Social Activism

Ulaven_Demorte

Non-Prophet Organization
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
30,016
There is a fundamental difference between the activist who wants to end social injustice through equality and those who want to end social injustice through revenge.

The equality activist seems to believe that no-one should be abused or treated as less than and so works to make sure that everyone is treated the same regardless. The "oppressor", no matter who that may be, is not a WHO, but the behavior that needs to be eliminated. For example: working to ensure that all people have an equal opportunity to affordable housing regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, race.. et al.

The latter seems to believe that treating the "oppressor", whoever that may be, as the enemy to be somehow made to pay for their oppression of their group. even if and when the offenders were distant ancestors of the "oppressor" Many times they end up engaged in exactly the same type of offensive behavior that has been directed at them. Ethnic jokes about black people, Indians (from India), Native Americans, Hispanics, gays, etc.. are offensive, but joking about white people is just fine, because they are the "oppressors", all of them.

They tend to single out not just the behavior that needs to be eliminated, but insist that all members of their target group are responsible for the actions of a relative few and should be apologetic at the very least for behavior that they neither condone nor engage in.

How the "revenge activist" can continually speak out about being color-blind and gender blind while continually bashing white people, men, or the mother lode jackpot white men (all conditions completely out of the control of their target) without feeling a very sharp pang of hypocrisy after complaining about being singled out and discriminated against because of something they can't control (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) I can't begin to fathom.

Yes, our European ancestors sailed to America and stole your native land through the cunning use of flags (and guns), marginalized your people, intentionally brought them disease, killed, raped your women (and probably some of the men), and mutilated your children.

Yes, our early American ancestors enslaved your people, brought them over to toil in the fields as property. Often abusing, raping, and killing them at a whim.

But those ancestors, every last one of them are dead and gone. Their progeny should not be asked to pay for the sins of the great great grand fathers and mothers.

Yes, SOME men have treated women badly, acted as if they were less than, as property. They have held them back from positions of leadership intentionally and made light of the accomplishments of more than a few by acting as if the only reason they advanced was because they were promiscuous. But attempting to pigeon-hole the entire male population as rapists and abusers is not going to advance your cause. All you're doing is alienating those who would be your allies by lumping them in with the minority.
 
Finally, a thread that is is not about current news events, and that could be the springboard for some interesting discussions.

I agree with most of what you say.
However, there's a difference between making jokes about the disempowered (some minorities) vs. those in positions of power.
 
Niggers eat shit. Its what they do.

If you gave each of them a bazillion dollars and a PhD in community organizing, in 5 years nothing would be different from today.
 
Finally, a thread that is is not about current news events, and that could be the springboard for some interesting discussions.

I agree with most of what you say.
However, there's a difference between making jokes about the disempowered (some minorities) vs. those in positions of power.

But the OP starts with a strawman argument.

Social Activists can have more complex justifications than the two suggested.

Many just want those people who have problems to get appropriate and affordable help, without a political agenda.
 
Niggers eat shit. Its what they do.

If you gave each of them a bazillion dollars and a PhD in community organizing, in 5 years nothing would be different from today.

ok, ok.
I knew what you wrote before I clicked on the thread.

But leaving asside the minorities that you quote in your signature, can you think of any others that would bring you into a cooler discussion? I think that in Those situations you tend to make interesting points
 
To the OP...what are you saying...are you trying to apologize for something...whats the point
 
But the OP starts with a strawman argument.

Social Activists can have more complex justifications than the two suggested.

Many just want those people who have problems to get appropriate and affordable help, without a political agenda.

I suspect that you are right, that there might be some contradictory ideas there.
But this is a complicated reading + combined with my mild dyslexia, I struggle to fully comprehend the subtelties.
So for now I am waiting for more comments in order to get a clearer understanding.
 
ok, ok.
I knew what you wrote before I clicked on the thread.

But leaving asside the minorities that you quote in your signature, can you think of any others that would bring you into a cooler discussion? I think that in Those situations you tend to make interesting points

I'm always cool. My comments about blacks are expressed in the same calm tone I use for observations about turtles and wasps. Think of Marlin Perkins and WILD KINGDOM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vT3GOc9Zgo

Marlin talks about the black snake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok,
so nobody is following this up. I'm gonna get some sleep, have a long day ahead
See you guys tomorrow (hopefully more posts by then)
 
But the OP starts with a strawman argument.

Social Activists can have more complex justifications than the two suggested.

Many just want those people who have problems to get appropriate and affordable help, without a political agenda.

It's not so much a straw man as a false dichotomy.

Even so, I can take it in context that the OP is simply trying to point out that there can be certain, commonly held flaws in certain views of activism while making the assumption that we are smart enough to know that it is a complex issue you could write an entire book about.
 
It's not so much a straw man as a false dichotomy.

Even so, I can take it in context that the OP is simply trying to point out that there can be certain, commonly held flaws in certain views of activism while making the assumption that we are smart enough to know that it is a complex issue you could write an entire book about.

There are whole libraries about it.
 
Back
Top