Teaching gay history becomes law in California

[Parkbandit]

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay and lesbian people, making California the first state to adopt such a measure.
The bill was cheered by gay rights advocates, and Brown said in a written statement Thursday that it "represents an important step forward for our state."
The legislation requires instruction in the social sciences to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, as well as people with disabilities and members of other cultural groups.
It would prohibit teaching from textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on people because of their sexual orientation.
"History should be honest," the Democratic governor said in a written statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."
Written by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the legislation was approved in the Legislature along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.
Republicans and conservative groups railed against it again on Thursday.
Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, said Brown is "out of touch with what I think are still mainstream American values."
"That's not the kind of stuff I want my kids learning about in public school," LaMalfa said. "They've really crossed a line into a new frontier."
Leno's Senate Bill 48 is similar to a proposal that was approved by the Legislature in 2006 but vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, argued that students were already protected from discrimination.
Existing California law requires public school instruction to include the contributions of women and other minorities, and it prohibits materials that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender or other characteristics. Leno's bill adds gay and lesbian people to that group.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/15/2315387/teaching-gay-history-becomes-law.html#ixzz1SAy65oBd

I'm just wondering which special group will be next?

[AnticorRifling]

Treat us equal unless we want to be treated special but we'll only do so if it's a gain for us we don't want to be equal if that means actually being equal in all aspects including the bad things! But if we say we're going to focus on an aspect that makes us different it's ok but you can't do it because that's racist!

[Warriorbird]

Foolishness because of It would prohibit teaching from textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on people because of their sexual orientation. Nothing that controversial exists in history books.

Effort should be made to teach the history of the country. Students are wise to "let's include this person to make this minority group look good!"

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I imagine the lawmakers are thinking this is akin to Rosa Parks? I've got no issue at all with it. There is plenty of history excluded from text books though, so do we really need a law mandating it be included? Will there be further laws mandating inclusion of other "flavor of the day" type topics?

[Parkbandit]

Will the history books now include sexual orientation when describing a historical figure?

"George Washington, a straight white male, was elected President..."

It's a dumb law by a bunch of dumb politicians in a very dumb state.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's a dumb law by a bunch of dumb politicians in a very dumb state.

Which potentially could become two very dumb states, lawl.

[CrystalTears]

The legislation requires instruction in the social sciences to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, as well as people with disabilities and members of other cultural groups.
Rather unsettling that they're bundling them with disabled people.

[Parkbandit]

Which potentially could become two very dumb states, lawl.

Why do you think I moved away from New York in my early 20's?

[Parkbandit]

Rather unsettling that they're bundling them with disabled people.

Why are they bundling anyone? Let a man or woman stand on their own merits and achievements. When you gather them up into some social group, it's like you are saying "Gee, they managed to do this.. even though they are gay!"

[CrystalTears]

Why are they bundling anyone? Let a man or woman stand on their own merits and achievements. When you gather them up into some social group, it's like you are saying "Gee, they managed to do this.. even though they are gay!"
Oh I agree that it's a stupid law, just happened to notice that statement as being extra stupid.

[RichardCranium]

Treat us equal unless we want to be treated special but we'll only do so if it's a gain for us we don't want to be equal if that means actually being equal in all aspects including the bad things! But if we say we're going to focus on an aspect that makes us different it's ok but you can't do it because that's racist!

I'm surprised that a man who uses the term "hot mess" feels this way.

I do too.

[AnticorRifling]

I will murder you after I get your written permission.

[Asha]

Why do you think I moved away from New York in my early 20's?

Prohibition?

[Jayvn]

what's next? black history?

[Latrinsorm]

Will the history books now include sexual orientation when describing a historical figure?

"George Washington, a straight white male, was elected President..."

It's a dumb law by a bunch of dumb politicians in a very dumb state.What makes you think George Washington was straight?

The bottom line is that gays are a boogeyman for a lot of kids (for instance, state Senator LaMalfa's). The way to address that is to show them examples of real life gay people who will very infrequently fit the nebulous, hysterical stereotypes of the kids' parents. Homophobia is a problem, and it is obvious that the current measures are not up to the task of curtailing it. The choices then are accept homophobia or take extraordinary measures.

[Cephalopod]

I don't agree that this is the right way to combat homophobia. As WB pointed out, kids are wise to "let's include this person to make this minority group look good!"

Teach the history. If a person's sexuality is germane to the lesson, mention it. If not, don't.

This is just not the right way to combat prejudice.

[Sam]

Vegetarian History!

[Back]

HYSTERICAL OUTRAGE

[Sam]

Those queers need to just take their AIDS and go back to Africa.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I bet CA will have many chapters in the book on how that state led the nation in promoting and legalizing gay marriage...

[Axhinde]

I don't see how this could have any affect on combating homophobia or bullying. It doesn't matter what is taught in school about this when it's parents who should be teaching their kids kindness and civility.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't agree that this is the right way to combat homophobia. As WB pointed out, kids are wise to "let's include this person to make this minority group look good!"

Teach the history. If a person's sexuality is germane to the lesson, mention it. If not, don't.

This is just not the right way to combat prejudice.If we're talking high school kids, sure, but it's too late then regardless. Grade school kids will believe any old thing, remember how the pilgrims and Indians were best buddies? How about how Columbus/Magellan proved the world was round?

When peoples' lives are literally at stake, it's worth trying.
I don't see how this could have any affect on combating homophobia or bullying. It doesn't matter what is taught in school about this when it's parents who should be teaching their kids kindness and civility.I think when schools actively undermine the ignorance parents are teaching and you get the kids young enough, it can have some effect. What kid doesn't like being smarter than their parents?

It would certainly be more direct and effective to remove the parents from the equation entirely, but that would be a somewhat problematic approach.

[Parkbandit]

When peoples' lives are literally at stake, it's worth trying.

How many gay people are killed in the US BECAUSE they are gay? This is not the same number of gay people that are killed in the US mind you.

I think you will find this number relatively small, compared to your hyperbole.

[Gnome Rage]

For the sake of argument, aren't those peoples lives still at stake? The number I got was old, but it was around 1500 people killed during anti-gay hate crimes per year, and increasing. Regardless of the size, aren't those still people who would be alive had it not been for the homophobic people that killed them?

I'm not saying forcing teachers to incorporate gay history is the way to go about fixing the problem, but I don't think its fair to deny that it is a problem, even if it is a small portion within the big picture, you can't think of them like statistics, you have to think of them as actual people.

[Fallen]

For the sake of argument, aren't those peoples lives still at stake? The number I got was old, but it was around 1500 people killed during anti-gay hate crimes per year, and increasing.

1500 Gay people were killed in hate-crime violence in the United States last year? That seems like a very, very high number.

[Axhinde]

I just don't see a need to label it gay history. It is history, plain and simple.

[BriarFox]

1500 Gay people were killed in hate-crime violence in the United States last year? That seems like a very, very high number.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/nation/la-na-lgbt-hate-crimes-20110713

Last year's homicide count reached 27, up from 22 in 2009, and was the second-highest total since the coalition began tracking such crimes in 1996. Of those killed, 70% were minorities and 44% were transgender women.

[phantasm]

Death from gay hate crime is increasing? Curious to see how it correlates with brainwashing peoples children with a pro-gay agenda.

[Gnome Rage]

1500 Gay people were killed in hate-crime violence in the United States last year? That seems like a very, very high number.

I think it was 2003, which is why I said the data was old.

[Parkbandit]

I think it was 2003, which is why I said the data was old.

So, you contend that 1500 people were killed in 2003 BECAUSE they were gay... but in 2009 there were 22 and 2010 there were 27?

[Gnome Rage]

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/nation/la-na-lgbt-hate-crimes-20110713

I double checked the FBI PDF and I made an oopsie, I just can't read it seems. Its the numbers of anti-gay hate crimes, but not deaths. (So sorry) Regardless, the point still stands. Those are still people who don't deserve to be treated like that. I'm not sure how you fix it, nor am I going to pretend I have any ideas - but I don't think you can immediately shoot down any idea even if it seems ridiculous.

(also I got 2009 statistics and they're about the same)

[Gan]

private school

private school

private school

private school

private school.

[TheEschaton]

I can see teaching, for example, the gay rights movement. That is, I think, valid.

What this seems to be more akin to is Black History or Women's History - history taught specifically to point out the contributions of African Americans/women in our society. These types of minority-status histories have the express purpose of de-demonizing these minorities as useless, invalid, or even wrong. And, I'd say they've worked.

Sometimes, you need to specifically work against the prevailing latent racism/sexism/homophobia in society by actively illustrating the worth and value of minorities.

Now, perhaps you argue that we shouldn't teach black history or women's history - that we should all stand on our own merits. What you fail to account for is that being black, or being a woman, and doing important things, was meritous in its own rights. At times in this country, it was harder for a black American to achieve the same thing than a white American. At times, it was harder for a woman to achieve the same thing as a male. These histories ARE about illustrating their merits - they overcame societal disapproval to achieve.

I think, though, sometimes white men feel cheated out of that because they can't have that merit, by virtue of the way they were born. But that's the white man's privilege, to not have to overcome extra burdens to success. ;)

[Latrinsorm]

How many gay people are killed in the US BECAUSE they are gay? This is not the same number of gay people that are killed in the US mind you.

I think you will find this number relatively small, compared to your hyperbole.If it's two or more, then my statement is 100% accurate. If it's one or more, we are obligated as human beings to try and stop it.

[Kithus]

I think, though, sometimes white men feel cheated out of that because they can't have that merit, by virtue of the way they were born. But that's the white man's privilege, to not have to overcome extra burdens to success. ;)

The only time I ever really felt anything about being a white male was applying to colleges. I very much would have preferred to be able to check off female and native american or something. My application would have been given extra consideration simply because I was not a white male.

The white man's privilege has steadily become the white man's burden. We are expected in some situations to be better than others in order to receive an equal opportunity. That does not even get into the fact that "white male only" anything is automatically considered racist. I've often told friends I'd love to see someone create White Entertainment Television if only to see how fast it got protested and ripped off the air.

I'm white, male and heterosexual. I have friends of various races, religions and sexual orientations. I'm not racist, sexist or homophobic but I am goddamn sick of the need to single out everyone but white, hetero males for special privileges. My sons deserve the same chance to go to a good college as the little black boy, the little hispanic girl and the little white boy who will be a girl shortly after he goes to college. They also should have their accomplishments recognized equally along side blacks, females, gays and anyone else.

Seriously, it's cause I'm white ain't it?

[phantasm]

Not sure if this is on topic, but I've heard a rumor that Asian girls absolutely LOVE heterosexual white guys.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BbVResGZnDo/SwuSOdhWwkI/AAAAAAAACRg/5XLpF93c3So/s1600/f091204-r03.jpg

[AnticorRifling]

The white man's privilege has steadily become the white man's burden. We are expected in some situations to be better than others in order to receive an equal opportunity. Better isn't good enough, hell being the best isn't good enough. If the company you're applying for is large enough where diversity is an accountable metric and they are below that metric you're fucked because you're white. Equal opportunity prohibits people from being hired on merit alone, there for it's not equal.

[g++]

If everyone leaving high school had basic math skills they would be too busy working to commit hate crimes but I wish good luck to California with the new curriculum I’m sure in the new global economy knowing who was fucking who while they invented what will be extremely valuable information.

[AnticorRifling]

If everyone leaving high school had basic math skills they would be too busy working to commit hate crimes but I wish good luck to California with the new curriculum I’m sure in the new global economy knowing who was fucking who while they invented what will be extremely valuable information.

This is probably the best post in the thread.

[TheEschaton]

Really, you would consider the white man's place in society these days to be a "burden"? You really think that you have to be the best to get jobs over less qualified minority candidates? Even when studies show that job applications with the name Mike and John are (statistically) significantly more likely to get called in for interviews than applications with the name Antwan and Jamal, even if they have the same qualifications?

Please, it's the same, tired old B.S. I hear every time. Don't worry, Kithus, your kids have a (historically) much higher chance of getting into college than black and latino children already, and that's before they've even applied.

[pabstblueribbon]

Treat us equal unless we want to be treated special but we'll only do so if it's a gain for us we don't want to be equal if that means actually being equal in all aspects including the bad things! But if we say we're going to focus on an aspect that makes us different it's ok but you can't do it because that's racist!

I was driving through downtown L.A. and saw a mural of a hispanic man, presumably Che, pointing his finger and bordered with the words, "We are NOT a minority."

Ironic.

[pabstblueribbon]

Really, you would consider the white man's place in society these days to be a "burden"? You really think that you have to be the best to get jobs over less qualified minority candidates? Even when studies show that job applications with the name Mike and John are (statistically) significantly more likely to get called in for interviews than applications with the name Antwan and Jamal, even if they have the same qualifications?

Please, it's the same, tired old B.S. I hear every time. Don't worry, Kithus, your kids have a (historically) much higher chance of getting into college than black and latino children already, and that's before they've even applied.

I'd like to see those statistics.

I would also like to see the statistics of how much money went out in grants and scholorships based on race/minority status vs. caucasian.

[Parkbandit]

If it's two or more, then my statement is 100% accurate. If it's one or more, we are obligated as human beings to try and stop it.

I don't believe in passing legislation for .00000088% of the US population in hopes that said legislation will help a fraction of that population out.

I also don't believe in grouping people into their special groups so they can feel special. Individuals who have historical significance should be recognized by that significance.. not because they are gay, have 3 arms, are albino, etc....

[TheEschaton]

So, PB, you think black history and women's history are invalid, useless topics to teach?

[Parkbandit]

So, PB, you think black history and women's history are invalid, useless topics to teach?

I think the concept of "Black History Month" is stupid... just like I think the concept of "White History Month" would be equally stupid.. or "Asian History Month" or "Hispanic History Month" or "Male History Month" or "Gay History Month"

[g++]

Well I did orient a guy with his masters in african american studies on how to do data entry earlier today so I guess its not entirely useless. You will eventually learn to type after 18 years of education.

[TheEschaton]

Black history month aside, do you think there is any value in teaching black history, in addition to (and not as a replacement for), a more broad history?

[Warriorbird]

Black history month aside, do you think there is any value in teaching black history, in addition to (and not as a replacement for), a more broad history?

I think the attempt to stamp out teaching about Roy Cohn (because he might be a negative image of a gay man) is just as insidious as Texas Republicans trying to stamp out teaching about Thomas Jefferson.

[Parkbandit]

Black history month aside, do you think there is any value in teaching black history, in addition to (and not as a replacement for), a more broad history?

Yes, there is value in teaching it... but I don't believe we should have a whole month dedicated to it. I also believe there is value in teaching about the American Indian history, immigrant history, Jewish history, etc...

[Back]

History of the World (part II)

Its good to be the king.

http://beyondmediaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/history-of-the-world-part-i.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Yes, there is value in teaching it... but I don't believe we should have a whole month dedicated to it. I also believe there is value in teaching about the American Indian history, immigrant history, Jewish history, etc...

...and gay history?

For posterity, I agree with WB that negative historical events shouldn't be excluded because of a persons race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

[crb]

I'm wondering if they added any on to the school year to accommodate this... or will kids just not learn about the lousiana purchase now? Drop Lewis and Clark? The Salom Witch Trials? (until Wiccans get their own law). Maybe cut fractions from math?

I wasn't aware our kids were so smart and doing so well that we can add in new, politically motivated, education requirements. This is going to be as big a joke as black history. Not that I got any problems with black people, or gay people, or even gay black people. But I think education should focus on important things, and in the topic of history those would be things that shaped the world. Sure, if there was a gay event or a black event that shaped the world, it should be included. Like say, the Civil War, or Segregation. (I can't actually think of any important gay events... the series premier of Glee?).

History classes are going to be so busy teaching the struggles of minorities kids are going to end up thinking Julius Caesar is just a fancy salad.

Here is an idea, take the time you were going to spend on gay history, and teach kids more math and science. We need more engineers.

[Stanley Burrell]

Reverse, reverse, ... reverse homo/heterophobia something.

Uh, if it can be specifically documented that; because of someone's sexual orientation, they faced obstacles when becoming history book-worthy, then by all means include such an example. But again, it should probably be a Dr. King Jr./Dr. Hawking/that's-all-I-can-think-of-right-now against all odds scenario.

I mean there's pressure on everybody. Except the Jews: We control Hollywood, teh moneyz and ur white womenz.

f

[Parkbandit]

...and gay history?


Does that mean that if someone is gay and black, they should be twice as special as everyone else?

I can agree with teaching black history.. given it's significance in shaping this country's core history.. but I don't believe we have to dedicate an entire subject to historical people who are gay... anymore than I think we should dedicate an entire subject to historical people who happen to be disabled.. or Jewish.. or Asian.. or Hispanic... or Canadian... or who are over 7' tall... etc...

Let people's achievements stand on their own merits.

[Stanley Burrell]

Death to all 7' tall Jewish Asian Hispanics from Canada.

[Parkbandit]

Death to all 7' tall Jewish Asian Hispanics from Canada.

That's a hate crime. They are a protected class.

[TheEschaton]

Does that mean that if someone is gay and black, they should be twice as special as everyone else?

I can agree with teaching black history.. given it's significance in shaping this country's core history.. but I don't believe we have to dedicate an entire subject to historical people who are gay... anymore than I think we should dedicate an entire subject to historical people who happen to be disabled.. or Jewish.. or Asian.. or Hispanic... or Canadian... or who are over 7' tall... etc...

Let people's achievements stand on their own merits.

I'm confused, does this legislation require a gay history course for you to say "we have to dedicate an entire subject to historical people who are gay"?

Or, are you as usual, conflating actuality with your hysteria-induced mouth-frothing, skewed perception of things?

To address you and crb in one sentence, which is all you retards deserve: important historical gay people can have one chapter in a semester (or even year) long history course, and you can still manage to "squeeze in" Caesar and the Revolution and the Civil Wars and segregation.

-TheE-
P.S. gays have more relevance to our modern society than Caesar does. Same with, for example, the Crusades, Neanderthal cave drawings, and so on, and so forth. Assuming we can't teach kids the history of everything, who draws the line on what is relevant to their understanding of history? Especially if it's limited to American history?

[Parkbandit]

I'm confused

Wow, shocking. really


does this legislation require a gay history course for you to say "we have to dedicate an entire subject to historical people who are gay"?

Who said it was an entire subject? I can merely go by what is printed in the newspaper.. which was "California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay and lesbian people" No one has made the retarded leap that an entire semester had to be dedicated to it.. except for you in this post.


Or, are you as usual, conflating actuality with your hysteria-induced mouth-frothing, skewed perception of things?

You mean.. like you did in the previous sentence?



To address you and crb in one sentence, which is all you retards deserve: important historical gay people can have one chapter in a semester (or even year) long history course, and you can still manage to "squeeze in" Caesar and the Revolution and the Civil Wars and segregation.

So.. how many days/weeks/months do you believe should be dedicated to gay history?



-TheE-
P.S. gays have more relevance to our modern society than Caesar does. Same with, for example, the Crusades, Neanderthal cave drawings, and so on, and so forth. Assuming we can't teach kids the history of everything, who draws the line on what is relevant to their understanding of history? Especially if it's limited to American history?

This is strictly your opinion.. and as most of your political opinions go.. is not based in reality.

[Kithus]

Really, you would consider the white man's place in society these days to be a "burden"? You really think that you have to be the best to get jobs over less qualified minority candidates? Even when studies show that job applications with the name Mike and John are (statistically) significantly more likely to get called in for interviews than applications with the name Antwan and Jamal, even if they have the same qualifications?

Please, it's the same, tired old B.S. I hear every time. Don't worry, Kithus, your kids have a (historically) much higher chance of getting into college than black and latino children already, and that's before they've even applied.

Statistics can be made to say whatever the person working with them wants. In your example I would argue that Mike and John are more common names and of course they get called in more. Without seeing the specific study I refuse to draw conclusions based off quote "statistics" that do not have qualifying information laid out clearly.

In a case that a large college has 1 spot left and they're choosing between my son and Jamal and they are 100% equal in every way that college will automatically choose Jamal. Hell even if Jamal had slightly worse scores they will choose him because he helps meet a quota. Affirmitive action is racist, it's just racist against a group that has no protection.

My children will go to a good college because in my household anything below a B is considered an F and restrictions are placed appropriately to make sure they get back on track. The fact that a larger percentage of white males go to college has everything to do with a larger percentage of them being guided in that direction by their families. This is once again a case of statistics that are being used to obfuscate.

That all said, to be completely honest, my eldest will likely be going to trade school in a few years. He just works better hands on and I don't think college will be a good fit for him.

[Tgo01]

In a case that a large college has 1 spot left and they're choosing between my son and Jamal and they are 100% equal in every way that college will automatically choose Jamal.

What are the alternatives though?

[Gan]

Long live Pastafarianism!

[Warriorbird]

What are the alternatives though?

They choose the Indian kid instead.

[Tgo01]

They choose the Indian kid instead.

I'll admit I laughed.

[TheEschaton]

Statistics can be made to say whatever the person working with them wants. In your example I would argue that Mike and John are more common names and of course they get called in more. Without seeing the specific study I refuse to draw conclusions based off quote "statistics" that do not have qualifying information laid out clearly.

In a case that a large college has 1 spot left and they're choosing between my son and Jamal and they are 100% equal in every way that college will automatically choose Jamal. Hell even if Jamal had slightly worse scores they will choose him because he helps meet a quota. Affirmitive action is racist, it's just racist against a group that has no protection.

My children will go to a good college because in my household anything below a B is considered an F and restrictions are placed appropriately to make sure they get back on track. The fact that a larger percentage of white males go to college has everything to do with a larger percentage of them being guided in that direction by their families. This is once again a case of statistics that are being used to obfuscate.

That all said, to be completely honest, my eldest will likely be going to trade school in a few years. He just works better hands on and I don't think college will be a good fit for him.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873#navDiv=4

The paper is called "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal"? Conclusions: yes. It was a pretty well known study done by people at the University of Chicago, and MIT. It sometimes is really tiring having to continually wave facts at people who have their heads in the sands screaming lalalalalala.

Also, your condition doesn't exist in the real world. Both your son and Jamal would be offered a spot, if they were qualified. As an example, when I went to college, my freshman year there was massive overcrowding, we were housed in triples in rooms meant for two people. I later found out that's because they offer X number of spots but only expect Y number to accept. In my year, Y + 500 accepted, so they had to figure out how to fit them all in, but believe me, they did.


-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Who said it was an entire subject? I can merely go by what is printed in the newspaper.. which was "California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay and lesbian people" No one has made the retarded leap that an entire semester had to be dedicated to it.. except for you in this post.



I literally quoted you, you dumb fuck, where you said "I don't believe an entire subject" should be devoted to gay history, as if ANYONE, ANYWHERE, including in the legislation, suggested it should be an entire subject.

As to my "opinion" as to what's relevant in history, isn't that what the subject of history is? A perspective of actual events? Why do we emphasize any historical event over another in history? Because it's more important? Who determines what's important?

For example, when you study the Cold War in the U.S., you hear a great deal about Cuba, and the arms race, and Space Wars, and Reagan. In Europe, you hear much more about Lech Walesa and Polish Solidarity, the Bader-Meinhof gang, and Mikhail Gorbechav.......all these things happened and are relevant to the Cold War, but who determines which makes it into our kids' history books? If it's subject to opinion, and California's opinion is that gay Americans have shaped their history, what's the problem? Oh yeah, it'll push out the important stuff (lol).

-TheE-

[Back]

While I agree that "human" history should not discriminate into specifics I don't think this legeslation means teaching a class about gayness. In fact, if I read the original post correctly it means not leaving people out of the history books if they were/are gay.

[Some Rogue]

While I agree that "human" history should not discriminate into specifics I don't think this legeslation means teaching a class about gayness. In fact, if I read the original post correctly it means not leaving people out of the history books if they were/are gay.

Like they are now? If they were significant enough, they're already in there. If not, they're not. I don't recall ever being instructed on the sexuality of anyone in history...why should that start now?

[Back]

I agree and think this legislation is more about protecting that then some dubious plan to expose children to what homosexuals do in the bedroom.


Like they are now? If they were significant enough, they're already in there. If not, they're not. I don't recall ever being instructed on the sexuality of anyone in history...why should that start now?

[Warriorbird]

The legislation is about pandering to constituents, like many pieces of it. Unfortunately it'll probably be used for shenanigans, like this sort of legislation usually is.

[pabstblueribbon]

They choose the Indian kid instead.

Dot-dot or woo-woo?


(I probably qualify for native american somethings or other, just never bothered)

[Tsa`ah]

I don't agree that this is the right way to combat [bhomophobia[/b]. As WB pointed out, kids are wise to "let's include this person to make this minority group look good!"

Teach the history. If a person's sexuality is germane to the lesson, mention it. If not, don't.

This is just not the right way to combat prejudice.

Considering the move on this board against rampant PC ... let's call homophobia what it is. Bigotry.

Homophobia is a term used to candy coat bigotry. This isn't an irrational fear of gays ... it is irrational hate. It is not a mental disorder ... let's not paint it as such.

[Tsa`ah]

In a case that a large college has 1 spot left and they're choosing between my son and Jamal and they are 100% equal in every way that college will automatically choose Jamal. Hell even if Jamal had slightly worse scores they will choose him because he helps meet a quota. Affirmitive action is racist, it's just racist against a group that has no protection.

A few things are wrong with this statement.

1. If it is just the last spot being given to a minority by default ... then you're crying about a barely recognizable percentage of racial discrimination.

2. If your premise is that minorities are given preferential treatment ... then wouldn't every single collegiate student body have a structure where whites are the minority?

3. You suggest that white people have no protection ... when in fact they have every protection afforded to minorities. The color of your skin (race) is protected.

[Warriorbird]

Dot-dot or woo-woo?


(I probably qualify for native american somethings or other, just never bothered)

The one named Alok. If you want to feel real bad you can look at native college rates.

[Latrinsorm]

Statistics can be made to say whatever the person working with them wants.Please cite figures that say applicants named Antwan and Jamal are (statistically) significantly more likely to get called in for interviews than applicants named Mike and John.

[Kithus]

Please cite figures that say applicants named Antwan and Jamal are (statistically) significantly more likely to get called in for interviews than applicants named Mike and John.

Please cite a recent study showing the opposite. My argument is against special treatment for minorities because it is all a form of discrimination. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way because a recent study shows a majority of white americans feeling increasingly discriminated against:

Harvard/Tuffs Study (http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/whites-believe-they-are-victims-racism-more-o)

CNN Story on Whites Behaving More like Civil Rights Era Blacks (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html)

And there is no denying there is sanctioned discrimination against whites in college admissions:

Are White Males Getting Shortchanged? (http://www.mynextcollege.com/college-life/discrimination-against-whites-in-college-admissions/)

Or in the workplace:

New Haven Firefighters (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/22/Court-weighs-discrimination-against-whites/UPI-59021240424977/)

Women Making More than Men (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html)

Why Men Earn More (http://mensightmagazine.com/articles/farrell/menearnmore.htm)

If my son comes home with a "Black History" "Womens History" or "Gay History" assignment you better believe I'm going to file a complaint with the school. Unless of course he's also got a "White History" or "Mens History" assignment.

[Tgo01]

Unless of course he's also got a "White History" or "Mens History" assignment.

Just about any assignment he gets from history class will be about a white man.

[TheEschaton]

White people "feeling" like they're being more discriminated against doesn't mean they actually are. I actually cited a study, you cited a poll about people's feelings.

[Kithus]

White people "feeling" like they're being more discriminated against doesn't mean they actually are. I actually cited a study, you cited a poll about people's feelings.

You cited a study from 2003.

[TheEschaton]

Also, as an aside, after reading your other articles, I have to LOL at their attempts at "showing" facts which are really just erroneous, illogical, or irrelevant conclusions.

For example, in your article about college admissions, takes the statements that "white privilege" is knowing the Dean, golfing with the Board, or being a legacy, and that this is not the majority of whites, that the majority of people below the poverty line are white, and that this number is more than blacks and hispanics combined, and thus they're being discriminated against. While the facts in this case may be correct (that whites are the majority of people below the poverty line, that they outnumber blacks/hispanics combined), these facts are irrelevant because "white privilege" has been misdefined to a narrow, very misleading definition in order to make it seem absurd. White privilege is, like the study I cited earlier, having the name Mike and automatically being thought of as "higher quality" than someone named Jamal. That most positions of authority (including the Dean, the board of Admissions, and alumni boards) are white, and that there are psychosocial positive connotations with white applicants whom they don't know, and negative connotations with black applicants whom they don't know. Then, exclude the statistics which show that a higher percentage of blacks and Latinos live below the poverty line, and suddenly it seems all rather one sided, doesn't it?

And that's just one comment in one absurd article on one absurd website. An article which, by the way, I couldn't find the author of, nor an "About us" page re: the website, with the only cites being national collations of race and poverty data which have no conclusions of their own.

[TheEschaton]

You cited nothing, and I cited a study from 2003 because it's pretty well known. Research doesn't go bad in 8 years, especially in the sociology field.

[~Rocktar~]

You cited nothing, and I cited a study from 2003 because it's pretty well known. Research doesn't go bad in 8 years, especially in the sociology field.

No, it doesn't go bad in 8 years, most sociology research is bad right from the start. Socially charged study questions along with socially engineered metrics designed to support an assertion do not make for good research. While I do not deny that racism exists, unlike you, I assert that it exists in all "races" and has in general mutated and been directed into class-ism by those profiteering on the continuance of racism and those are primarily black/racial civil rights "leaders" and the primarily liberal news media.

[TheEschaton]

Also, right from your OMG WOMEN MAKE MORE MONEY THAN MEN article:


Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.


Men have no such barrier to being married or having kids, or when the move to small towns. Their pay doesn't go down even if they take less hours to be at home more.

The only interesting article you posted was the New Haven firefighter's case, where, in a 5-4 decision made along idealogical lines, SCOTUS threw out years of precedent and ruled in favor of the firefighters, in spite of the fact that New Haven argued it threw out the test results because the test itself was flawed.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

No, it doesn't go bad in 8 years, most sociology research is bad right from the start. Socially charged study questions along with socially engineered metrics designed to support an assertion do not make for good research. While I do not deny that racism exists, unlike you, I assert that it exists in all "races" and has in general mutated and been directed into class-ism by those profiteering on the continuance of racism and those are primarily black/racial civil rights "leaders" and the primarily liberal news media.

So, what exactly are your objections to the methodology used in the cited study? It asked no questions, it submitted blind resumes to actual employers advertising in newspapers.

Oh yeah, I forgot, nothing you say is based in reality. Because nowhere did I say black people and hispanic people can't be racist.

[Kithus]

Study Showing Whites/Asians Unfairly Biased Against by High End Schools (http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf)

While the difference for white applicants was only a .5% increase in the case of race blind applications, the increase is 1/3 for Asians. All these increases come with a similar decrease for black and hispanic applicants who gained their admittance on the basis of race.

As for the article on women making more, and your choice to ignore the additional article "Why Men Earn More" on the same subject, you ignore the fact that women earn more when they are putting their career first.


Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).

Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.

Only when Dr. Farrell’s research journey uncovered these 25 differences, did the “holy grail” become visible: women now earn more money for the same work—that is, women earn more when they work equal hours at the same job with the same size of responsibility for the same length of time with equal productivity, etc. The women’s movement can celebrate its greatest single triumph—exceeding its goal of equal pay for equal work. A triumph that frees women to enter the next level of progress...


Men have no such barrier to being married or having kids, or when the move to small towns. Their pay doesn't go down even if they take less hours to be at home more.

That's because traditional gender roles leave men more likely to continue to put career first after being married or having kids. Their pay doesn't go down because they don't take less hours to be at home more. At no point have either of us linked anything proving mens pay does not go down if they work less hours. Women, on the other hand, will typically focus more on family and home after marriage and kids. If I'm focused more on my career and a woman with equal education and experience is focused more on her family, works less hours and takes more time off then in what world is it right that she make the same wage that I do?

[Tgo01]

The only interesting article you posted was the New Haven firefighter's case, where, in a 5-4 decision made along idealogical lines, SCOTUS threw out years of precedent and ruled in favor of the firefighters, in spite of the fact that New Haven argued it threw out the test results because the test itself was flawed.


The 2003 exam was designed to select 15 candidates for captain and lieutenant. When no blacks and only one Hispanic scored a passing grade, the city decided not to use the results for promotions, saying it did not want exposure to suits from blacks and Hispanics.

Did you read a different article where the city suddenly went from "we were afraid of lawsuits" to "naww the test was flawed all along, we just didn't realize it until after we got the results back LOL"?

[Warriorbird]

Also, as an aside, after reading your other articles, I have to LOL at their attempts at "showing" facts which are really just erroneous, illogical, or irrelevant conclusions.

For example, in your article about college admissions, takes the statements that "white privilege" is knowing the Dean, golfing with the Board, or being a legacy, and that this is not the majority of whites, that the majority of people below the poverty line are white, and that this number is more than blacks and hispanics combined, and thus they're being discriminated against. While the facts in this case may be correct (that whites are the majority of people below the poverty line, that they outnumber blacks/hispanics combined), these facts are irrelevant because "white privilege" has been misdefined to a narrow, very misleading definition in order to make it seem absurd. White privilege is, like the study I cited earlier, having the name Mike and automatically being thought of as "higher quality" than someone named Jamal. That most positions of authority (including the Dean, the board of Admissions, and alumni boards) are white, and that there are psychosocial positive connotations with white applicants whom they don't know, and negative connotations with black applicants whom they don't know. Then, exclude the statistics which show that a higher percentage of blacks and Latinos live below the poverty line, and suddenly it seems all rather one sided, doesn't it?

And that's just one comment in one absurd article on one absurd website. An article which, by the way, I couldn't find the author of, nor an "About us" page re: the website, with the only cites being national collations of race and poverty data which have no conclusions of their own.

It's relatively easy to say that as a member of privileged minority. See what I just did there?


If my son comes home with a "Black History" "Womens History" or "Gay History" assignment you better believe I'm going to file a complaint with the school. Unless of course he's also got a "White History" or "Mens History" assignment.

With that said, I think assignments (though not classes) regarding all those minority figures are just fine, Kithus

To the both of you, personally, I'm against this, because making those assignments mandatory and squelching any negative mention of members of minority groups whitewashes history just as badly as what is railed against.

Hopefully this will remain just a bit of constituent pandering.

[Tgo01]

To the both of you, personally, I'm against this, because making those assignments mandatory and squelching any negative mention of members of minority groups whitewashes history just as badly as what is railed against.


It would prohibit teaching from textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on people because of their sexual orientation.

Maybe I'm just interpreting this differently than others but I read that as they will not allow textbooks/instructional material to talk about someone negatively just because of their sexual orientation, rather than they will never talk about the bad things homosexuals have done. Y'know, basically what's already not allowed but now it's officially a law.

[Warriorbird]

Maybe I'm just interpreting this differently than others but I read that as they will not allow textbooks/instructional material to talk about someone negatively just because of their sexual orientation, rather than they will never talk about the bad things homosexuals have done. Y'know, basically what's already not allowed but now it's officially a law.

The interpretation thereof of this is the potential thing that raises this above "Let me do a meaningless bill for my gay constituents!"

[Back]

Totally agree. I interpret it the same way. Like 500 posts ago.


Maybe I'm just interpreting this differently than others but I read that as they will not allow textbooks/instructional material to talk about someone negatively just because of their sexual orientation, rather than they will never talk about the bad things homosexuals have done. Y'know, basically what's already not allowed but now it's officially a law.

[Parkbandit]

Totally agree. I interpret it the same way. Like 500 posts ago.

Dear Tgo01: This may force you to rethink your interpretation of the legislation.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Please cite figures that say applicants named Antwan and Jamal are (statistically) significantly more likely to get called in for interviews than applicants named Mike and John.

It's not a study, but I'd take Michael Jordan over Jamal Crawford any day. I therefor conclude that men named Mike are benefiting from discrimination.

[Kuyuk]

I'd be interested to see a curriculum for this.

[DeV]

Black history month aside, do you think there is any value in teaching black history, in addition to (and not as a replacement for), a more broad history?There is immeasurable value in teaching black history to not only black students, but to students of all races. Most black youth don't know, can't understand, and don't relate to their history. Their ancestry in America is so ugly that they'd rather distance themselves from it altogether than dig deeper and truly discover their past. Most black youth have no connection to anything greater than themselves, and subsequently grow up without a firm understanding of who they are and where they come from. What do you do with that?

Generational poverty and despair are the result. I utterly disagree with there being a Black History Month. The older I've gotten the more blatant an insult that particular month has become. Removing it would be a wonderful step toward progression.

Every racial history is far too vast, complex, and downright awesome to fit into one funky ass month. It's absolutely asinine that it was accepted once upon a time, but I'm almost certain the reasons for doing so seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, schools teach the bare minimum as it relates to practically all history and then it's up to parents and guardians to fill in the blanks, but all too often they're either too tired from working, lazy, or uninterested to do their part.

I'd much rather have my kid taught about the multitude of varrying religions that spawn the globe than be taught about gay history, which is still in its infancy and should not be considered a culture anyway because every gay person comes from an already solidly existing one. It's people's actions that make history, not their sexuality, race, religion or creed.

Gays are used as pawns in anyone's game (gay, straight, bisexual, or just plain confused) and it often seems as though the gay label is prostitued out to the highest attention whoring bidder for whatever reason deemed necessary in an attempt to spark debate, backlash, controversy, agreement and the ultimate: distraction, and the shit is seriously getting old.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I know absolutely nothing about my ancestry, the history of my family or how we arrived in America, and somehow I avoided poverty and despair. I disagree with you that not knowing your history (racial or not) isn't causation for those things.

I do agree with you on what is taught though. Very frankly there is not enough time in schools to cover the wealth of just the United State's history, much less world history. I suppose at the end of the day teachers will have to pick and choose what topics to cover, and I don't think gay, or black, or white, or any other color, is the correct lens with which to view it. Historical events should drive what's covered IMO, which would then give equal opportunity for history lessons amongst an already impossible to teach topic (in a comprehensive way I mean).

It's not an easy thing to decide what should be taught, and what not taught - but at least don't introduce requirements that will only make that decision making more difficult.

[Parkbandit]

There is immeasurable value in teaching black history to not only black students, but to students of all races. Most black youth don't know, can't understand, and don't relate to their history. Their ancestry in America is so ugly that they'd rather distance themselves from it altogether than dig deeper and truly discover their past. Most black youth have no connection to anything greater than themselves, and subsequently grow up without a firm understanding of who they are and where they come from. What do you do with that?

Generational poverty and despair are the result.

Do you have a cite for such a study? I've never heard of such a direct correlation of one's current wealth / mental health and their intimate knowledge of their family tree.

[Eoghain]

If everyone leaving high school had basic math skills they would be too busy working to commit hate crimes but I wish good luck to California with the new curriculum I’m sure in the new global economy knowing who was fucking who while they invented what will be extremely valuable information.

I have a problem with this, but I'm not quite sure where. A few very vocal straight people seem to harp on the actual sex act among homosexuals, all the while saying that being gay is a choice. Therefore, if you do not fuck same-gendered people, you are not gay. I, however, while not busy banging my boyfriend, am still pretty damned gay when i'm not having sex. I was pretty damned gay the two times I went down on women. I just thought it would be fun to do anyway, cause I was drunk. (I was right.)

Does identifying someone as gay identify who they're fucking any more than identifying someone as heterosexual? Since we don't bother to identify people as heterosexual, because it's the norm and thus a presumption, does that mean that's it's also somewhat inappropriate to identify someone as black or female when writing about them in history? Does that point out too much about them (like who they were fucking?)

[Eoghain]

I was driving through downtown L.A. and saw a mural of a hispanic man, presumably Che, pointing his finger and bordered with the words, "We are NOT a minority."

Ironic.

In L.A., they're not! :D

[Tgo01]

Dear Tgo01: This may force you to rethink your interpretation of the legislation.

Exactly what I was thinking.

sigh

[Eoghain]

I'm wondering if they added any on to the school year to accommodate this... or will kids just not learn about the lousiana purchase now? Drop Lewis and Clark? The Salom Witch Trials? (until Wiccans get their own law). Maybe cut fractions from math?

None of the victims of the Salem Witch trials were witches, nor were they Wiccan, but I see what you did there and I like it :) PS Your 'Salom' typo instantly added skies to the image of witches in my head and made this extra awesome.

[Eoghain]

Just about any assignment he gets from history class will be about a white man.

hahahahaha. THIS!

[Latrinsorm]

Please cite a recent study showing the opposite.It is your claim that "statistics can be made to say whatever the person working with them wants". I am asking you to back up this claim in a specific case. That you are unable to do so is evidence that your claim was incorrect, which is no big deal. It just means you should evaluate a study on its own merits rather than disregarding it out of hand because "statistics can be made to say whatever".
If my son comes home with a "Black History" "Womens History" or "Gay History" assignment you better believe I'm going to file a complaint with the school.Congratulations, you'll be hideously embarrassing to your child. (More so than parents usually are, I mean.)

[Danical]

Do you have a cite for such a study? I've never heard of such a direct correlation of one's current wealth / mental health and their intimate knowledge of their family tree.

I don't have the time to dig through it, but here's the wiki for the documentary that has many experts and studies presented about health and race/class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_Causes:_Is_Inequality_Making_Us_Sick%3F

[DeV]

Do you have a cite for such a study? I've never heard of such a direct correlation of one's current wealth / mental health and their intimate knowledge of their family tree.I never made mention to any study, because it's something I witnessed my entire childhood so no, and I won't search for one just to prove myself right either. My experiences within the black community embodies.

What you refer to as a family tree, I refer to as something far greater which is an all encompassing cultural ancestral history. Where do you come from as opposed to who do you come from.

I don't have to tell you that Black history in America begins with slavery and that most Black Americans are the descendants of slaves, myself included. I don't have to tell you that black families of slaves were routinely split up and sold off during slavery. What resulted was a disastrous impact on Black families that were rarely kept together resulting in massive erasures of family names and history that still impacts today.

In any case, economic, educational and social disadvantages affect at least a quarter of Black Americans today and you can blame things like crime, poverty and drug abuse, but the primary point I alluded to would still stand.

A lack of history, education and knowledge is a serious obstacle to success. I bet you don't need a study to prove that. You can't have one (success) without at least 2 of the remaining 3 representing to varrying degrees.

[Danical]

I would also point to this Jeff Duncan-Andrade as a good source for race/class problems in Education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1gwmkgFss

[Parkbandit]

I never made mention to any study, because it's something I witnessed my entire childhood so no, and I won't search for one just to prove myself right either. My experiences within the black community embodies.

What you refer to as a family tree, I refer to as something far greater which is an all encompassing cultural ancestral history. Where do you come from as opposed to who do you come from.

I don't have to tell you that Black history in America begins with slavery and that most Black Americans are the descendants of slaves, myself included. I don't have to tell you that black families of slaves were routinely split up and sold off during slavery. What resulted was a disastrous impact on Black families that were rarely kept together resulting in massive erasures of family names and history that still impacts today.

In any case, economic, educational and social disadvantages affect at least a quarter of Black Americans today and you can blame things like crime, poverty and drug abuse, but the primary point I alluded to would still stand.

A lack of history, education and knowledge is a serious obstacle to success. I bet you don't need a study to prove that. You can't have one (success) without at least 2 of the remaining 3 representing to varrying degrees.

Well... anecdotal evidence proves it then. If you want to be a success, you simply have to know your race's history.

Good to know... I plan on reading up on the Irish, English and German race history today.. instead of actually doing work.

[Cephalopod]

I'm mostly of German ancestry. German history from the 30s and 40s especially taught me everything I need to know about living life to the fullest.

[Eoghain]

Well... anecdotal evidence proves it then. If you want to be a success, you simply have to know your race's history.

Good to know... I plan on reading up on the Irish, English and German race history today.. instead of actually doing work.

Don't bother with the Irish. Most of us in the US are firm democrats, so we want nothing to do with you or your retarded online bigotry.

[Eoghain]

I'm mostly of German ancestry. German history from the 30s and 40s especially taught me everything I need to know about living life to the fullest.

I read some shit once that said that like 80% of the crackers in this country are of German decent. You guys totally won the race to colonize the United States. Tell Britain you won the real war.

[DeV]

I know absolutely nothing about my ancestry, the history of my family or how we arrived in America, and somehow I avoided poverty and despair. I disagree with you that not knowing your history (racial or not) isn't causation for those things.You do realize that I'm largely generalizing here for the pupose of making a much broader point? That being, even if I'm not referring to myself or my own family situation, I cannot with a clear conscience disregard what I see on a disporportionate level every single day. What I posted about is something I have criticized in the past but never made any deep seated effort to understand why it's happening beyond the usual stereotypical subjects.

Why is it that you know absolutely nothing about your ancestry and family history? Is it due to the information not being available to you or is it that you simply don't care to know? I'm genuinly curious.

Not knowing your cultural history because you don't know your geneology is certainly causation for the things I mentioned and more especially over a massive period of time culminating centuries of existence.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Institutionalized poverty absolutely correlates with an institutionalized lack of a family support structure, no history to look back on beyond slavery, so the place with which some of these kids draw their sense of self from is the wrong kind of role model. Add to that a glaring lack of educational and social resources in ones own community and you've served up a platter of "I don't give a fuck" mentality. And history continues to repeat itself because that's what happens when you don't learn it the first time around.




It's not an easy thing to decide what should be taught, and what not taught - but at least don't introduce requirements that will only make that decision making more difficult.To add, parents have to do better by not relying solely on public or private schooling to provide a higher level of historical education.

Not only is it not an easy thing to decide on, cirriculum that is, but it's impossible to teach every important thing in history that should be required reading but is not due to policy, politics, teaching constraints and so on.

[Parkbandit]

Don't bother with the Irish. Most of us in the US are firm democrats, so we want nothing to do with you or your retarded online bigotry.

Could you point to a post where I displayed my "bigotry"?

You clearly don't understand the term "obsessed".. so maybe you should add "bigotry" to your list of things to do.

[Eoghain]

Could you point to a post where I displayed my "bigotry"?

You clearly don't understand the term "obsessed".. so maybe you should add "bigotry" to your list of things to do.

From the VERY FACTUAL INTERNETZ: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME YOU BIGOT.

[DeV]

Well... anecdotal evidence proves it then. Sorry, I don't have anything to prove to you. My anecdotal evidence is surely not unique, but I do appreciate you showing interest.


If you want to be a success, you simply have to know your race's history.
If you want to be successful, surround yourself with successful people.

[Eoghain]

Sorry, I don't have anything to prove to you. My anecdotal evidence is surely not unique, but I do appreciate you showing interest.

If you want to be successful, surround yourself with successful people.

That is SO fucking true it's insane.

[Parkbandit]

STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME YOU BIGOT.

Yea... I think you boiled your stupidity down to it's essence with that sentence.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, I don't have anything to prove to you. My anecdotal evidence is surely not unique, but I do appreciate you showing interest.

If you want to be successful, surround yourself with successful people.

So.. now it's not knowing the history of your race that makes you successful.. it's by the people you associate with?

[DeV]

So.. now it's not knowing the history of your race that makes you successful.. it's by the people you associate with?I'm sorry but your reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.

[Parkbandit]

Most black youth have no connection to anything greater than themselves, and subsequently grow up without a firm understanding of who they are and where they come from. What do you do with that?

Generational poverty and despair are the result.



If you want to be successful, surround yourself with successful people.


I'm sorry but your reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.

It's your premises that might be the issue. There is no direct correlation to one's success and their intimate knowledge of their race's history. Nor is there any evidence that you will be a success if you surround yourself by people who are successful.

I don't comprehend it because there is no basis for your argument.. except maybe a bumper sticker you once read somewhere.

[AnticorRifling]

DeV is clearly an angry straight white man.

[DeV]

I don't comprehend it because there is no basis for your argument.. except maybe a bumper sticker you once read somewhere.Then so fucking be it, :rofl:.
We're done.

[DeV]

DeV is clearly an angry straight white man.Dude... you have no idea.

[Tsa`ah]

Gender reassignment and skin bleaching Dev?

[Drisco]

I for one am glad that activists like Harvey Milk, Marry Griffith and Barbra Gittings are going to get some recognition in schools.

I also hope that victims like Matthew Shephard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard), Gwen Araujo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo) and Lawrence King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.O._Green_School_shooting) get some attention. Hopefully people can learn from their deaths.

I think a lot of people don't recognize the LGBT rights movement therefor people don't recognize the activists involved. There are tons of people who fight for lgbt rights but none of you know who they are because it doesn't affect you as much as the African American civil rights movement did.

I would just like to see some recognition go out to LGBT activist in the history books even if it's less than a chapter. They deserve it.

[Dayko]

http://notalwaysright.com/a-gay-a-day-keeps-the-terror-away/12579

Enjoy.

k, bai

[diethx]

Gwen Araujo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo)

After following your link and reading the article, I have to say what a crappy example of a LGBT pioneer. The other two were tragedies, this one is not nearly on par.


She claimed to be menstruating and during sex would push her partners' hands away from her genitalia to prevent them from discovering that she had male sex organs.

Fucking seriously? She completely and purposefully deceived these men in regards to her gender, and I think maliciously. While I don't think this act warranted her murder, I can't say how I would have reacted if I were in the guys' positions. What she did is seriously not okay and I feel it completely undermines transgender people and the struggles they do face.

Be whoever you think and feel you are, more power to you. But don't deceive straight men into fucking you by lying about your gender and doing everything you can to make them believe you're a woman when you don't have those parts and you KNOW they wouldn't want to fuck you if they knew you had a penis. That's playing with some serious fire.

[~Rocktar~]

You know that Matthew Shephard was killed because it was a drug deal/robbery gone wrong and the majority of the gay issue didn't play into it, right?

[diethx]

http://rlv.zcache.com/weapons_of_mass_lactation_tshirt-p23593649131796107847f3_400.jpg

[TheEschaton]

You know that Matthew Shephard was killed because it was a drug deal/robbery gone wrong and the majority of the gay issue didn't play into it, right?

You realize that Matthew Shephard wasn't on meth, but that the dealers were initially robbing him so THEY could buy meth? Shephard was only drunk at the time, which is why he asked for a ride home.

[~Rocktar~]

You realize that Matthew Shephard wasn't on meth, but that the dealers were initially robbing him so THEY could buy meth? Shephard was only drunk at the time, which is why he asked for a ride home.

Yes, he was also known to buy and sell drugs in small quantities which is what made him the target in the first place having been known for both of what the attackers were looking for. I lived out there at the time, a whole lot of what you see online and in the mass media was either washed down or simply ignores the facts that it had almost nothing to do with being gay, it had everything to do with being at the wrong place at the wrong time and beat to shit and left to die for money and drugs.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, you would have thought that would come out in the defense against hate crime felony murder.

[Parkbandit]

You realize that Matthew Shephard wasn't on meth, but that the dealers were initially robbing him so THEY could buy meth? Shephard was only drunk at the time, which is why he asked for a ride home.

This could have happened to any otherwise ordinary, well-adjusted person. It was an impulse. Good people do terrible things sometimes... because people are not rational beings.

This had nothing to do with Matthew being gay and everything about teenagers being teenagers.

[Warriorbird]

This could have happened to any otherwise ordinary, well-adjusted person. It was an impulse. Good people do terrible things sometimes... because people are not rational beings.

This had nothing to do with Matthew being gay and everything about teenagers being teenagers.

The guy actually plead the "gay panic" defense.


During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price, girlfriends of McKinney and Henderson, testified that Henderson and McKinney had both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man.

McKinney and Henderson went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard after he arrived. McKinney alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home. After befriending him, they took him to a remote area outside of Laramie where they robbed him, assaulted him severely, and tied him to a fence with a rope from McKinney's truck while Shepard pleaded for his life. Media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his fractured skull. It was reported that Shepard was beaten so brutally that his face was completely covered in blood, except where it had been partially washed clean by his tears.

The Fireside Lounge was also a gay bar.

Troll on.

[Parkbandit]

The guy actually plead the "gay panic" defense.

The Fireside Lounge was also a gay bar.

Troll on.

Woooosh.

[AnticorRifling]

The guy actually plead the "gay panic" defense.



The Fireside Lounge was also a gay bar.

Troll on.

You realize he was poking fun at Latrin's argument in the hammer beating thread right?

[Parkbandit]

You realize he was poking fun at Latrin's argument in the hammer beating thread right?

Why do you feel the need to constantly ruin my fun?

A-hole.

[Warriorbird]

You realize he was poking fun at Latrin's argument in the hammer beating thread right?

Sadly I don't read every thread.

Will read now.

Edit:

Wow. That's especially retarded coming from somebody (Latrin) who's had too many damn Sociology classes.

[Drisco]

After following your link and reading the article, I have to say what a crappy example of a LGBT pioneer. The other two were tragedies, this one is not nearly on par.



Fucking seriously? She completely and purposefully deceived these men in regards to her gender, and I think maliciously. While I don't think this act warranted her murder, I can't say how I would have reacted if I were in the guys' positions. What she did is seriously not okay and I feel it completely undermines transgender people and the struggles they do face.

Be whoever you think and feel you are, more power to you. But don't deceive straight men into fucking you by lying about your gender and doing everything you can to make them believe you're a woman when you don't have those parts and you KNOW they wouldn't want to fuck you if they knew you had a penis. That's playing with some serious fire.


Agreed, I probably should have used Brandon Teena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Teena) as a better example.

If you do ever get the chance the movie Prayers for Bobby (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073510/) is a great movie that I think any religious radical should watch.

[Drisco]

After following your link and reading the article, I have to say what a crappy example of a LGBT pioneer. The other two were tragedies, this one is not nearly on par.



Fucking seriously? She completely and purposefully deceived these men in regards to her gender, and I think maliciously. While I don't think this act warranted her murder, I can't say how I would have reacted if I were in the guys' positions. What she did is seriously not okay and I feel it completely undermines transgender people and the struggles they do face.

Be whoever you think and feel you are, more power to you. But don't deceive straight men into fucking you by lying about your gender and doing everything you can to make them believe you're a woman when you don't have those parts and you KNOW they wouldn't want to fuck you if they knew you had a penis. That's playing with some serious fire.


Agreed, I probably should have used Brandon Teena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Teena) as a better example.

If you ever get the chance the movie Prayers for Bobby (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073510/) is a great movie that I think any religious radical should watch.

[~Rocktar~]

You realize he was poking fun at Latrin's argument in the hammer beating thread right?

Ok, link it, this I have got to see.

[Latrinsorm]

This could have happened to any otherwise ordinary, well-adjusted person. It was an impulse. Good people do terrible things sometimes... because people are not rational beings.

This had nothing to do with Matthew being gay and everything about teenagers being teenagers.Premeditation is the opposite of impulse. :)

[Parkbandit]

Premeditation is the opposite of impulse. :)

And which case didn't have any premeditation?

[Latrinsorm]

And which case didn't have any premeditation?As can be best determined, the case where there is no evidence of it.

[Drisco]

Exact reason Gay history should be taught in school.

Teaching gay history... 07-20-2011 03:42 PM Who are these Fags?

[Tgo01]

Exact reason Gay history should be taught in school.

Teaching gay history... 07-20-2011 03:42 PM Who are these Fags?

So we can stomp out sarcasm once and for all?

[4a6c1]

Hmmmmmmmm. From a different perspective.

Who else thinks that Texas (and maybe some others) would break away from the United States and start a civil war if they were forced to comply with this issue??

If they are hated enough by some to be targeted negatively and treated unequally they deserve special legislation to protect their rights. Drastic measures to force equal treatment of minorities have not historically been popular but they have historically been successful.

Is this the way? Maybe not. Or maybe hindsight is 20/20.

[Drisco]

So we can stomp out sarcasm once and for all?

Ummm he didn't know who they were mmk.

[Kithus]

I for one am glad that activists like Harvey Milk, Marry Griffith and Barbra Gittings are going to get some recognition in schools.


So we're going to celebrate a guy who used his political office to pass legislation specifically to provide special protections to his preferred segment of the population and a woman who guilted her gay son to death then thought better of it after the fact? I'm sorry but neither of these people deserve a footnote in history books. Gittings deserves a paragraph alongside MLK in a section of a history book dedicated to civil rights activists. Then again I think Ward Connerly probably deserves as much recognition as Gittings for fighting for equality.

Bottom line I question whether the LGBT movement has crossed the same line the Civil Rights movement has. They are approaching the point where they no longer want "equal rights" but "extra rights" because they're special and need it. How many more movements does it take before everyone has extra special rights except straight whites?

The outraged response to Michigans Proposal 2 shows how far past "equal" things have gone. A law that forces college admissions to not use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as factors for determining admission is somehow painted as unfair to "protected groups" because they are no longer receiving special privilages above and beyond what their white counterparts are offered. At what point do we start judging people on their merits rather than their skin color, gender or sexual orientation? Is it only wrong when those factors are against someone rather than a benefit?

You'll pardon the snipping of relevant phrases from an eloquent speech but:


I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.


At no point did Dr. Kings dream include "oppressed minorities" being given special treatment. If things like affirmative action aren't judging people by the color of their skin I don't know what is. Nor do I believe hate crimes deserve some extra special punishment. I'm pretty sure if I murder or beat up another white guy there's some hate involved and it probably deserves the same jail time as me beating up a gay black man.

Of course I already know half of you read through this and thought "He's such a racist" because I don't believe any group should be given special privilages to help them overcome some perceived social inequality. A black man from a broken home is now POTUS. The social delusion is over. If you aren't getting ahead it's not because you're black, gay or providing the wrong answer to the "God question" and it might be time to just start looking in the mirror.

I'm a Massachusetts liberal. I was proud as well when my state legalized gay marriage because they deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us. I voted for Obama and will do so again, not because he's black but because I identify more overall with his agenda than those put for by his Republican opponents. Call me a racist or a biggot if you'd like but you'll be wrong. If you feel that any minority is so fragile or inferior that they need special protections and advantages to compete with straight whites then perhaps it's time to take a serious look in the mirror for the real biggot.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why is it that you know absolutely nothing about your ancestry and family history? Is it due to the information not being available to you or is it that you simply don't care to know? I'm genuinly curious.

I grew up in an exceptionally tight family that moved about every 3 years. My immediate family is pretty much all I've known growing up, and I was never around anyone else to get it from word of mouth.

I have some interest in it, though not enough to bother with tracing my ancestry. I was taught, and still believe, I can do anything I want if I apply myself to it. It has nothing to do with my background. I don't need to know five generations ago I had a professor in the family, or an outlaw.

I don't have feelings one way or another if someone wants to know or doesn't care to know their own history. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think you can attribute not knowing it to the things you do though. It may be a cultural thing - I recognize I'm white raised in an essentially persecution free environment. I just don't relate there though, can't grasp it as a hinderance on the success of an individual.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I also hope that victims like Matthew Shephard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard), Gwen Araujo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo) and Lawrence King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.O._Green_School_shooting) get some attention. Hopefully people can learn from their deaths.

I'd not heard of the first and third, and only a little about the second one. I like to think I'm open minded, however when I read the second one, I think Gwen had a significant amount of blame in her own death. Not condoning anything the four guys did to her at all - just that a little less deception on her part would have done a lot to prevent the whole event.

One thing about the King and Shephard incidents that struck me through the whole articles, was that you could replace the victims with straight people and the story would be the same. I don't see them as martyrs for the cause.

Your last sentence, learn from their deaths - what should be learned there, OTHER than tolerance? I'd argue everyone should be more tolerant, not just tolerant of homosexuals.

All three are tragic to me, not because of the sexual preference of any of those involved, but because of the senseless deception, violence and lack of humanity amongst the youth of today.

[Latrinsorm]

At what point do we start judging people on their merits rather than their skin color, gender or sexual orientation?When 0 people a year are murdered for their skin color and sexual orientation, for starters. People are murdered for their sexual orientation, and you want to talk about perceived social inequality?
At no point did Dr. Kings dream include "oppressed minorities" being given special treatment.You may have forgotten that Dr. King led boycotts for the express purpose of getting black people hired at certain companies, and thought that America ought to compensate disadvantaged minorities to the tune of $50 billion.
Your last sentence, learn from their deaths - what should be learned there, OTHER than tolerance? I'd argue everyone should be more tolerant, not just tolerant of homosexuals.Bluntly, you should learn that atrocities like that still happen. The mind is a powerful thing, and as demonstrated in this thread some minds will leap through incredible hoops to avoid admitting the facts of our current environment. If a person refuses to admit something as black and white as this, how would they ever admit something far more diffuse and generalized like a culture of bigotry?

[~Rocktar~]

You may have forgotten that Dr. King led boycotts for the express purpose of getting black people hired at certain companies, and thought that America ought to compensate disadvantaged minorities to the tune of $50 billion.

If it meant that no one could ever play the race card again, ever, then it would be cheap at 5 times the price.

[Parkbandit]

When 0 people a year are murdered for their skin color and sexual orientation, for starters. People are murdered for their sexual orientation, and you want to talk about perceived social inequality?

I always thought that TheE was the one furthest from reality.. but I think you and he are neck and neck.

Yes.. people are killed each year because of their sexual orientation. Up to almost 25 in 2009.

People are killed each year because of how they look. Should we make really ugly people a special class?

People are killed each year because of how much they weigh. Should we make really fat people a special class? What about really skinny people?

People are killed each year because they are nerds. Should we make nerds a special class?

People are killed each year because they are too pretty. Should we make pretty girls a special class?

People are killed each year because of their skin. Should we make pimply faced kids a special class?

People are killed each year because of their politics. Should we make conservatives a special class? What about Liberals?

[TheEschaton]

SCOTUS, one of the currently most conservative social institutions in our country, recognizes protected classes based on race, gender, and, as is now fulminating in our jurisprudence, sexual orientation.

If SCOTUS can say that the historical oppression of certain races/genders/etc has affected the psycho-social workings of our modern culture, and that those certain races, etc, should be protected from further harm (requiring strict scrutiny in examining rights violations) because of it, why do you think it's a solved problem?

Basically, what I'm hearing from the straight white men here is "get over it," when they've never had to get over it themselves. Please.

-TheE-

[Kithus]

Teaching gay history... 07-21-2011 01:41 PM i can guess where your sympathies would lie if you'd been an adult during the civil rights movement

Normally I try not to respond to rep but this one irritated me. I think anyone with basic reading comprehension skills knows exactly where my "sympathies" would lie had I been an adult (or alive) during the civil rights movement. Every American deserves EQUAL rights. We aren't discussing equality in this country anymore. We're discussing special privilages and perks for almost every minority group. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference.

That said honestly had I been an adult in the 60s I'm willing to bet my whole outlook would have been different. Who knows how I would have felt. What I do know is that growing up when I did and even growing up with a very racist father (I remember being 6 watching Cops with my Dad and he'd point at one of the black suspects running from the cops and say "See that Keith, that's a nigger.") I've only used a racial slur once to my recollection outside of music and off color jokes. I was 6 years old and said it one of my black friends and his older brother gave me a tongue lashing. I didn't understand it until I was much older and I apologized to the kid when we were in high school. He didn't even remember it but I won't ever forget how hurt he looked and how upset his brother looked.

I'm just happy at almost 13 my eldest son doesn't even seem to register skin color with his friends. I've never asked him, because I don't want to draw his attention to it, but I'm pretty sure it just isn't even a factor to him. You know when he's going to notice it? When he starts learning about affirmative action and gets a firm grasp that we have months set aside to study people who are different from him. The people most at fault for perpetrating the race divide in this day and age are those who are arguing for special treatment because it just highlights differences.

[Parkbandit]

SCOTUS, one of the currently most conservative social institutions in our country, recognizes protected classes based on race, gender, and, as is now fulminating in our jurisprudence, sexual orientation.

If SCOTUS can say that the historical oppression of certain races/genders/etc has affected the psycho-social workings of our modern culture, and that those certain races, etc, should be protected from further harm (requiring strict scrutiny in examining rights violations) because of it, why do you think it's a solved problem?

Basically, what I'm hearing from the straight white men here is "get over it," when they've never had to get over it themselves. Please.

-TheE-

That's exactly it. The straight, white men are only complaining about this further segmentation of our society because we never were gay or black.

Remember when you had an intelligent post based upon reality in the political thread? Yea, neither do I.

[Latrinsorm]

I always thought that TheE was the one furthest from reality.. but I think you and he are neck and neck.

Yes.. people are killed each year because of their sexual orientation. Up to almost 25 in 2009.

People are killed each year because of how they look. Should we make really ugly people a special class?

People are killed each year because of how much they weigh. Should we make really fat people a special class? What about really skinny people?

People are killed each year because they are nerds. Should we make nerds a special class?

People are killed each year because they are too pretty. Should we make pretty girls a special class?

People are killed each year because of their skin. Should we make pimply faced kids a special class?

People are killed each year because of their politics. Should we make conservatives a special class? What about Liberals?"The mind is a powerful thing, and as demonstrated in this thread some minds will leap through incredible hoops to avoid admitting the facts of our current environment. If a person refuses to admit something as black and white as this, how would they ever admit something far more diffuse and generalized like a culture of bigotry?"

What more can I say?

[Parkbandit]

When reality doesn't work... try something obscure!

[4a6c1]

Obscure like giving personal freedoms to all sentient human property and thus obliterating states rights everywhere?

[~Rocktar~]

Basically, what I'm hearing from the straight white men here is "get over it," when they've never had to get over it themselves. Please.

No, what you are hearing is what you want to hear so that you, as a flaming Liberal Socialist, can maintain a tenuous grasp on the coveted "protected class" of people in order to exploit such perceived exploitation of that protected class to maintain a power base. In the ongoing efforts to "help" such protected classes of people, Liberal policies have targeted and destroyed the black American family through government welfare, have continually reminded women of perceived inequities in society and thus reinforced them and have nearly succeeded in destroying the middle class of America by trying to produce equal outcomes in education, employment and housing instead of accepting equal opportunities that do not produce equal results.

Now, speaking from the perspective of a straight, white, southern male who grew up in the 70s in middle class suburbia in a school being desegregated by active busing I have a few anecdotal tidbits to share with you. First, from the 2nd grade on, many of us white students were subject to harassment and abuse up to and including violence at the hands of unruly, undisciplined and unmanageable black kids who, thanks to welfare, didn't have parents concerned with teaching them to be productive citizens. In the 6th grade, I was bused to an inner city school where again, I and many other white students were the subject of attacks based on race. This is when, with the help of a black friend of mine, I learned to knife fight.

I don't hold race against people and in my adult life mix pretty well regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation of those around me. As a sentient individual, I realize that being black does not make someone bad any more than being asian makes them good with computers. Unfortunately for you and other flaming Liberals you can't seem to get past your guilt and angst over racial issues and try to build stronger communities and bonds among people, you continue to foment hate, separation and the perception of victimization in order to assert power and bilk people for money which is what the current civil rights movement is primarily focused on.

Equal rights is a requirement, the law and pretty well achieved, special rights is abhorrent. If a half black man from a broken home can become President, a black man from the ghetto can become Secretary of State, a black woman on welfare can become a world famous Actress/Comedian (though I don't like her) and they are just a few of the examples of those that rose above their circumstances, then there are no more excuses. Stop making them.

[Back]

This shit is deep! It must go all the way up to Mr. Big!


No, what you are hearing is what you want to hear so that you, as a flaming Liberal Socialist, can maintain a tenuous grasp on the coveted "protected class" of people in order to exploit such perceived exploitation of that protected class to maintain a power base. In the ongoing efforts to "help" such protected classes of people, Liberal policies have targeted and destroyed the black American family through government welfare, have continually reminded women of perceived inequities in society and thus reinforced them and have nearly succeeded in destroying the middle class of America by trying to produce equal outcomes in education, employment and housing instead of accepting equal opportunities that do not produce equal results.

[TheEschaton]

No, what you are hearing is what you want to hear so that you, as a flaming Liberal Socialist, can maintain a tenuous grasp on the coveted "protected class" of people in order to exploit such perceived exploitation of that protected class to maintain a power base. In the ongoing efforts to "help" such protected classes of people, Liberal policies have targeted and destroyed the black American family through government welfare, have continually reminded women of perceived inequities in society and thus reinforced them and have nearly succeeded in destroying the middle class of America by trying to produce equal outcomes in education, employment and housing instead of accepting equal opportunities that do not produce equal results.

Now, speaking from the perspective of a straight, white, southern male who grew up in the 70s in middle class suburbia in a school being desegregated by active busing I have a few anecdotal tidbits to share with you. First, from the 2nd grade on, many of us white students were subject to harassment and abuse up to and including violence at the hands of unruly, undisciplined and unmanageable black kids who, thanks to welfare, didn't have parents concerned with teaching them to be productive citizens. In the 6th grade, I was bused to an inner city school where again, I and many other white students were the subject of attacks based on race. This is when, with the help of a black friend of mine, I learned to knife fight.

I don't hold race against people and in my adult life mix pretty well regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation of those around me. As a sentient individual, I realize that being black does not make someone bad any more than being asian makes them good with computers. Unfortunately for you and other flaming Liberals you can't seem to get past your guilt and angst over racial issues and try to build stronger communities and bonds among people, you continue to foment hate, separation and the perception of victimization in order to assert power and bilk people for money which is what the current civil rights movement is primarily focused on.

Equal rights is a requirement, the law and pretty well achieved, special rights is abhorrent. If a half black man from a broken home can become President, a black man from the ghetto can become Secretary of State, a black woman on welfare can become a world famous Actress/Comedian (though I don't like her) and they are just a few of the examples of those that rose above their circumstances, then there are no more excuses. Stop making them.

oh man, have to quote this. HE LEARNED TO KNIFE FIGHT TO STOP THE UNRULY WELFARE BLACK KIDS, OH NOES.

My parents immigrated here with nothing.. We lived on nothing, for many years. I grew up in the inner city til I was in 7th grade, I didn't need to be bussed there. And I know how hard it is to rise above your environment. Most people can't, and it's not a flaw of being white or black, but of being a human animal - yet it is a historical fact that people of color have been put IN those environments not by themselves, but by the oppression of white Europeans. You are proving my point why there needs EXACTLY to be Black History, because the people who DID rise above it did it against all odds, and that is merit in and of itself.

[Tgo01]

oh man, have to quote this. HE LEARNED TO KNIFE FIGHT TO STOP THE UNRULY WELFARE BLACK KIDS, OH NOES.

A black kid taught him how to knife fight too. I think they should make a movie about your story Rocktar.

[~Rocktar~]

. . . people who DID rise above it did it against all odds, and that is merit in and of itself.

Such things should be of merit because they are accomplishments, not because of the race of the person doing them. Outstanding people are outstanding regardless of race not because of it. Being black does not make one noteworthy, being extraordinary does.

[Kithus]

Hey Rock let's not ruin the one subject I sorta agree with you on. Try to remember even some of us flaming socialist liberals believe equality is actual equal, not special treatment for minority groups.

[Tgo01]

Such things should be of merit because they are accomplishments, not because of the race of the person doing them. Outstanding people are outstanding regardless of race not because of it. Being black does not make one noteworthy, being extraordinary does.

When the statistics are stacked against you that you'll end up in prison, live in poverty or be in a gang because of your race isn't it worth noting when people rose above all of that, laughed in the statistics face and went on to become a great person?

[Latrinsorm]

When reality doesn't work... try something obscure!Not sure what you're getting at.

[Parkbandit]

Obscure like giving personal freedoms to all sentient human property and thus obliterating states rights everywhere?

Thankfully, the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights safeguards the rights of states...

Not sure how you made the leap that this is a Federal vs. State thing though...

[Parkbandit]

Not sure what you're getting at.

That isn't surprising... reality has that effect on some people.

[~Rocktar~]

When the statistics are stacked against you that you'll end up in prison, live in poverty or be in a gang because of your race isn't it worth noting when people rose above all of that, laughed in the statistics face and went on to become a great person?

The statistics on being exceptional are pretty much the same regardless of race, sex or creed. And by the way, black, latino and any other non-white race does not give you an exclusive on poverty, crime or gang membership and that perception is what needs to change more than anything.

[Tgo01]

And by the way, black, latino and any other non-white race does not give you an exclusive on poverty, crime or gang membership and that perception is what needs to change more than anything.

That's not what I said but okay.

[Atlanteax]

My parents immigrated here with nothing.. We lived on nothing, for many years. I grew up in the inner city til I was in 7th grade, I didn't need to be bussed there. And I know how hard it is to rise above your environment. Most people can't, and it's not a flaw of being white or black, but of being a human animal - yet it is a historical fact that people of color have been put IN those environments not by themselves, but by the oppression of white Europeans. You are proving my point why there needs EXACTLY to be Black History, because the people who DID rise above it did it against all odds, and that is merit in and of itself.

You & your parents worked hard, and were successful as a result.

Predominantly people who are taught growing up that they are *entitled* to something because of their ethicty, disability, whatever... tend to not work as hard to "succeed".

[Drisco]

Bottom line I question whether the LGBT movement has crossed the same line the Civil Rights movement has. They are approaching the point where they no longer want "equal rights" but "extra rights" because they're special and need it. How many more movements does it take before everyone has extra special rights except straight whites?


We don't even have equal rights and yet we are already approaching extra rights? Some activists requesting "Extra" rights doesn't mean the whole LGBT movement wants these things. I think the majority would be more than happy with equal rights.

I bet during the African American rights movement some activists were requesting outrageous things as well. Doesn't mean the whole movement thought it was fair.






All three are tragic to me, not because of the sexual preference of any of those involved, but because of the senseless deception, violence and lack of humanity amongst the youth of today.

How are they not tragic because of sexual preference? They were targeted because of their sexual preference.

These crimes wouldn't have happened if they these two kids where straight folks. They were target and murdered because of who they were, Gay.



I always thought that TheE was the one furthest from reality.. but I think you and he are neck and neck.

Yes.. people are killed each year because of their sexual orientation. Up to almost 25 in 2009.

People are killed each year because of how they look. Should we make really ugly people a special class?

People are killed each year because of how much they weigh. Should we make really fat people a special class? What about really skinny people?

People are killed each year because they are nerds. Should we make nerds a special class?

People are killed each year because they are too pretty. Should we make pretty girls a special class?

People are killed each year because of their skin. Should we make pimply faced kids a special class?

People are killed each year because of their politics. Should we make conservatives a special class? What about Liberals?

I'm confused. Do you think the whole concept of a hate crimes is a sham?

[Parkbandit]

We don't even have equal rights and yet we are already approaching extra rights? Some activists requesting "Extra" rights doesn't mean the whole LGBT movement wants these things. I think the majority would be more than happy with equal rights.

What equal rights are you looking for? The right to get married? Hey, I'm all for it! What other rights are you looking for that you do not currently have?



How are they not tragic because of sexual preference? They were targeted because of their sexual preference.

These crimes wouldn't have happened if they these two kids where straight folks. They were target and murdered because of who they were, Gay.

People are targeted and murdered everyday because of who they are. Ugly people, fat people, rich people, poor people, politicians, doctors, police, etc....



I'm confused. Do you think the whole concept of a hate crimes is a sham?

I think it's completely sensationalized.

[Drisco]

What equal rights are you looking for? The right to get married? Hey, I'm all for it! What other rights are you looking for that you do not currently have?



People are targeted and murdered everyday because of who they are. Ugly people, fat people, rich people, poor people, politicians, doctors, police, etc....



I think it's completely sensationalized.


Adoption Rights, Employment & Housing discrimination protection, Medical Visitation rights, Hate crime inclusion of sexual orientation.

DOTA removal.

[WRoss]

I'm bored, didn't read this thread, but I'm going to make some assumptions.

Back, stop being an idiot and make a logical argument.
Rob, make some sense and stop posting random things.
PB, stop being old and angry and try and listen to someone elses arguement.
Rojo, don't encourage Rob.
Drisco, you are Canadian and don't matter.
Drayal, you are British and don't matter.
Anticor, to reply to your statement, herp derp durka herp.

That about sums it up. Continue on.

[Parkbandit]

Adoption Rights

I'll admit to being ignorant about the individual state laws pertaining to this.. but I know I have 2 gay couple friends who have both adopted children.


Employment & Housing discrimination protection

Who has that protection.. except racial minorities? Do fat people? Ugly people?

Instead of passing a law that says you can't descriminate for sexual orientation or skin color.. maybe pass a law that says you can't descriminate for any reason other than their ability to pay?


Medical Visitation rights

Won't that be "fixed" by passing gay marriage?


Hate crime inclusion of sexual orientation

When we pass a law that makes it a hate crime to kill a rich person.. or kill an ugly person.. or kill whatever subset you want to put someone in.. then I'll agree.



DOTA removal.

I don't even know what that is.

[Parkbandit]

I'm bored, didn't read this thread, but I'm going to make some assumptions.

Back, stop being an idiot and make a logical argument.
Rob, make some sense and stop posting random things.
PB, stop being old and angry and try and listen to someone elses arguement.
Rojo, don't encourage Rob.
Drisco, you are Canadian and don't matter.
Drayal, you are British and don't matter.
Anticor, to reply to your statement, herp derp durka herp.

That about sums it up. Continue on.

Awesome contribution as usual. Really.

[Drisco]

I'll admit to being ignorant about the individual state laws pertaining to this.. but I know I have 2 gay couple friends who have both adopted children.



Who has that protection.. except racial minorities? Do fat people? Ugly people?

Instead of passing a law that says you can't descriminate for sexual orientation or skin color.. maybe pass a law that says you can't descriminate for any reason other than their ability to pay?



Won't that be "fixed" by passing gay marriage?



When we pass a law that makes it a hate crime to kill a rich person.. or kill an ugly person.. or kill whatever subset you want to put someone in.. then I'll agree.



I don't even know what that is.


DOTA = DADT my bad.

I know we probably will never agree on the Hate Crime and Discriminatory protection things. But the fact that it is there already and protects Gender, Race and Religion. I would like it to include Sexual Orientation.

I live in Canada and would never move to the US because of the many Social Policies I don't agree with so I'm not overly concerned about whats going on there. It would be nice though if I ever got married to not have to worry about where I travel because our marriage won't be recognized in the event of an accident.

[Parkbandit]

DOTA removal.

Are you asking for this Facebook page to be removed?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/DOTA-IS-GAY/10150126791105484

[Parkbandit]

DOTA = DADT my bad.

Ah.. gotcha. Isn't that going away as we speak?



I know we probably will never agree on the Hate Crime and Discriminatory protection things. But the fact that it is there already and protects Gender, Race and Religion. I would like it to include Sexual Orientation.

Why do you hate fat and ugly people so much? Don't you think they deserve the same type of protection you seek? What about people with really bad fashion sense?

[Drisco]

Ah.. gotcha. Isn't that going away as we speak?



Why do you hate fat and ugly people so much? Don't you think they deserve the same type of protection you seek? What about people with really bad fashion sense?


It's pending a repeal.

I'm just saying, if they have the Employment Discrimination already including Race, Gender, Religion and other things. I would like to see sexual orientation in as well.

I would also like MSM to be able to donate blood. That is another topic on its own though.

[Rinualdo]

Ah.. gotcha. Isn't that going away as we speak?


Just got certified today (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43848297/ns/us_news-life/), I believe. 60 day wait period and it should go away.

DOMA on the other hand isn't going anywhere.

I'm not a huge fan of providing extra penalties for a so-called hate crime as much as I am for increasing minimum sentencing for all violent crimes.

[Tgo01]

I would also like MSM to be able to donate blood. That is another topic on its own though.

Aren't there medical reasons for keeping such a ban rather than discriminating against homosexuals for the sake of discriminating?

[AnticorRifling]

They were target and murdered because of who they were, Gay.


If the only way you can define yourself, or rather if the most important thing about you that you have to use to define yourself is what type of hole your filling with meat/having filled with meat then maybe you've got some bigger issues to focus on.


You're saying that when gay people die it's more important than when straight people die? At the end of the day people were killed, why the dumb ass who killed them did it doesn't seem to be as important as the fact is it wasn't self defense so it's murder. But it's important to go ahead and overshadow that with THEY HAD SEX WITH DUDES!!!!!!!! that way their death is cheapened because they're being used to champion some (lots of adj I could use here) cause.

[AnticorRifling]

Just remember being treated equal means being treated equal, not special most of the times and equal when you want to champion some issue.

[Latrinsorm]

If the only way you can define yourself, or rather if the most important thing about you that you have to use to define yourself is what type of hole your filling with meat/having filled with meat then maybe you've got some bigger issues to focus on.


You're saying that when gay people die it's more important than when straight people die? At the end of the day people were killed, why the dumb ass who killed them did it doesn't seem to be as important as the fact is it wasn't self defense so it's murder. But it's important to go ahead and overshadow that with THEY HAD SEX WITH DUDES!!!!!!!! that way their death is cheapened because they're being used to champion some (lots of adj I could use here) cause.The reason why is crucial, because it perpetuates the phenomenon of closeting. If no one knows you're gay, no one is going to try to kill you because you're gay (or otherwise mistreat you). We should be ashamed and furious as a civilization that such reasoning still applies to us.
Just remember being treated equal means being treated equal, not special most of the times and equal when you want to champion some issue.If you have a long history of inequality, you're not going to get to equality by being treated equally from then on. If I gave you $1 a year and someone else $0.01 a year for ten years, then started giving each of you $1 a year, the someone else doesn't ever catch up. This is not a perfect analogy, of course: the reality is dramatically worse for historically maltreated minorities.

[CrystalTears]

The reason why is crucial, because it perpetuates the phenomenon of closeting. If no one knows you're gay, no one is going to try to kill you because you're gay (or otherwise mistreat you). We should be ashamed and furious as a civilization that such reasoning still applies to us.Yes, we should be ashamed at how intolerant we can be of each other. And that's all anyone should be. Tolerant. And it shouldn't be limited to gay people, as PB mentioned. Fat/ugly/stupid people get abused, mistreated, and killed regularly. Why do we need to heed special concerns for gay people? Other people who can't "closet" themselves if they wish to and are endlessly exposed to unfairness daily.

You can't ask for equal rights and then ask for special rights.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, we should be ashamed at how intolerant we can be of each other. And that's all anyone should be. Tolerant. And it shouldn't be limited to gay people, as PB mentioned. Fat/ugly/stupid people get abused, mistreated, and killed regularly. Why do we need to heed special concerns for gay people? Other people who can't "closet" themselves if they wish to and are endlessly exposed to unfairness daily.

You can't ask for equal rights and then ask for special rights.

^exactly this.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, we should be ashamed at how intolerant we can be of each other. And that's all anyone should be. Tolerant. And it shouldn't be limited to gay people, as PB mentioned. Fat/ugly/stupid people get abused, mistreated, and killed regularly. Why do we need to heed special concerns for gay people? Other people who can't "closet" themselves if they wish to and are endlessly exposed to unfairness daily.How often do you hear men insulting each other with "you're fat", compared to "you're a fag"?
You can't ask for equal rights and then ask for special rights.The first is the goal and the second is the method. In the same way, if I want to be healthy I sometimes have to engage in actively harmful practices like inoculation, surgery, ingestion of horrific chemicals, etc.

[TheEschaton]

Fat/ugly/stupid aren't "essential characteristics" of a person. They don't speak to your personhood, which race, sex, and sexual orientation do. The comparisons are facetious. Further, it's outright insulting to gay people to suggest that treating crimes against them as the same as crimes against ugly people is the same solution - it denies their personhood, and, believe it or not, sparks some doubt about whether y'all are really tolerant of gays or not.

For a comparable analogy, imagine if someone was targetted for being Jewish, by an Aryan brother. Is attacking a Jew and killing them because they're Jewish the same as if they were attacked because they were ugly? Obviously not, and you'd be stupid to imply they were.

[diethx]

For a comparable analogy, imagine if someone was targetted for being Jewish, by an Aryan brother. Is attacking a Jew and killing them because they're Jewish the same as if they were attacked because they were ugly? Obviously not, and you'd be stupid to imply they were.

No, because you have a choice in regards to your religion. You don't have a choice on whether or not to be born ugly or gay.

(luls)

[CrystalTears]

How often do you hear men insulting each other with "you're fat", compared to "you're a fag"?"Wow, you're a fat fucker." Yeah that never happens. Seriously?


Fat/ugly/stupid aren't "essential characteristics" of a person. They don't speak to your personhood, which race, sex, and sexual orientation do. The comparisons are facetious. Further, it's outright insulting to gay people to suggest that treating crimes against them as the same as crimes against ugly people is the same solution - it denies their personhood, and, believe it or not, sparks some doubt about whether y'all are really tolerant of gays or not.

For a comparable analogy, imagine if someone was targetted for being Jewish, by an Aryan brother. Is attacking a Jew and killing them because they're Jewish the same as if they were attacked because they were ugly? Obviously not, and you'd be stupid to imply they were.
So because some characteristics are superficial, they are okay to target negatively? You don't see a flaw in that kind of reasoning?

I'm saying to be tolerant of all people and their differences. You're saying to give gay people extra extra tolerance. I disagree.

[TheEschaton]

It's not okay, but it's not an attack on their personhood.

Also, the point, diethx, is not whether it's a choice. Religion is part of a person's personhood, just like their sexual orientation. Attacking that is not only attacking their body (which would be A&B), but attacking an essential aspect of themselves.

[TheEschaton]

"Wow, you're a fat fucker." Yeah that never happens. Seriously?


So because some characteristics are superficial, they are okay to target negatively? You don't see a flaw in that kind of reasoning?

I'm saying to be tolerant of all people and their differences. You're saying to give gay people extra extra tolerance. I disagree.

Again, your insistence on treating the difference of being "fat or skinny" or "ugly or beautiful" the same as "gay or straight" or "black and white" is facetious, and is the only superficial thing in your post. Your point is ridiculous, and by equating the former characteristics as the same as the latter, you're showing intolerance of what makes these people who they are.

Is a person defined by how much they weigh or how beautiful society deems them? No, so stop pretending being ugly is the same thing as being gay. ETA: Stop hiding behind the faux position of "true equality", because what you described isn't true equality.

[CrystalTears]

Again, your insistence on treating the difference of being "fat or skinny" or "ugly or beautiful" the same as "gay or straight" or "black and white" is facetious, and is the only superficial thing in your post. Your point is ridiculous, and by equating the former characteristics as the same as the latter, you're showing intolerance of what makes these people who they are.
And your insistence that we have to hold some kind of special standard for a group of people who want equality is what I can't abide by. You're insulting them way more than I am.


Is a person defined by how much they weigh or how beautiful society deems them? All the fucking time.


ETA: Stop hiding behind the faux position of "true equality", because what you described isn't true equality.
There's no hiding. We should be giving equal treatment to a Jew, and to a gay person, and a Hindu, and a stupid person, the same as we to others who share the same characteristics as we do.

[Tgo01]

Is a person defined by how much they weigh or how beautiful society deems them? No, so stop pretending being ugly is the same thing as being gay. ETA: Stop hiding behind the faux position of "true equality", because what you described isn't true equality.

I think a lot of people define themselves by how beautiful they are. I think Paris Hilton defines herself on being famous, is being famous a protected class?

[TheEschaton]

And your insistence that we have to hold some kind of special standard for a group of people who want equality is what I can't abide by. You're insulting them way more than I am.

All the fucking time.


There's no hiding. I'm going to give equal treatment to a Jew, and to a gay person, and a Hindu, and a stupid person, the same as I do to anyone else.

It's not my definition. It's the definition of the SCOTUS. SCOTUS has defined protected classes, and they haven't included ugliness or weight. They have included race and gender, and right now, the fight is whether sexual orientation should be included. The law of this land has said people cannot be discriminated against because of certain characteristics.

That definition rests largely on what defines them as a person. Ugliness, despite Hollywood's perceptions, isn't one of those characteristics. Religion is.

I treat all people well, regardless of characteristic. But you cannot say, in this country, that attacking a person because they are Jewish, is the same as attacking a person because they are ugly, philosophically, OR LEGALLY.

Even the most conservative courts in this country have upheld that there are certain characteristics people cannot discriminate on.

[CrystalTears]

It's not my definition. It's the definition of the SCOTUS. SCOTUS has defined protected classes, and they haven't included ugliness or weight. They have included race and gender, and right now, the fight is whether sexual orientation should be included. The law of this land has said people cannot be discriminated against because of certain characteristics.

That definition rests largely on what defines them as a person. Ugliness, despite Hollywood's perceptions, isn't one of those characteristics. Religion is.

I treat all people well, regardless of characteristic. But you cannot say, in this country, that attacking a person because they are Jewish, is the same as attacking a person because they are ugly, philosophically, OR LEGALLY.

Even the most conservative courts in this country have upheld that there are certain characteristics people cannot discriminate on.
And I'm saying it's a slippery slope. It started with race and religion, and now it'll add sexual orientation. It will grow into weight, height, beauty, and whatever else people discriminate against.

Attacking a person is attacking a person, and it shouldn't hold extra weight because of their skin color, deity, or sexual orientation.

[AnticorRifling]

y'all




What do you mean you people?!

[TheEschaton]

And I'm saying it's a slippery slope. It started with race and religion, and now it'll add sexual orientation. It will grow into weight, height, beauty, and whatever else people discriminate against.

Attacking a person is attacking a person, and it shouldn't hold extra weight because of their skin color, deity, or sexual orientation.

If you don't believe in the idea of protected classes, you're willing to allow people to say "You can't work here because you're black," or "you can't eat at this diner because you're black."

There is no slippery slope, this is jurisprudence with actual reasoning behind it. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject area can clearly delineate between why there should be a protected class for race, and not for weight/beauty. Within the past 15 years, with the discrediting of the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, and the belief that sexual identity is an essential part of one's personhood, sexual orientation has been working its way through the courts, and is now on the verge of being a protected class. It is perhaps one of the last things which will ever be determined to be a protected class.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

How are they not tragic because of sexual preference? They were targeted because of their sexual preference.

These crimes wouldn't have happened if they these two kids where straight folks. They were target and murdered because of who they were, Gay

I disagree.

One happened because a chick who wasn't a chick acted like a chick and tricked some idiots into letting him suck their dicks and have anal sex with him, all the while pretending to be a chick. I believe a different reaction would have happened had the chick said I'm a dude before sucking another mans dick and letting him have anal sex with him. I'm not excusing their reaction, but it's not as cut and dry as lets go out and kill a transgendered person.

In the other two instances based on the cursory reading of King and Shephard neither situation screams the violence was a direct result of them being gay. In King's case had King not instigated things with his attacker by blowing kisses and the like, I'm doubtful he'd have been killed over wearing makeup to school. Again, not excusing it, but it is not entirely a one way street here.

In Shephard's case, I'd lean more towards it being a hate crime, since the would be robbers were targeting a gay bar. Of the three this one had to me the least amount of information about the crime other than they took him, robbed him, beat him and left him. If it hadn't mentioned the gay bar originally, it could be anyone, anywhere, a victim of a senseless crime.

My point isn't that these weren't hate crimes, I get these crimes are terrible, I just don't see why their deaths are any more important than Gordon Feist, Amy Candland, or Angelina Ancer.

A murder regardless of the attributes of the person murdered, is the subject to focus on, IMO. When Nicole Brown was murdered I did not see people go running out yelling a white woman got murdered...

You probably think I'm a bigot now (or maybe you already do), I just don't see why their deaths are any more special than the countless others.

I personally hope gays get all the same rights and privledges everyone else has. Which would be the right not to be included in history if other topics are deemed more important.

[CrystalTears]

Or how about you can't discriminate for personal or political reasons, therefore you can only deny someone service if they don't pay, or deny someone work because they are not qualified.

[diethx]

It's not okay, but it's not an attack on their personhood.

Also, the point, diethx, is not whether it's a choice. Religion is part of a person's personhood, just like their sexual orientation. Attacking that is not only attacking their body (which would be A&B), but attacking an essential aspect of themselves.

I was merely answering your question. It's not okay to attack anyone based on sex, religion, race, or the fact that they're ugly/fat/stupid/whatever, and the fact that you're trying to say why one is worse or even different than the other is pretty dumb.



All the fucking time.

:yeahthat:

You sure you live on planet Earth, E?

[TheEschaton]

In King's case had King not instigated things with his attacker by blowing kisses and the like, I'm doubtful he'd have been killed over wearing makeup to school. Again, not excusing it, but it is not entirely a one way street here.

I hear those rape victims are just asking for it because of those short skirts they wear, those fucking sluts.

[TheEschaton]

I was merely answering your question. It's not okay to attack anyone based on sex, religion, race, or the fact that they're ugly/fat/stupid/whatever, and the fact that you're trying to say why one is worse or even different than the other is pretty dumb.




:yeahthat:

You sure you live on planet Earth, E?

Just because society judges (superficially) based on beauty, doesn't mean it is judging your essential personhood.

[CrystalTears]

Just because society judges (superficially) based on beauty, doesn't mean it is judging your essential personhood.
I feel that you are limiting what some people consider as part of their personhood.

[Parkbandit]

How often do you hear men insulting each other with "you're fat", compared to "you're a fag"?

You are seeking protection from being called a fag too? Should we ban all derogatory words used on the Internet that could be construed against homosexuals?

This conversation went from silly to queer pretty quick.

[TheEschaton]

I feel that you are limiting what some people consider as part of their personhood.

I'm not, the Supreme Court and millenia of moral philosophy is.

[Latrinsorm]

"Wow, you're a fat fucker." Yeah that never happens. Seriously?I didn't say it never happened, I asked you to compare the rough frequencies. Don't you find it suspicious that you won't? Self-suspicion is an important mindset to cultivate.
I feel that you are limiting what some people consider as part of their personhood.The law is not interested in what some people consider anything. If it's my opinion that killing black people an expression of my religion and do so, I do not get to walk free because of the First Amendment.

I'm not sure I agree with Eschaton's reasoning here, but people's opinions being objectively incorrect isn't why.

[Latrinsorm]

You are seeking protection from being called a fag too? Should we ban all derogatory words used on the Internet that could be construed against homosexuals?

This conversation went from silly to queer pretty quick.I'm demonstrating that the comparison between "fat" and "gay" is inapt.

[Parkbandit]

Fat/ugly/stupid aren't "essential characteristics" of a person. They don't speak to your personhood, which race, sex, and sexual orientation do. The comparisons are facetious. Further, it's outright insulting to gay people to suggest that treating crimes against them as the same as crimes against ugly people is the same solution - it denies their personhood, and, believe it or not, sparks some doubt about whether y'all are really tolerant of gays or not.

So.. either you agree with this or you are a homophobe. Is that really the best reasoning you could come up with?



For a comparable analogy, imagine if someone was targetted for being Jewish, by an Aryan brother. Is attacking a Jew and killing them because they're Jewish the same as if they were attacked because they were ugly? Obviously not, and you'd be stupid to imply they were.

What happens when a white guy attacks a white ugly guy because he's ugly. Is it really because he hates gays or Jews?

[Parkbandit]

If you don't believe in the idea of protected classes, you're willing to allow people to say "You can't work here because you're black," or "you can't eat at this diner because you're black."

No. You are missing the point we are making. We don't think anyone should be denied work or denied entry to a restaurant. If you can perform the job, then you should be hired. If you can pay for your dinner, then you should be served.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Fat/ugly/stupid aren't "essential characteristics" of a person. They don't speak to your personhood, which race, sex, and sexual orientation do. The comparisons are facetious. Further, it's outright insulting to gay people to suggest that treating crimes against them as the same as crimes against ugly people is the same solution - it denies their personhood, and, believe it or not, sparks some doubt about whether y'all are really tolerant of gays or not.

You don't think being fat, or ugly, or stupid, define a person? This raises serious doubt that your tolerance ends if the scale tips 200lbs.

"America is a weight-obsessed nation. Over the last decade, there's been an explosion of concern in the U.S. about people getting fatter. Plaintiffs are now filing lawsuits arguing that discrimination against fat people should be illegal. Fat Rights asks the first provocative questions that need to be raised about adding weight to lists of currently protected traits like race, gender, and disability. Is body fat an indicator of a character flaw or of incompetence on the job? Does it pose risks or costs to employers they should be allowed to evade? Or is it simply a stigmatized difference that does not bear on the ability to perform most jobs? Could we imagine fatness as part of workplace diversity? Considering fat discrimination prompts us to rethink these basic questions that lawyers, judges, and ordinary citizens ask before a new trait begins to look suitable for antidiscrimination coverage.

Fat Rights draws on little-known legal cases brought by fat citizens as well as significant lawsuits over other forms of bodily difference (such as transgenderism), asking why the boundaries of our antidiscrimination laws rest where they do. Fatness, argues Kirkland, is both similar to and provocatively different from other protected traits, raising long–standing dilemmas in antidiscrimination law into stark relief. Though options for defending difference may be scarce, Kirkland evaluates the available strategies and proposes new ways of navigating this new legal question.

Fat Rights enters the fray of the obesity debate from a new perspective: our inherited civil rights tradition. The scope is broad, covering much more than just weight discrimination and drawing the reader into the larger context of antidiscrimination protections and how they can be justified for a new group." Anna Kirkland


For a comparable analogy, imagine if someone was targetted for being Jewish, by an Aryan brother. Is attacking a Jew and killing them because they're Jewish the same as if they were attacked because they were ugly? Obviously not, and you'd be stupid to imply they were.

And if a lifelong physical trainer with a hatred for fat killed a twinkie eating whale, is that a better analogy?

[Parkbandit]

I'm demonstrating that the comparison between "fat" and "gay" is inapt.

You demonstrated it ineptly.

[CrystalTears]

I didn't say it never happened, I asked you to compare the rough frequencies. Don't you find it suspicious that you won't? Self-suspicion is an important mindset to cultivate.Frankly, I hear people give fat people a harder time than gay people because of the stigma now to say anything even slightly against gay people. It's in to treat fat people like outcasts.

As a matter of fact, there have been cases where doctors are discriminating against their overweight patients and not fully diagnosing them. They just say "you're fat, lose weight, it'll get better", causing more harm by not treating the underlying problem. They are starting to initialize sensitivity classes so that doctors learn to not judge their obese patients and treat their ailments directly. I seriously doubt doctors are saying "the swelling on your lips will heal, just stop sucking your boyfriend's dick".

[TheEschaton]

Fat Rights is ridiculous, SHM. Good job contributing nothing again. Find me a serious court which has given merit to the idea of harassment based on weight.


No. You are missing the point we are making. We don't think anyone should be denied work or denied entry to a restaurant. If you can perform the job, then you should be hired. If you can pay for your dinner, then you should be served.

But the point is, without protected classes, people COULD do that - so there is a legitimate reason for them to exist. And the reasoning behind protected classes doesn't allow, for example, fat rights, or ugly rights, but does allow for religious rights, and racial rights.

Now, admittedly, employment discrimination is different from criminal discrimination. You're arguing that the "why" of victim selection is irrelevant, it's the action which is condemnable. However, our system already delineates different protections for different peoples. Elder fraud is considered worse than just regular fraud; sex with children is considered worse than sex with adults (which is only criminal when unconsented to, IE, rape, whereas it's always criminal with a child). In many states, first degree murder is reserved solely for victims who are law enforcement individuals - IE, first degree murder differs from second degree only based on the class of the victim.

Furthermore, our legal system is BASED on the mental thought process of the criminal in question - it's called mens rea. A person who murders in a sudden passionate outburst is differentiated from someone who premeditates on a murder. So why can we not differentiate on why a person was chosen as a victim for violent crime? If I can be punished more harshly for defrauding an old woman than a young woman, why can't I be punished more harshly for beating up a black man because I'm racist (which is something that needs to be proven btw, not all white people beating up black people get convicted of hate crimes) than beating up a black man because he bumped me in the club?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I hear those rape victims are just asking for it because of those short skirts they wear, those fucking sluts.

Only the good looking ones, not the fat ones, right?

[AnticorRifling]

Shouldn't everyone be protected equally?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Fat Rights is ridiculous, SHM.

Wow, you are very intolerant of the fatties. I'm guessing you'll never work pro bono for NAAFA.

[diethx]

Shouldn't everyone be protected equally?

Yes. Period. End thread.

[Latrinsorm]

Frankly, I hear people give fat people a harder time than gay people because of the stigma now to say anything even slightly against gay people. It's in to treat fat people like outcasts.I don't mean to beat this to death, but you still haven't answered the question. A person doesn't have to be fat to be called fat, and person doesn't have to be gay to be called gay. The only thing I'm asking is how often you hear the specific slurs.
As a matter of fact, there have been cases where doctors are discriminating against their overweight patients and not fully diagnosing them. They just say "you're fat, lose weight, it'll get better", causing more harm by not treating the underlying problem. They are starting to initialize sensitivity classes so that doctors learn to not judge their obese patients and treat their ailments directly. I seriously doubt doctors are saying "the swelling on your lips will heal, just stop sucking your boyfriend's dick".On the other hand, you do hear (some) doctors say that homosexuals are more likely to engage in risky sex, and therefore aren't allowed to donate blood.
Shouldn't everyone be protected equally?If your goal is for everyone to be protected equally, you must consider whether anyone is targeted unequally. If your goal is merely to expend the same amount of effort on protecting everyone, then of course you would get rid of hate crimes etc. I would also point out that pursuing the second goal will never accomplish the first.

[CrystalTears]

I don't mean to beat this to death, but you still haven't answered the question. A person doesn't have to be fat to be called fat, and person doesn't have to be gay to be called gay. The only thing I'm asking is how often you hear the specific slurs.
I personally have never heard someone insult someone else by calling them a fag. I have, though, heard people insult others with "four-eyes", "porker", "geek", "blubber", "dork", "retard", "midget", "dwarf", etc. Is that sufficient? But I guess those insults are okay because according to TheE, they don't touch on a person's sensitive personhood.

On the other hand, you do hear (some) doctors say that homosexuals are more likely to engage in risky sex, and therefore aren't allowed to donate blood.Donating blood is not life-threatening. Refusing to diagnose chest pains strictly because someone is overweight is heinous. It doesn't mean I'm excusing the phlebotomist for being insensitive.

If your goal is for everyone to be protected equally, you must consider whether anyone is targeted unequally. If your goal is merely to expend the same amount of effort on protecting everyone, then of course you would get rid of hate crimes etc. I would also point out that pursuing the second goal will never accomplish the first.Plenty of people are targeted unequally. What people here are saying is that specially not targeting one over another is not tolerated either.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Plenty of people are targeted unequally. What people here are saying is that specially not targeting one over another is not tolerated either.

TheE and Latrine won't ever get common sense. It has to come from a book or SCOTUS or it's just opinion of the unwashed masses. "Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. - Twain"

[4a6c1]

And "Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Irony is calling a leaning towards progressive thought "petrified". Your Twain quote would more aptly describe a traditionalist perspective.

[Tgo01]

Latrinsorm has a good point about the need for protection against being hired/fired in the workplace based on race. After all this poor woman (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/07/22/office-assistant-jill-mcglone-paid-12-years-for-a-job-she-didnt/?icid=maing-grid7|maing8|dl4|sec1_lnk3|80378) was 'wrongfully' fired after 12 years of receiving a paycheck and never stepping foot in the building where she supposedly worked and now after they have denied her unemployment benefits she's sure this all has to do with her race.

[Parkbandit]

Shouldn't everyone be protected equally?

How would they feel special if that were the case, you racist, sexist, homophobe.

[Tgo01]

I heard that single anecdotal stories totally prove points from this friend of mine.

Oh I was teasing, calm down.

[Latrinsorm]

I personally have never heard someone insult someone else by calling them a fag.Wow! I am legitimately intrigued as to the root causes of your observation, which is dramatically dissimilar to my own experience (and, because this is here, I feel the need to point out nearly 0% of such remarks were at my personal expense). Perhaps because you are a women, men are less likely to accuse each other of homosexuality around you? Maybe? Very interesting.

In any event, I can certainly see why you responded to the questions in such a manner. Please consider them retracted with apologies.
Latrinsorm has a good point about the need for protection against being hired/fired in the workplace based on race. After all this poor woman was 'wrongfully' fired after 12 years of receiving a paycheck and never stepping foot in the building where she supposedly worked and now after they have denied her unemployment benefits she's sure this all has to do with her race.I didn't think I had made any such points, but I didn't pick up on the sarcasm part until quite later. D'oh!

[~Rocktar~]

Fat Rights is ridiculous, SHM. Good job contributing nothing again. Find me a serious court which has given merit to the idea of harassment based on weight.

Your whole discounting of alternate situations is beyond retarded and simply speaks to your desire to afford special privilege status instead of equality. You are seriously discriminatory and your continued desperate clinging to legal framework to support your bigotry is offensive.

Here is some info on the court rulings about weight. Most seem to support it being a disability and thus afforded a protected class status. http://www.cswd.org/docs/legalaction.html




But the point is, without protected classes, people COULD do that - so there is a legitimate reason for them to exist. And the reasoning behind protected classes doesn't allow, for example, fat rights, or ugly rights, but does allow for religious rights, and racial rights.

Only because you are a hate filled bigot and consider yourself above those who might be obese or less than attractive. How's the air up there?


Now, admittedly, employment discrimination is different from criminal discrimination. You're arguing that the "why" of victim selection is irrelevant, it's the action which is condemnable. However, our system already delineates different protections for different peoples. Elder fraud is considered worse than just regular fraud; sex with children is considered worse than sex with adults (which is only criminal when unconsented to, IE, rape, whereas it's always criminal with a child). In many states, first degree murder is reserved solely for victims who are law enforcement individuals - IE, first degree murder differs from second degree only based on the class of the victim.

Furthermore, our legal system is BASED on the mental thought process of the criminal in question - it's called mens rea. A person who murders in a sudden passionate outburst is differentiated from someone who premeditates on a murder. So why can we not differentiate on why a person was chosen as a victim for violent crime? If I can be punished more harshly for defrauding an old woman than a young woman, why can't I be punished more harshly for beating up a black man because I'm racist (which is something that needs to be proven btw, not all white people beating up black people get convicted of hate crimes) than beating up a black man because he bumped me in the club?

No, we aren't saying the why is immaterial, only that it should not carry special treatment. The afore mentioned black man is just as abused if he was beaten because of race as he is if he was beaten because he was clumsy. (your example)

Please get a fucking clue and stop being an arrogant, self righteous, elitist, bigot. You live a very deluded life in a seriously dysfunctional world, get help.

[TheEschaton]

Only because you are a hate filled bigot and consider yourself above those who might be obese or less than attractive. How's the air up there?

LOL, if you'd seen any of my pictures, you'd know I'm not a small guy, nor particularly devilishly handsome. ;)

Also, being overweight to the point of being a disability is a disability - you don't get protection for being overweight by 30 pounds. Now, I don't know when being fat becomes a disability, but there is a process for determining that, and then you get protection because you are disabled.

[Some Rogue]

Now, I don't know when being fat becomes a disability, but there is a process for determining that, and then you get protection because you are disabled.

Right about here...

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/homer_muumuu.jpg

[TheEschaton]

neg rep:

Teaching gay history... 07-22-2011 04:42 PM I love how you never address his valid points. Keep posting, someday you’ll post something intelligent.

Please tell me what SHM's valid points were, and I'll address them. I didn't see any. He never has any, everything he says starts with "I feel like this shouldn't be" or "I don't think this should be.."

[~Rocktar~]

LOL, if you'd seen any of my pictures, you'd know I'm not a small guy, nor particularly devilishly handsome. ;)

No trait I mentioned has anything necessarily to do with appearance just that you arrogantly position yourself above others.


Also, being overweight to the point of being a disability is a disability - you don't get protection for being overweight by 30 pounds. Now, I don't know when being fat becomes a disability, but there is a process for determining that, and then you get protection because you are disabled.

But you are ok with a person being discriminated against until then, gotcha.

[TheEschaton]

Here is some info on the court rulings about weight. Most seem to support it being a disability and thus afforded a protected class status. http://www.cswd.org/docs/legalaction.html




Also, your statement that "most seem to support it being a disability" is egregious and wrong. Your link shows, what, 5 cases? All of which are more than 15 years old? Oh, I'm sorry, there are three city ordinances across the country which also disallows discrimination based on weight. My bad. I thought your statement sounded suspect, so I actually followed your link for once.

[TheEschaton]

No trait I mentioned has anything necessarily to do with appearance just that you arrogantly position yourself above others.



But you are ok with a person being discriminated against until then, gotcha.

I treat people the same no matter who they are. The topic I am discussing, though, is the legal standard for protection from discrimination in this country, the movement of sexual orientation to protected class status, and its applicability towards criminal cases.

[TheEschaton]

No, we aren't saying the why is immaterial, only that it should not carry special treatment. The afore mentioned black man is just as abused if he was beaten because of race as he is if he was beaten because he was clumsy. (your example)
.

Lastly - do you think murder charges should be heightened if the victim is a police officer? (S)He's just as dead, right?

There are many roles for our legal punishment system. One is simple retribution. One is to protect the public from the criminal. And one of the most important ones is to deter criminals - in the above case, that it's bad to kill a person, but even worse to kill a police officer. My example is that the legal system is trying to deter violence based on racism. It's bad to beat up a black guy because he bumped you in the club, it's worse to beat him up because he's black, a fundamental aspect of himself he can do nothing about.

-TheE-

[Kithus]

Honestly E you're just trying too damned hard to make something wrong right. Your arguments are eloquent but no matter how eloquently you argue that dog shit tastes like candy it's still dog shit. The position that special treatment for specific segments of the population equates to equal rights is indefensible. You will never break through to the people you are disagreeing with because no matter what minor points you refute the common sense of "Equal rights should mean treating everyone equally" stands firm.

All you've managed to accomplish is leaving another "liberal" PC member looking about as credible as Back on a bad day. So when we move onto the next discussion and you're debating with PB he can ignore what you're saying and point out that you feel that equal rights means giving various minority groups special privilages and outright ignore what you were saying. The only saving grace here is that PB was probably going to disregard you as a moron for disagreeing with him anyway and at his age he'll forget this argument in a month tops.

Either way I'm a racist, sexist biggot who voted for Obama and plans to do so again in 2012. Obviously I'm only doing it because he's half white and that's just enough to get outside the range of my "hate-dar" right? Not every registered Democrat on the forums believes in special rights for all minorities. It's because I'm white, straight, fit, reasonably attractive and at least intelligent enough to have earned a college degree though.

As an aside I'm also an atheist. I wonder, if a Christian killed me because of lack of beliefs is it a hate crime? Or does my lack of beliefs not constitute as a protected "religion?" It's just as much a part of my "personhood" as being a Christian is to my murderer.

[TheEschaton]

Literally not saying anything that the Supreme Court of the United States, the supreme law of this land, hasn't already said.

Like Latrin's analogy that was breezed over very easily earlier, if I've historically been paid 0.01 to your $1, and you're one of the main reasons why I earned 1/100th of what you made, you can't suddenly say "Oh, we now both earn $1, everything's equal, everything's okay!" Equality has to be viewed within a historical context. It simply has to be. Everyone on this board always accuses ME of not living in the real world, but y'all are the ones who want to view equality in a vacuum, where it simply does not exist.

If my arguments sound eloquent, that's because they're based on reason and actually, aren't my own arguments, but merely the arguments of the past 150 years of American jurisprudence.

And yes, a Christian killing an atheist because he's an atheist is, of course, a hate crime. Religions include the adamant belief in the nonexistence of God.

-TheE-

[Drisco]

I am really trying to see the logic of the other side and I do get where you are all coming from. In theory yes, in practice no.

I'm just trying to see how back in the Civil rights movement if we hadn't made race a protected class and just have been like.

"Okay! You all have the same rights as everyone else but we aren't going to put in any employment/housing discrimination or anything that protects you from not being given these rights that you now have."

Do you honestly think that African Americans didn't need some sort of "Special" protection? I think in the infancy yes, they do need this special protection. Maybe as the issue/hate slowly evolves away we can come down on these special rights and slowly take them away as they don't need them.

[Parkbandit]

Can you imagine the outcry of racism if you start stripping away "special rights" from "special groups"?

[Kithus]

"Okay! You all have the same rights as everyone else but we aren't going to put in any employment/housing discrimination or anything that protects you from not being given these rights that you now have."

I see a major difference between "You cannot discriminate based on race" and "You must have a certain percentage of a minority group to prove that you aren't discriminating." I don't think anyone is saying that there shouldn't be anti-discrimination laws but that they should apply to everyone equally. If a black business owner only hired black employees I have a sneaking suspicion that a white guy who wasn't hired would have a really difficult time making a case out of it. Blacks are protected from employment descrimination, whites are not.



Do you honestly think that African Americans didn't need some sort of "Special" protection? I think in the infancy yes, they do need this special protection. Maybe as the issue/hate slowly evolves away we can come down on these special rights and slowly take them away as they don't need them.

We have a black man from a broken home as the POTUS. At what point do we get to say we're out of the infancy? As others have pointed out African Americans have nothing on the Jewish people for a history of persecution. Yet somehow people of Jewish faith seem to be able to stand on their own.

[Latrinsorm]

Honestly E you're just trying too damned hard to make something wrong right. Your arguments are eloquent but no matter how eloquently you argue that dog shit tastes like candy it's still dog shit. The position that special treatment for specific segments of the population equates to equal rights is indefensible. You will never break through to the people you are disagreeing with because no matter what minor points you refute the common sense of "Equal rights should mean treating everyone equally" stands firm.Let's say you're pouring a cement floor. It's a floor - you want it to be level. It turns out that in one corner of the room, the underlying area is dramatically lower. Do you put the same amount of material in that corner as you do everywhere else, or do you put more?

If you start with inequality and apply equality, you don't get equality out. 1 + X never equals 100 + X for finite values of X.
Either way I'm a racist, sexist biggot who voted for Obama and plans to do so again in 2012. Obviously I'm only doing it because he's half white and that's just enough to get outside the range of my "hate-dar" right? Not every registered Democrat on the forums believes in special rights for all minorities. It's because I'm white, straight, fit, reasonably attractive and at least intelligent enough to have earned a college degree though.Has anyone here called you a bigot, in reps or something? I don't get why you keep throwing this around.

[Parkbandit]

If you start with inequality and apply equality, you don't get equality out. 1 + X never equals 100 + X for finite values of X.Has anyone here called you a bigot, in reps or something? I don't get why you keep throwing this around.

SOP of the liberal playbook. Page 1, paragraph 1: Marginalize anyone who disagrees with you by calling them a racist/bigot/homophobe/xenophobe/etc... Kithus is just pissed it's turned around to bite him in the ass.

[Kithus]

Has anyone here called you a bigot, in reps or something? I don't get why you keep throwing this around.


Teaching gay history... 07-21-2011 04:27 PM You're prejudiced. Call it what you want in as many long rambing paragraphs as you need. It's pretty obvious to everyone else though.

Why yes, yes they have. There area few more similar. I get a little tired of this being suggested based off the fact that I do not believe we should be discriminating against white people to make things "fair" for the poor, unfortunate minorities. Equality should be equal. Or as others have suggested it's a very slippery slope.

Hey I'm above average height, thin and sick of being referred to as a bean pole. Who do I see about my special tall, thin people protected status? What benefits does that come with? Can we get "bean pole" classified as hate speech? I've been accosted by a heavier set gentleman in the past and I feel part of his anger was due to my thinner physique, sounds like hate crime material to me.

[TheEschaton]

If it makes you feel better, none of those reps are from me, and I'm the one your main argument is against.

[AnticorRifling]

Whatever, racist.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

neg rep:


Please tell me what SHM's valid points were, and I'll address them. I didn't see any. He never has any, everything he says starts with "I feel like this shouldn't be" or "I don't think this should be.."

Is your argument that because it's my opinion it adds no value? And LOL at someone giving you neg rep for it...

[Rinualdo]

SOP of the liberal playbook. Page 1, paragraph 1: Marginalize anyone who disagrees with you by calling them a racist/bigot/homophobe/xenophobe/etc...

Curious what you consider the conservative playbook.

[Parkbandit]

Curious what you consider the conservative playbook.

Turn the other cheek, my brother.

DUH

[Kithus]

Curious what you consider the conservative playbook.

Page 1, paragraph 1: Marginalize anyone who disagrees with you by calling them a socialist/communist/welfare recipient.

[AnticorRifling]

Kithus is obviously a racist.