View Single Post
Old 11-25-2013, 08:58 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 13,517
Default Part 2 of 3

[continued from above]

Don't think anyone's saying any stereotypes are good per se, just that they exist and can either be turned toward greater enlightenment or greater ignorance.

Re: culture ... it seems to me that all cultures start out as some kind of parent phenomenon: a race, church, cult, country, a bunch of castaways on a desert island, any situation where a group of humans experiences some kind of isolation from other humans in the world.

Once a culture re-mingles with "new" parts of the world, the issues complexify and we can no longer say it's merely a race, church, nationality, location, or what have you type of an issue.

Re (from ColorsWolf):
"LovingRadiance, when you say that '*all* people stereotype:' you either have truly never met or known anyone who is not as you describe, or you are lying."
Uh I'm guessing more of the former and less of the latter?

"By saying that, '*All* people stereotype:' you are you yourself stereotyping *everyone.*"
I guess that's true.

"When someone tells me that a group of people are 'black:' that tells me absolutely nothing about this group of people other than they literally have 'black' skin."
I'm confused on how to solve this. What if "black" is the only thing this someone knows about that group of people? Should he/she refrain from revealing what little he/she knows? but if he/she tells you that the group of people are "human:" he/she is still telling you absolutely nothing about this group of people other than they literally have "human" skin.

Perhaps this someone should tell you that the group of people in question are "people I know nothing about." But that's not quite honest either, since the someone does "know" that they're both "human" and "black." Now if the someone then proceeds to claim to "know" what these "black" people think and feel, how they live and what they live for, then that someone is being presumptuous (if he/she hasn't gotten to "know" the group of people in question).

So then maybe this someone shouldn't bother you at all with their pittance of knowledge, since it only frustrates you with their dysfunctional emptiness. Should they instead leave you in peace and say nothing about the subject? and to gain some actual useful knowledge, they should go live amongst the minority culture they'd like to speak of so that they won't offend anyone by talking out of their ass. Pardon the expression, but isn't that rather what you're getting at?


Re (from Dirtclustit):
"So I am willing to give you the benefit if doubt regardless of what it may only appear to say between the lines ..."
Thank you because, I myself don't know what I said between the lines. Some sort of backmasking I suppose.

kdt26417 said:
I have similar opinions about non-human people's rights, as well as about polyamorist, LGBT, and BDSM rights.

Dirtclustit replied:
"You may wish to avoid that; as it is the way it is written can be misleading. It is *almost* as if it implies that poly, LGBT and BDSM people are non-human, which may tend to hit a few nerves regardless of their race and regardless of your desired message. Something to think about if you are concerned about coming off as being sincere ..."
kdt26417 reassures:
Okay; for the record I am concerned about coming off as being sincere.

How's about I dissect my prior statement for a bit in hopes of clarifying it?

Had I said: I have similar opinions about non-human people's rights, *such as* about polyamorist, LGBT, and BDSM rights ... then I'd have been implying that poly, LGBT, and BDSM people are non-human. Which would be arguably shooting myself in the foot since I'm one of those people (the poly ones).

But I said: I have similar opinions about non-human people's rights, *as well as* about polyamorist, LGBT, and BDSM rights ... the subtle difference being "such as" versus "as well as." The "such as" clause indicates I'm about to cite examples of non-human people, whereas the "as well as" clause indicates I'm about to cite examples of people other than the non-human people.

I probably should have said: I have similar opinions about non-human people's rights, *as well as human people's rights* such as polyamorist, LGBT, and BDSM rights ... and then I'd hope we could have sidestepped this whole unpleasant castigation.

So having given the above three paragraphs' explanation, I hope that a few nerves (whatever their race and whatever my desired message) can recover from being hit, or won't have to be hit at all. I've now (attempted to) clarify myself. Please nurse and/or protect your nerves as needed; hitting them was never my intention and I hope my above explanation has shown that.

"I can just ask if you intentionally wrote the sentences knowing the second surface meaning was pretty much right there, uncovered, on the surface."
And I in turn can assure you that the uncovered-meaning-on-the-surface was both unintentional and unknown by me. I could have been more clear in composing the sentence in question, but sometimes I do sacrifice clarity in favor of relative brevity, as long as what I write seems to me to be a *technically correct* delineation of my thoughts, guesses, and feelings.

"Derogatory words do do a lot of harm, many times it's the subtle ones that are the most harmful, especially when they are hate-filled because they are unmistakable."
I agree with one caveat: What may be unmistakable in the eyes of one person, may be all-too easily mistaken in another's eyes. I guess sometimes you really do have to check and see if the other person really meant what they so clearly seemed to mean. No assumptions: I'm all for that.

"For instance, there was a term which was used to describe a person which you appear to want to call 'blacks,' which then was coined from the country Nigeria. It was a term that was or had become closely bound with racism and hatred (often unspoken) to Human Beings, and the hatred was assigned due to the color of their skin."
Okay, so European Americans invented a hate term to use against African Americans. If it's the N word you speak of, then I'm all for obliterating that word. But what word/s shall we replace it with? or should we all just stop talking about skin color in any way shape or form, due to the mere mention of skin color hitting a few nerves due to the ugliness of American slavery in the past?

"So yes specific words actually do have a much greater effect than I think you have admitted to."
I agree and the N word is a great example. But grant me that many words have been tried since, which seemed to be acceptable (for the moment) to the minority race at the time: colored persons or persons of color, Negroes, blacks or black persons, African Americans (which now, too, is beginning to annoy the minority race in question), and as of this thread, brown-skinned persons which hasn't as yet received any glowing reviews. So I am wide open to suggestions as to what word/s you'd find less offensive, and if you'd prefer I stick exclusively to that/those word/s, I will provided that/those word/s don't offend other members. I don't know if you're seeing a pattern here, but the pattern I'm starting to see is this: I won't be able to please everyone.

I mean people aren't seriously trying to tell me, are they, that African Americans aren't attending poly get-togethers because I and other bigots are calling them blacks? If I found the right "magic word" to call them, would they suddenly start attending the poly get-togethers that they were staying away from before?

Alas that the United States seems to be the one country on Earth where no one can agree on what to call brown-skinned persons. Serves us right for practicing slavery, I suppose.

"In fact I subscribe to the theory that there would not need to be any discourse between races if people spoke out, each and every time they smell the hatred spilling all over everything with a putrid stench, and if we all did speak up, with nothing more than a, 'Hey! That's unacceptable, are you aware how that makes people feel?'"
It makes me sad to think you might be smelling hatred spilling out of me with a putrid stench. Short of moving into a predominantly brown-skinned neighborhood (which alas won't happen as my next and probably last stop is Seattle), what can I possibly do or say to attribute this putrid stench of hatred you're smelling to someone (or something) other than myself? I'd at least like to know.

And besides, is it bad for the races to have discourses with each other? Are sharp reprimands the only communicating we should be doing about racial issues?

[continued below]
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote