Students barred from anti-racism meeting for being insufficiently racialized

[lilpixieofterror]

As I've mentioned a number of times before, I am Facebook friends with a person who has turned out to embrace extreme edges of activism. Today, they posted that they are tired of racism and want no white people in their presence.

The person then said that this is not a racist statement because whiteness is inherently abusive and brown people can want to avoid this.

A white person responded genuinely asking what they would have her do if her very existence is abusive, and part of the response was "it's not my job to educate you".

Why don't they just cut out the crap and say "I want you to roll over and die?"

(I am too curious to defriend this person.)

Translation: "I want you to roll over and die."

Such love and respect. I sense great things, from this person (I wonder if their head would explode if they discovered that whites took part in the Greensboro sit in).

BTW MLK had white ancestry too.

[KingsGambit]

Translation: "I want you to roll over and die."

Such love and respect. I sense great things, from this person (I wonder if their head would explode if they discovered that whites took part in the Greensboro sit in).

BTW MLK had white ancestry too.

I actually feel bad for this person. They were raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and suffered abuse for years. The father knowingly housed a person who sexually abused them because he felt as a Christian he should give them a second chance. I frankly don't blame them for being as crazy as they are, but it doesn't mean what they say gets a free pass.

[Raphael]

And I notice that the stats are for New Zealand. That is like taking a poll in a small village in wyoming and claiming it represents the USA.

Because Both Starlight, MaxVel and myself are Kiwi's and I brought up the fact that we have a growing youth group of kids who are often the first in their family to even open a Bible (sure not all of them are Christians, yet, but they are all coming regularly to Youth, and travelling some distance to do so)

[MaxVel]

Not quite sure what you're meaning by 'skewed interpretation' of their motives. But certainly I'm 'begging the question' against their worldview by assuming their worldview is wrong. Again: As an atheist I have come to view the effects of Christianity as morally evil.

I also think that, even given a Christian worldview, the behavior of a lot of Christians toward gay people is clearly evil: the harms that restricting gay rights cause are numerous and not balanced by any logic that Christians are able to come up with. If a Christian truly thought that gay people were going to hell solely by virtue of their getting married, and the Christian thought that preventing gay people getting married was therefore saving them from hell, then that would make some moral sense - saving people from hell is clearly a significant good that outweighs the harm being done in preventing the marriage. But Christians don't actually believe that gay marriage causes eternal suffering, and even in their own minds the harms they are inflicting on gay people do not seem to be offset by any legitimate benefit. This problem arises because they are not actually reasoning based on harm/benefit to people and instead are simply trying to enforce biblical teachings on society through law in a relatively unreasoning way. Whereas those Christians who have actually taken the time to think through the analysis of harm/benefit done to people, tend to be much more supportive of gay rights.

Not really, but it's more excusable. If the playground bully beats up the same kid at school everyday, no one is exactly surprised when the kid one day gets sick of it and throws one punch back at the bully. It's not exactly behavior to be encouraged, but it's kind of understandable. People who have been mistreated are likely to be angry about it and might potentially lash out at random, that's just human nature.

I don't understand what you're referring to here.

So basically Christianity is 'a force for moral evil' because some Christians have not met your personal requirements for supporting their moral position on gay marriage. I note that you skew refusing to change an existing social institution into something very different as 'inflicting harm' on gay people. Basically your particular hobby-horse is gay marriage, and Christianity is 'evil' because Christians (for various reasons) oppose that.

I also note that you still fail to condemn vicious personal attacks by anyone, for any reason. I do condemn such behaviour. It is unacceptable and morally wrong, whether by a minority or by a majority.

But obviously you are morally superior to me, an evil Christian {/sarcasm}

[Starlight]

So basically Christianity is 'a force for moral evil' because some Christians have not met your personal requirements for supporting their moral position on gay marriage.

I note that you skew refusing to change an existing social institution into something very different as 'inflicting harm' on gay people.

I consider morality to be about harms or benefits to people. Changing or not changing social institutions is only a moral issue insofar as it harms or benefits people. The institution itself is not a moral entity that can be harmed. So, for example people who saw themselves as 'refusing to change the existing social institution of slavery' weren't achieving any moral good by defending the institution, but they were certainly achieving a moral evil by perpetuating harms to people that the institution was clearly harming.

I also note that you still fail to condemn vicious personal attacks by anyone, for any reason.

I think what people say to others is situational. Sometimes harsher words are justified, other times not. If a black slave had shouted angrily and sworn at his master who just had him whipped for no reason, then most of us would say that would have been 10000% justified, although not a good idea in the circumstances. If a stranger walks past a little girl in the street and shouts the same things, then obviously it's not at all justified and totally wrong. Context matters.

From the little you've said about your particular experiences, I suspect that you, like many Christians, were almost entirely ignorant of the sheer atrocious level of harm that you were inflicting on gay people in what you thought of as your efforts to 'prevent change to an existing social institution' and that you didn't give much or any thought to the issue of how gay people might be harmed or feel about this. Therefore I presume the fact that gay people might be enraged by the massive harms you were attempting to do to them, didn't really cross your mind, and you didn't feel that an angry and hurt reaction from them was justified. Whereas they probably felt you were getting about 10000 times less than what you really deserved. [/wild speculation]

But obviously you are morally superior to me, an evil Christian

True.

[lilpixieofterror]

I actually feel bad for this person. They were raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and suffered abuse for years. The father knowingly housed a person who sexually abused them because he felt as a Christian he should give them a second chance. I frankly don't blame them for being as crazy as they are, but it doesn't mean what they say gets a free pass.

I agree to, but replacing hate for hate, isn't the best direction to go either.

[KingsGambit]

I agree to, but replacing hate for hate, isn't the best direction to go either.

I agree.

To be completely honest, (and sorry for the derail), as a seminarian, this is the sort of thing that scares me the most. I have no idea what I would say pastorally to somebody who has been hurt as deeply by institutional Christianity as they have. (And, yes, there's much more to the story than what I shared.)

[Teallaura]

This will probably sound callous and I don't mean it that way but Dad was a mental deficient which is the real source. If it hadn't been forgiveness it would have been some other excuse. Dad got some satisfaction from having that scumbag in the house - or he is a total moron, one. The former is more probable. Christianity does not teach turn someone else's cheek let alone allow children to be harmed. Dad misapplied the principle, probably deliberately. That's Dad's fault, no one else's.

[Bill the Cat]

Translation: "I want you to roll over and die."

Such love and respect. I sense great things, from this person (I wonder if their head would explode if they discovered that whites took part in the Greensboro sit in).

BTW MLK had white ancestry too.

racist-racist-everywhere.jpg

[Paprika]

Today, they posted that they are tired of racism and want no white people in their presence.

The person then said that this is not a racist statement because whiteness is inherently abusive and brown people can want to avoid this.

It's the proper end of white privilege and microaggression theory, and should be totally unsurprising.

'White people are totally unaware of their privilege and therefore constantly microaggress, therefore they are constantly aggressive and my feels are hurt. Since my feels shouldn't be hurt I don't want white people in my presence because they can't help but be rayciss.'

[Paprika]

The girl was starting to get very apologetic, and even though I don't know her (she's just someone's random mutual friend), I messaged her and told her she'd done nothing wrong and she shouldn't feel the need to apologize. She really appreciated that as she was really starting to feel upset.

It's a step in the right direction, but next time you should comment in public that it is not an offense to cause offense.

[KingsGambit]

It's a step in the right direction, but next time you should comment in public that it is not an offense to cause offense.

This person probably would have deleted my message before the other person got a chance to read it.

[Paprika]

This person probably would have deleted my message before the other person got a chance to read it.

Screenshot. Then publicly shame.

[Joel]

So it's OK for someone to treat others despicably, as long as they're an approved minority group attacking a majority?

Not really, but it's more excusable. If the playground bully beats up the same kid at school everyday, no one is exactly surprised when the kid one day gets sick of it and throws one punch back at the bully. It's not exactly behavior to be encouraged, but it's kind of understandable. People who have been mistreated are likely to be angry about it and might potentially lash out at random, that's just human nature.

That's not a good analogy, because we are talking about groups. To extend your analogy to groups, suppose it is a 6th grade bully that beats up the same 5th grade kid everyday. And then the 5th grader "gets sick of it" and throws one punch back at another, innocent 6th grader, because the 5th grader irrationally/prejudicially hates all 6th graders because of the one 6th grade bully.

[Starlight]

That's not a good analogy, because we are talking about groups. To extend your analogy to groups, suppose it is a 6th grade bully that beats up the same 5th grade kid everyday. And then the 5th grader "gets sick of it" and throws one punch back at another, innocent 6th grader, because the 5th grader irrationally/prejudicially hates all 6th graders because of the one 6th grade bully.

Okay, in your version of the analogy, I would observe that it's human nature for people who have been abused and hurt to lash out at random and the actions of the bullied kid are totally understandable, albeit not to be encouraged. The people truly in the wrong in the situation are the 6th grade bullies who have still not been punished as they deserve. Although the innocent 6th grade bystanders may now be motivated to stop the bullying if they see that they're getting caught in the crossfire.

Basically if you oppress people enough and get them angry enough, they'll lash out.

And all civil rights activists have to think hard about the methods they will use, as they have a wide variety of options available to them. To take Nelson Mandela as an example, he began his activist career as part of a non-violent protest group, subsequently decided it wasn't working and founded a militant terrorist group, and then during his prison sentence decided that non-violence was actually the better path. In other examples, ending slavery required an entire war to sort out. In Ireland, civil rights activists regularly used violence and terror in their fight for their cause. Whereas in India, Ghandi pursued a non-violent path. And the African-American civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, was also largely characterized by non-violent protests, with the exception of a few riots.

The modern gay rights movement has been characterized by almost complete non-violence. Aside from the riots of the original Stonewall protests sparked by police action, I am unaware of any violence used worldwide by any gay activists since. This constantly amazes me when I think about it, and I think that very very few Christians actually appreciate how nice gay rights activists have been towards them on a massive scale. Burning churches down, or simply breaking church windows, for example, could easily have been adopted as tactics, never-mind actual physical violence itself. Instead gay people worldwide have almost unanimously opted for peaceful dialogue (well, or suicide). Whereas the anti-gay movement doesn't seem to have the same qualms about getting violent sometimes.