC nonsense, like people claiming that
they have no racial prejudices (even something as mild as "black men have
larger penises" or "Asians tend to be better at math than non-Asians" are
racial prejudices: pre-judgments, generalizations made over an entire group,
which may or may not apply to individuals).
For example, we were talking about this about our last polyamory group (btw,
any polyamorists in the Detroit or Ann Arbor area who want to meet others,
mail me, and I'll give you info on the open meetings!): Even the people in
our group, when they see a male and a female walking down the street together,
presume that it's a monogamous heterosexual couple, but are less likely to
make the presumption that two men, or two women, walking together are a
monogamous homosexual couple, unless they're in an area where gays hang out
openly (Ferndale, Royal Oak, Ann Arbor). This is a group of polyamorists,
about half of whom identify as bisexual, and we're STILL programmed to think
in heterosexist, monogamist terms.
and part of this, frankly, is survival. I know that gay men get killed for
being gay. I know that if I approach a female who interests me, the worst that
is likely to happen is a slap or a histrionic scene when she finds out I'm
married; if I approach a male who interests me, the worst that could happen
is that I'd get hogtied and dragged from a pickup truck until I pass into a
coma and then die.That choice kinda makes things easy to figure out which I'm
going to focus on. So having biases like "all men are heterosexual until
evidence is provided to the contrary" is a matter of survival. Coming up with
obvious shortcuts to determining sexuality -- a limp wrist, a sashay, an
effete voice and mannerism -- builds an unfair stereotype, but it also
circumvents the survival issue.
Ok, I've babbled a bit. Any comments?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 54 of 97:
|
Jun 12 18:32 UTC 2002 |
Personally, I think the term "racist" has been bastardized to such a degree
that it's inflammatory, but virtually meaningless.
For instance, when I seriously accuse someone of being racist, it is based
in the person's outward belief that his (or her) race is superior to all
others, or the person promotes hatred towards all other races. (e.g. Ku Klux
Klan members, Louis Farrakhan)
But there are varying degrees from there. It seems the closer you get to
disliking black people, the closer you are to being racist. A white man who
is blatantly prejudiced towards hispanic people, is less likely to be labeled
a "racist" if he's married to a black woman. A black man who shoots an arab
convenience store owner is probably not going to be charged on "hate crimes".
And for whatever reason, it's okay for everyone to pick on Asian people.
I chose to live in a city that is overwhelmingly white. It wasn't a matter
of me moving in to my house, waking up the next morning and saying "Gee! Look
at all the crackers! How coincidental!" The simple facts were that I liked
the city, and the people, because they were like me. I hardly think that I'm
racist because of it. Prejudiced? Sure, a little bit. But not in a "I don't
wanna live near the darkies!" way. Being a middle-class white male, I wanted
to live with other middle-class white males. I didn't single out any
race...after all, I singled out my own race by refusing to live in places
comprising of lower-middle-class whites.
But, by many people's definition, that would clearly label me a racist --
despite the fact that the majority (yes, majority) of my friends and
co-workers have not been middle-class white men.
I guess another way of putting it would be:
If I were in a liquor store, and a black man came in wearing a trenchcoat,
I wouldn't assume he was going to rob the place. But if he did rob the place,
I'd be angry at him for perpetuating a stereotype, but I wouldn't be angry
at all black men in trenchcoats.
|
jp2
|
|
response 55 of 97:
|
Jun 12 18:35 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 56 of 97:
|
Jun 12 18:37 UTC 2002 |
Someone who realizes that 'dem Chinks are jus' a buncha pussies.
I don' understan' why we're all 'fraid of them yella' boys anyway. You can
tell that thar' not goin'-ta fight.
I'll tell you what, you should stop by one'a our meetin's.
|
brighn
|
|
response 57 of 97:
|
Jun 12 19:31 UTC 2002 |
#54> I'm gonna be suspicious of anyone who comes into a liquor store wearing
a trenchcoat this time of year. Maybe they're just one of those 20 something
geekgoths, but I'll at least keep my eye on them.
|
md
|
|
response 58 of 97:
|
Jun 12 20:15 UTC 2002 |
Re 52, "some of my best friends are gay" -- That started years ago as a
comical hypocrisy indicator. Mort Sahl, or one of those comedians,
would describe the genteel antisemite who would start off
saying, "Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Jews," and
then go off on an antisemitic rant, as if having Jewish friends somehow
made it okay to say such things. "Some of my best friends are [insert
minority here]" became an expression of humorous contempt for closet
racists.
But what I want to know is, when *is* it permissible to say "some of my
best friends are gay"? Ever? I mean, if someone questions your
openmindedness and demands proof that you're not just another product
of your evil Middle American environment, can't you offer that fact?
Not even if it's true and you don't have a prejudiced bone in your body?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 59 of 97:
|
Jun 12 20:26 UTC 2002 |
re: 58
It becomes a matter of quantity, and perception.
I can't think of more than five people who I would consider my "best" friends.
What sounds less like a cop-out? A statistical breakdown that shows 40% of
my friends are Jewish, 20% Hispanic, and 40% homosexual...or saying I have
two Jewish friends, one of which happens to be gay, a friend originally from
El Salvador, another friend who's a gay white boy, and the rest are honkies.
If I were to say "I have a lot of Hispanic friends!" that would be a
statistically true statement.
|
md
|
|
response 60 of 97:
|
Jun 12 20:44 UTC 2002 |
Good point. The word "best" is optional. But that doesn't change my
question.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 61 of 97:
|
Jun 12 20:49 UTC 2002 |
Nor does it change my answer.
What group of people do you define as "friends"? At the last job I worked at,
I could have said that I had more Indian friends than white ones. This would
have been a true statement, had I considered co-workers I associated with as
friends.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 97:
|
Jun 13 02:30 UTC 2002 |
I agree that it is "best" that triggers the sense of it being a cliche.
However if one says "some of my friends are gay", it comes across as
just a statement of fact and not a challenge.
|
brighn
|
|
response 63 of 97:
|
Jun 13 03:27 UTC 2002 |
There was a TV commercial, a PSA, in the 70s:
Boy: Grandpa, what does "prejudiced" mean?
Grandpa: It means that you judge people based on their skin color, or their
religion, instead of base don who they are.
Boy: Oh. Am I prejudiced?
Grandpa: I don't know. Where did you hear that word?
Boy: Jimmy, my Jewish friend, called me that.
Grandpa: Oh, well, then you ARE prejudiced, because you think of Jimmy as your
JEWISH friend, and not just as your friend.
(Very rough paraphrase, it's been years, but I'm sure other people remember
that PSA, too.)
To answer Michael's question: I'd say that anyone who categorizes people such
that they'd say, "Some of my best friends are gay," is prejudiced. If that's
ok with them, whatever. I don't see a problem with being prejudiced, I see
a problem with letting it get in the way of learning who individuals really
are.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 97:
|
Jun 13 06:01 UTC 2002 |
GrandPa was a little too hasty. Perhaps Boy knew two or more Jimmys,
and used an ethnic association to identify which one. What types
of identifying characteristics are necessary "prejudice" and which are
not? Is "Jimmy, my blonde friend" prejudicial? If not, how doew that
differ from a ethnic identification?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 65 of 97:
|
Jun 13 06:10 UTC 2002 |
re: 63
I don't think many people would simply declare "Some of my best friends are
gay." without there being some sort of personal affront attached.
If someone were to accuse me of being homophobic, for instance, I would feel
a need to defend myself. After I was done laughing at the accusation, I would
probably say something like "Most of my friends are gay." Unfortunately,
that's the only answer that doesn't sound cliche, and doesn't sound like a
straight white guy trying to prove his diverse nature. Fortunately for me,
it's also a true statement.
In that sort of context, I don't think it's very prejudicial. Someone as
casting an aspersion ("You homophobic asshole!") and I am responding to
correct them ("Most of my friends are gay. But I am an asshole.").
Though, it would be something quite different if I blurted out "Hey! Guess
what? Some of my best friends are gay!".
|
md
|
|
response 66 of 97:
|
Jun 13 11:49 UTC 2002 |
There are many harmless and unavoidable human reactions that get tsk-
tsked at by people who are humorless, censorious, and ultimately
hypocritical. When I hear the name Barry Goldwater, I think "Jewish."
Ferruccio Busoni: "Italian." The reaction is purely prejudicial on my
part -- a generalization that doesn't fit the individual -- in that
Goldwater was Congregationalist and Busoni was German. But is it so
bad to have such thoughts? Is it bad at all? We have ethnic festivals
to celebrate the differences between us, those things about "our"
cultural group that we're proud of and want to share, and then we tell
everyone, "Don't think about those differences, that's prejudice."
|
mary
|
|
response 67 of 97:
|
Jun 13 11:52 UTC 2002 |
Some of my best friends should be gay. The heterosexual thing
doesn't seem to be working very well.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 68 of 97:
|
Jun 13 13:22 UTC 2002 |
re: 66
Perhaps that's why race is such an enormous issue in the United States, but
not quite as much in other countries. It's just another one of our moral
contradictions.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 97:
|
Jun 13 15:33 UTC 2002 |
When I hear a name, I have no automatic thought of
race/ethnicity/nationality. In this day and age one can have any of those
with any name, as a result of adoption/marriage/name-change/<peculiar
parents>. So, why even have those "prejudicial" thoughts that md has?
This is completely different than people celebrating
race/ethnicity/nationality - THEY know what they are: you don't need to.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 70 of 97:
|
Jun 13 15:49 UTC 2002 |
While I wouldn't say that races and cultures are increasingly mixing, I
wouldn't go as far as to say "In this day and age, you just can't tell
anymore".
While it's true that someone named Sriniviskanth Gupta may very well be a
black guy from Bloomfield Hills, you're going to find that 9 out of 10 Guptas
are Indian, 8 out of 10 Rosenthals are Jewish, 6 out of 10 MacEwans are from
Scotland, and so on.
I'd consider it prejudiced to say "Oh shit, I have to work with an Indian"
when your manager announces that Srini Gupta is starting tomorrow...but I'd
consider it flat out ignorant to say "Gee, I don't know. It's so hard to tell
theses days" if someone asks "What kind of name is Saul Rosenberg?".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 71 of 97:
|
Jun 13 15:52 UTC 2002 |
You can't tell with *certainty*. So, why guess? I don't see any point
in even guessing. You'll either find out or you won't. And it doesn't
matter.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 72 of 97:
|
Jun 13 15:56 UTC 2002 |
re: 71
No, I can't tell with *certainty*. In the same regards, I can't tell with
*certainty* that you're not jp2, and using a pseudo. For that matter, I can't
even tell that you're not just a very well-trained monkey who has been taught
to enter a series of keystrokes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 73 of 97:
|
Jun 13 16:32 UTC 2002 |
Does it matter?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 74 of 97:
|
Jun 13 16:33 UTC 2002 |
Not to me.
|