Homophobia? Bullying? A simple joke? What would you call it?

[Emigrante 9,993]

14 hours ago, Miky said:

btw this won't really help you get rid of stupid stereotypes, just saying

why would he want to get rid of stereotypes? Not every gay person is the same and even if there's nothing wrong with behaving certain way when you don't hurt anybody.  Stupid people are always going to criticize you basing their minds on stereotypes. 

[Johnikan 602]

13 minutes ago, Shadow said:

This type of passive aggressive non-joke is rooted in fear. And fear generates reactions like paranoia, untrustworthiness, and pessimistic behaviors. These types of "reporting" just caters to those with the same fears and thus blinds them to the reality of the world around which is everything, not just a black or white mentality.

And bullying is a form of asserting power in a microcosm of society through physical or verbal abuse, which only works if it weakens the targeted victim's place in society and/or makes others fear their wrath to not resist or intervene, not too different from terrorism.  Either bullies need to be fought off to offset their perception of dominance or some sort of educating of both sides is needed to reach a mutual understanding to avoid future conflict. 

The same goes for networks, blogger/reporters, and any source of biased information, like bullying in the macrocosm. America is going through a civil war of information at the moment and it is being fought by propaganda groups and political movements fighting for the minds of this generation and the ones coming out of school. And if anyone is to filter information they consume, it must be done with logic and reason, or this biting at each other's throats will keep people divided enough for something worse to fill the power and voice vacuum.

Damn. @Saint Laurent, you think I have a rich vocabulary???

This bish right here just came out of nowhere and obliterated me, and everyone on this thread with this post 

 

[Sizzily 14,571]

Just a joke.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

I find I have to explain item #2 all the time, with so much misinformation being spread out there.

A couple African-American sociology professors, around 30 years ago, came up with a new definition for the word 'racism', and it seems to have become very popular among a certain demographic.

This is the well-known "black people can't be racist because racism describes a system of disadvantage based on race and black people don't stand to benefit from such a system".

And so you see people 'correcting' others all the time. They're wrong to do so. Theirs is just one definition of the word 'racism'. It's not the original definition, and it's not the definition that the public at large accepts.

You can't 'correct' someone when they are using an existing word in the accepted manner. If you create a new definition for a word, that's great, but you are using the same word to describe different concepts. Both people are correct.

Your origin story for the modern sociological definition is overly simplistic  

Language evolves, and is innately descriptive and malleable. Call me a progressive, but I don't believe that definitions should become prescriptive in response to this phenomenon  Both definitions can definitely coexist, but overtime one will probably become more prominently used, and which social spheres they exist in may change, and that's okay too. Some academic definitions may become mainstream, some mainstream may become outdated, vice versa, etc. The thing about sociology is that it is studying the development of human society, so in my mind, the idea that some words may bleed over from academic circles to mainstream circles is actually beneficial  

I entirely understand the "misunderstanding", but you are acting as if those using the sociological definition of racism are blindly following that definition with no understanding of why the general public uses their definition.

The point is that people are making the case (and strongly I might point out) that the generally accepted definition is not specific enough to capture the nuance of a concept as complex as "racism" and systems in general.  It (along with a lot of other things) needs to fade into the background, because the "generally accepted" definition does more harm than good.

The original concept of racism and the actual way that it manifests itself in social interactions (and the overarching systems that comprise society) are not explained well by a definition as simplistic as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior".
While this definition of power + prejudice may have come only a few decades ago, the belief and observations surrounding it had been festering and growing for much longer than that. If the old definition came from people literally outwardly espousing and believing that one race was superior to the other and it came with instilling systemic oppression, than fine, but the way racism works in the modern world is more complex than that, and in reality, It's probably more that we did not understand things about systems and psychological processes to the degree that we do, rather than racism worked "differently" in the past. At the end of the day, this definition is objectively more useful in remedying and stopping racism in its tracks.

I personally dont care "if" Black people or People of Color can be racist or whatever, its a technicality. Acknowledging that black people might be able to be racist to white people according to some definitions really doesn't mean much to me. Pointing out prejudice based on "race" that has no power is useful, but it is not equivalent to pointing out acts that contain both prejudice and power.

The point is that we have the tools to correctly identify, analyze, and break down racist beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors, and the generally accepted definition does not allow one to do so. In fact, it holds people back from being self critical and understanding how society works  In this sense, just because the entire world hasn't "caught on" about racism like academic and science and social justice* has doesn't mean that both sides are equally right. Equally justified in having an opinion? Sure, but both don't need to be equally as accepted as valid. If scientists talk about theories (as in the scientific definition) and people who are not scientists or are familiar with the word talk about theories in a colloquial way but describing science and they collide for some reason, who is wrong and who is right? I would argue the scientist is at the bare minimum more informed and more capable of speaking objectively.

The issue here is that a concept like "Racism" is both colloquial and jargon. Social scientists are still scientists, but because Racism is an "everyday" topic, people feel as if their views on the subject hold as much weight or are just as informed if not more than the "scientists", but I'd argue they aren't. I'd also again argue that in general people that study something, know something intimately, etc. etc. are more equipped to speak about that subject than every day citizens or those that know of it from an outside perspective. 

[Sepsami 20,929]

On 12-2-2017 at 10:45 AM, Johnikan said:

 

As one of MANY gay males with effeminate qualities, feeling safe in the work place without fear of ridicule IS a pretty serious issue. Your time at work is a pretty big part of your life and it has a deep impact on the human psyche. That affects MILLIONS.

It goes deeper than that though. Did you know that there are many states that allow an employer to fire someone for being  LGBT? I unfortunately experinced this. I was laid off because my employer's  religious views and my "lifestyle" couldn't co-exist.

 Yes, this was in a sense "just a joke", but it goes deeper than that. This man felt that it would be appropriate to make this offensive "joke" on national television. And that it was a funny joke at that. If no one educates him, who's to say he wont go on to become a person of great power at some news station and affect the lives of others through his misguided words/actions. If we don't  start somewhere, we will never get anywhere. 

 

Agreed there's a big difference in making a cringy joke like this in private and feeling comfortable enough to make it on National TV

[Sepsami 20,929]

On 12-2-2017 at 11:47 AM, joannester said:

see? this is the problem with liberals. you are all for diversity  unless if it's for opinions. I'm gay myself and I don't find it offensive and a straight persons' opinion is just as valid and your re gonna have to deal with it because that is freedom of speech and equality - the two values America is based on. 

I agree with you to an extent, the problem is that there are just so many people voicing their opinions on subjects they know nothing about

[joannester 1,270]

1 hour ago, Sepsami said:

I agree with you to an extent, the problem is that there are just so many people voicing their opinions on subjects they know nothing about

Definitely but I don't see how it relates to this because it's not a matter in which it's necessary to be very educated about. It's more about how easily you are triggered  

[violetdrums 0]

It is not fair to make fun of anybody . We all are unique in our own way . But I think that it much better now for the LBGT community than it was about 20 to 30 years ago .