Discriminating
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2011, 10:39 PM
RE: Discriminating
Dear, everyone.

Rosa Parks you are not.

BnW has mentioned that you have the law on your side. The law on your side. Not against you. On your side. And still, you behave with cowardice.

Do you think that blacks had it easy? Gays? Women? You wanna be accepted, speak up. You have more legal protection and media support than any other minority in history. If you do nothing, if you hide, then you're contemptible.

Discrimination? Ever been owned and sold, denied the right to vote or marry, to mingle with others, or be on the streets after curfew? Been imprisoned, tortured, put to death, put in concentration camps, or butchered with machetes? Been told you couldn't speak your language, or post it on signs, or been re-educated? Had your lands taken away, been relocated, or had your treaties ignored? Been given blankets infected with small pox? Been put on a no-fly list, profiled, or held in Guantanamo indefinately without trial? No? Well, I guess worrying about a job is about the same. This isn't discrimination, this is being on a different team, an unliked team (like a Soviet in the States during the Cold War) and not having the guts to take your rights. It's whining. It's pathetic.

And no wonder people don't like you. The Suffragets, MLK, Mandela, Gandhi, Parks, Milk, the list goes on. These were people who had the law against them and who spoke out against that injustice and against the injustices perpetrated against them every day and who fought for dignity and inclusion. Who do Atheists have? Hitchens and Dawkins? Educated men of priviledge who winge and whine, who arrogantly flaunt their intellectual supremacy and tell everyone how stupid and unworthy of life and humanity they are. It's vomitous. It's an affront.

Be a man (or a woman) and stand up for yourself and don't call other people assholes while you're doing it. Have some self-respect.

Tough love. Real talk.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2011, 10:56 PM
RE: Discriminating
Oh, I wasn't aware anyone ever said Atheists had it worse than slaves or suffragettes or so on. Keep on rambling bro.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 05:36 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2011 05:40 AM by Kikko.)
RE: Discriminating
dis·crim·i·na·tion

–noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
(- http://www.dictionary.reference.com)
_________________
I don't see a problem with 'whining', especially among the group. Sharing experiences and whining within a group can be somewhat therapeutical too.
Whining by using the word 'discrimination' can be offending to people who've fought hard to even have legal rights (how many of those people are present?), but it seems that English doesn't have different words for different levels of discrimination, so we'll have to live with just one.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 06:12 AM
RE: Discriminating
(02-02-2011 10:39 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Dear, everyone.

Rosa Parks you are not.

BnW has mentioned that you have the law on your side. The law on your side. Not against you. On your side. And still, you behave with cowardice.

Do you think that blacks had it easy? Gays? Women? You wanna be accepted, speak up. You have more legal protection and media support than any other minority in history. If you do nothing, if you hide, then you're contemptible.

Discrimination? Ever been owned and sold, denied the right to vote or marry, to mingle with others, or be on the streets after curfew? Been imprisoned, tortured, put to death, put in concentration camps, or butchered with machetes? Been told you couldn't speak your language, or post it on signs, or been re-educated? Had your lands taken away, been relocated, or had your treaties ignored? Been given blankets infected with small pox? Been put on a no-fly list, profiled, or held in Guantanamo indefinately without trial? No? Well, I guess worrying about a job is about the same. This isn't discrimination, this is being on a different team, an unliked team (like a Soviet in the States during the Cold War) and not having the guts to take your rights. It's whining. It's pathetic.

And no wonder people don't like you. The Suffragets, MLK, Mandela, Gandhi, Parks, Milk, the list goes on. These were people who had the law against them and who spoke out against that injustice and against the injustices perpetrated against them every day and who fought for dignity and inclusion. Who do Atheists have? Hitchens and Dawkins? Educated men of priviledge who winge and whine, who arrogantly flaunt their intellectual supremacy and tell everyone how stupid and unworthy of life and humanity they are. It's vomitous. It's an affront.

Be a man (or a woman) and stand up for yourself and don't call other people assholes while you're doing it. Have some self-respect.

Tough love. Real talk.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Who the hell are you to say this to her or anyone else? She has no obligation to live her life as you require and she has no obligation to put her ability to pay her bills and keep a roof over her head in danger to satisfy your feelings of righteousness. And, she wasn't asking for pity, she was responding to a thread. Where do you get off with this crap?

And, as for her rights, so what? Exercising her rights does not mean she still has a job. And, that assumes she goes to court and wins. And, quite honestly, when you're anonymous then feeling uncomfortable about what goes in is not going to qualify as discrimination. So, first she has to go public, then she has to endure whatever she will endure, probably get fired or pushed to a point where she feels she has to quit, and then she's got a law suit on her hands that she can win. Having "rights" generally does not mean you have victories. Usually the opposite is true.

But, the legal technicalities are not even the point here. The point is: what business is it of yours?

For someone who likes to complain as much as you do about getting attacked, you really can be an incredible asshole.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 08:55 AM
RE: Discriminating
I find it interesting that the response to a post that is about giving people a kick in the pants so they can go out and live with dignity is viewed as an assholish ramble.

People in this thread have been talking about their jobs amd promotions and needing to keep their jobs. I was pointing out, pretty heavy handedly, that in the grand scheme of things, worrying about your job doesn't amount to anything when compared with the fight for dignity. Some people in this thread have been talking about how hiding is the best policy. I was pointing out how people who have had things WAY worse than any atheist have lived proud and not hidden. The stakes were far greater but they acted with courage and now (this being the important part) the societal conditions they had been affraid of have now changed. Racist communities became multicultural. Mysogynistic societies gave universal sufferage. The list goes on. People who say on the one hand that they're being oppressed and on the other hand that their response is to do nothing deserve a kick in the pants. This is not a unique situation. There's nothing original here. Atheists are a minority in (some cases) an intolerant majority. There has only ever been one way to change that. But no one one else was encouraging action, in fact, most people were encouraging inaction. MLK never said stay at home and lump it. Bob Marley didn't write, "shut up, sit down, sit down and just forget about your rights." The Bible Belt will not change itself. It has absolutely no reason to. If you want to live there and they're making it difficult for you, have some self-respect, don't hide and understand that all change requires struggle.

Saying have some self-respect is only offensive if you don't have any. Saying have some self-respect is a call to action. Having self-respect is about living openly as who and what you are. It's about looking intolerance in the eye and saying, "I will not sit down, I will not be quiet. I am here, I am I and if you have a problem with it, it's your problem, not mine."

Hey, BnW.

Who is this her you're speaking of?

No one has to do anything. If people want to feel sick every time someone asks the room to bow their head in prayer, then that's their choice. But the historical record is clear. You put your head in the sand, things only get worse. If you're affraid of what they'll do to you, things only get worse. In India, those engaging in non-violence stood there as they were truncheoned or shot. Those stakes are significantly higher than a job. I'm pointing out that despite the overall sentiment of this thread, you don't have to live in fear, others have risked more and if you want it to change, do something. I ask, who are you to squash that message?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 09:15 AM
RE: Discriminating
Personally, I'm going both ways and using a time-and-place ideal. I can deal with a few random oddly placed prayers. Last november I quietly sat there while my coworkers said grace at our year end party, then at the end of the nite, the atheist had his day when I was named associate of the year. Its a friendly environnment, and I'm a friendly, patient person, but should there come a time where the place is unfriendly toward my rights, I will say something. Maybe I should sign up for the FFRF ahead of time just in case ;-)

Something something something Dark Side
Something something something complete
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 10:00 AM
RE: Discriminating
(03-02-2011 08:55 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I find it interesting that the response to a post that is about giving people a kick in the pants so they can go out and live with dignity is viewed as an assholish ramble.

This was not about giving people a "kick in the pants". It was about you just being an asshole.

As for the rest of your comments .... whatever.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 11:18 AM
RE: Discriminating
Bnw, you give me a chuckle every now and then. Your natural reaction is to insult me personally whenever I say something you don't agree with and you have shown, demonstrably, an utter inability to accurately guess my motivations or state of mind. So while I greatly respect your intellect, your personal opinion of me means absolutely nothing. My only regret is that it might mean something to other people.



Rights are won, not given. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to keep you down.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 12:41 PM
RE: Discriminating
This is nonsense. I see what you're trying to draw out but there is no comparison between the discrimination atheists risk facing and the slave state, never mind all the others you mentioned.

All BnW is trying to get at, I think, is that it's ridiculously unfair that Trillium could lose her job simply for her beliefs and become a hated member of her community. We don't need her to do it to become some atheist martyr for the cause or something.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2011, 02:25 PM
RE: Discriminating
Hey, Green.

Thank you for switching gears. I apreciate it.

Quote:This is nonsense. I see what you're trying to draw out but there is no comparison between the discrimination atheists risk facing and the slave state, never mind all the others you mentioned.

That's my point. There is no comparison. The situation that atheists find themselves in is... I really don't want this to come across as inflamatory... a walk in the park. For example, you have the law on your side. Most minorities find themselves on the wrong side of it. For example, being legal property, being legally barred from same sex marriage, being denied the vote under law. Most groups have to fight, not only for dignity and inclusion, but for the support of law. So the reason that I mention those other things is purly for perspective, a la, if they did it under those circumstances, there's no reason you cannot do them under more fair weather conditions.

Quote:All BnW is trying to get at, I think, is that it's ridiculously unfair that Trillium could lose her job simply for her beliefs and become a hated member of her community. We don't need her to do it to become some atheist martyr for the cause or something.

I agree. It is ridiculously unfair. That's a fact.

But it's no more unfair than having someone burn a cross on your lawn, or being kicked out of the military because you like the same sex, or being told to sit at the back of the bus. This is what I mean when I say that this is not a unique situation. In fairness, I should recant my statement "this is not discrimination" because that's not factually correct. It is discrimination. What I meant was, when compared to the situation of others, this aint no thing but a chicken wing, ya dig?

I was never speaking to Trillium directly (Hi Trillium. Wasn't directed at you if you're reading).
I was responding to a number of different posts. What I'm saying is that Rosa Parks didn't say no for anyone but herself and her own personal dignity. She simply said, I cannot cooperate with this because it is wrong. I have too much self-respect. I am willing to accept the ramafications of that choice. The result of her action is a matter of historical record, but the action itself was an act of claiming one's own dignity. Atheism is a choice and I think that it's reasonable for Atheists to be proud of that choice. To own that choice. It's not something that should force you to live in fear because it's not accepted. If Atheists choose to always back down when that choice puts them outside of the circle, then Atheism will never be accepted. It is only through being loud and proud that acceptance and social change can be achieved.

I'm a student of Gandhi (when my better nature is in charge). The following pretty much encapsulates what I'm talking about, but in a much nicer way.
Quote:In fact, I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England by showing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which both are living. In my opinion, non-co-operation with evil is as much a duty as is co-operation with good. But in the past, non-co-operation has been deliberately expressed in violence to the evil-doer. I am endeavoring to show to my countrymen that violent non-co-operation only multiplies evil, and that as evil can only be sustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete abstention from violence. Non-violence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge and the assessors, is either to resign your posts and thus dissociate yourselves from evil, if you feel that the law you are called upon to administer is an evil, and that in reality I am innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty, if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country, and that my activity is, therefore, injurious to the common weal.
(Gandhi, A written statement read aloud at his own trial, Ahmedabad, India, March 18th, 1922 CE)

In the application of Satyagraha, I discovered, in the earliest stages, that pursuit of Truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one's opponent, but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. For, what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of Truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but one's own self.
(Mohandas Gandhi, from a letter, 25th of January, 1920 CE)

For the record, upon reflection, there was some dickishness in the way I said things. I was contemplating what I wrote about Dawkins and Hitchens and how the main difference between them and other leaders like MLK is that MLK and Gandhi and Parks operated from a place of love (making Dawkins and Hitchens the intellectual terrorists of Atheism, but I'm sure that would be an entirely separate and entirely wild, thread). What I realised is that I am not an Atheist. I never will call myself one. Atheists are not my people. So the struggle that Atheists face with Theists is not my struggle. If I lived in the Bible Belt I would proudly state my Agnosticism. I wasn't trying to reach out to Theists to win rights for Atheists. I was reaching out to an Atheist community that I felt was throwing away opportunities to advance itself, that I felt had relegated itself to calmly accepting that they would never be allowed to be who they are publically. So I freely admit that my kick in the pants was heavy handed. Nevertheless, it was a kick in the pants. So while there may have been some jerky content (I won't go as far as asshole because it was intended as tough love) it certainly wasn't just about me being an asshole.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: