Specieism, racism, and sexism

[ledboots]

My grandmother was born in the 1920s and she knows very well what racism is. I find your belief that older people have spent their lives living under rocks and never seeing any news or experiencing any life.... very confusing.

My grandparents (none alive now) were born in the late 1800's, and all 4 learned the new terminology as the times changed. I remember my grandfather asking a friend of mine in the '70's if she really preferred "black" to "colored." She did, and he said he just wanted to make sure his grandchildren were "up on the lingo" lol.

 

[prioritarian]

Slavery and sexism all deal with "equals" from a biological perspective. This is not true for speciesism.
For example, I consider human beings and a number of other animals to be "persons". Since I believe persons should have legal rights not available to other animals I am by definition speciesist.

 

[Freesia]

My grandparents (none alive now) were born in the late 1800's, and all 4 learned the new terminology as the times changed. I remember my grandfather asking a friend of mine in the '70's if she really preferred "black" to "colored." She did, and he said he just wanted to make sure his grandchildren were "up on the lingo" lol.

Sounds to me like your grandparents were awesome.

 

[Second Summer]

Slavery and sexism all deal with "equals" from a biological perspective. This is not true for speciesism.

I wouldn't say females and males are entirely biologically equal either, although of course the differences are much greater between different species.

 

[prioritarian]

I wouldn't say females and males are entirely biologically equal either, although of course the differences are much greater between different species.

Touche. I guess I was thinking more in terms ability as opposed to genetics or "plumbing".

 

[FortyTwo]

Every single thing about this thread is like watching a train wreck while another train wreck with tiny model trains takes place on top of the train wreck.

Sorry if that's off-topic or brief - there is just literally no way to start on this. None.

If I were to respond to everything I found wrong with this I would be typing for, maybe, six days?

 

[FortyTwo]

Okay, fine, I guess I'll try.

Nothing magical about it. In both philosophy (ethics) and law, intent is an important consideration. When the intent is so clearly benevolent as in Chovie's story, then it seems a little over the top and lacking in generosity to label the old man a racist just because he doesn't know the currently accepted language. What is more, by using the "racism" term so liberally, the effect is to water it down to the point where it no longer carries any particularly negative meaning. Meanwhile, every time some poor old man, or a recent immigrant from eastern Europe etc. is caught being "racist", the real racists are having a field day, cheering and celebrating, gleefully anticipating the day when the "racists" become the majority.

The thing is, the old man was brought up in a racist society. Whether or not he means the things he says to be racist, they still are. Objectively, he is saying racist things, that actively hurt people and make up part of oppression.

Nobody's saying to treat an old man who doesn't understand why a term might be offensive in the same manner as, for instance, a KKK member burning crosses and shouting murder threats. What people are trying to say is that any and all language that contributes to racism in culture should be called out, as to try and reduce its effect on the people who are affected by it most.

Intent is an important consideration when dealing with tone, in some cases. But it's not an excuse to simply not call out bigotry.

As for this page of the discussion... Not even going to get into the whole "biologically equalities" thing because that basically amounts to 19th-century Imperialist propaganda supported by brown-nosing and/or clueless scientists.

 

[FortyTwo]

Sexism against males bothers me both the most and the least.

It bothers me the least because suppression of males, as a group, is impossible past the point that males allow it.

It bothers me the most because pissing off males, as a group, is dangerous to any other group that does that.

The reason for that lies within the fact that ALL rights are ultimately dependent on might to enforce them.

That makes the existent of rights for ALL groups entirely dependent on those who have the superior might.

Those who have the superior might, as a group, are, quite obviously, males.

...do you even think about what you say?

Or do you just calculate which words will **** people off the most, and then try to form them into sentences for the hell of it?

I swear, this sounds like Reddit chatter half the time.

(And can we stop pretending that the whole 'PC Police' BS is a thing? Because nobody here is arguing anything like that.)

 

[Freesia]

I swear, this sounds like Reddit chatter half the time.

On a good day this part of the board reads like Reddit. On a bad day it is like accidentally stumbling into 4chan.

 

[prioritarian]

Okay, fine, I guess I'll try.
As for this page of the discussion... Not even going to get into the whole "biologically equalities" thing because that basically amounts to 19th-century Imperialist propaganda supported by brown-nosing and/or clueless scientists.

The default position should always be "do no harm" but if some evil mad "carnist" genius gave me the choice between frying a gazillion to the gazzilionth power tiny jellyfish and saving a single magpie. I'd not hesitate for a second to pick the bird. IMO, the ethical lifestyle part of veganism (as opposed to deontic personal purity) requires acknowledging and thinking about these "rights" trade offs.

 

[FortyTwo]

The default position should always be "do no harm" but if some evil mad "carnist" genius gave me the choice between frying a gazillion to the gazzilionth power tiny jellyfish and saving a single magpie. I'd not hesitate for a second to pick the bird. IMO, the ethical lifestyle part of veganism (as opposed to deontic personal purity) requires acknowledging and thinking about these "rights" trade offs.

Oh, no, I agree with you there.

It's when people try to argue whether men and women (humans) are "biologically equal" or if they have certain "innate strengths" that bothers me. The same goes for arguments that certain races have innate strengths and weaknesses. A lot of racism goes on in those arguments, and there are far more cultural differences and societal expectations that play into those sorts of things than biological ones.

That's where I thought you and IS were going with that.

 

[Clueless Git]

but if some evil mad "carnist" genius gave me the choice between frying a gazillion to the gazzilionth power tiny jellyfish and saving a single magpie. I'd not hesitate for a second to pick the bird ...

Which one wins out of frying two magpies -V- saving a single rabbit?

Or, say, severely beating two Rhinoceroses -V- permanently maiming one Elephant?

How many chickens equals a sheep and how many sheep equals a cow?

If it's a size based system in operation should not fat people have more more rights than skinny ones?

Point being, very simply, that value based (as opposed to principle based) ethics are easily exposed for what they are: Piles of entirely subjective nonsense.

 

[prioritarian]

Point being, very simply, that value based (as opposed to principle based) ethics are easily exposed for what they are: Piles of entirely subjective nonsense.

i don't think relying on a "principle" is more objective than striving to reduce suffering based on reason and logic. my goal is not to be "principled", it's to suck less.

 

[Clueless Git]

i don't think relying on a "principle" is more objective than striving to reduce suffering based on reason and logic. my goal is not to be "principled", it's to suck less.

Without principles how do you measure suckage in the first place?

 

[Second Summer]

The thing is, the old man was brought up in a racist society.

Lots of people brought up in racist societies turned out to be fine and upstanding anti-racists.

Whether or not he means the things he says to be racist, they still are. Objectively, he is saying racist things, that actively hurt people and make up part of oppression.

As far as we know, he didn't say racist things to anyone that could be personally hurt.

Nobody's saying to treat an old man who doesn't understand why a term might be offensive in the same manner as, for instance, a KKK member burning crosses and shouting murder threats. What people are trying to say is that any and all language that contributes to racism in culture should be called out, as to try and reduce its effect on the people who are affected by it most.

As indeed it was. Chovie explained the currently accepted terms, which he immediately adopted. I stand by my statement that it's wrong to label the man a racist.

 

[Clueless Git]

I stand by my statement that it's wrong to label the man a racist.

But, but, he didn't know this week's PC police approved word, IS.

It's actualy very important that racist/non-racist be defined soley by whether or not a person subscribes to the PC 'word of the week' bulletin.

Start applying other criteria and who knows what can'o worms may end up getting opened.


'Scuse the mild sarcasm: Chovie and m'self have the shared experience of, by 'virtue' of mixed race marriages, having raised 'Paki' children.

Trust me, that leaves you with a deeper than 'word of the week' understanding as to what racism is and what racism isn't.

Marrying into minority families/communities also leaves you with no delusion that racism is exclusively a white thing in any way whatsoever.

 

[Clueless Git]

I remember my grandfather asking a friend of mine in the '70's if she really preferred "black" to "colored." She did ...

Which begs a question ...

If black people prefer 'black' to 'coloured'; Which muppet(s) decided black was offensive to blacks, changed it to coloured and then changed it back to black again??

 

[Ann Chovie]

'Scuse the mild sarcasm: Chovie and m'self have the shared experience of, by 'virtue' of mixed race marriages, having raised 'Paki' children.

Trust me, that leaves you with a deeper than 'word of the week' understanding as to what racism is and what racism isn't.

Yes indeed..

When a Sikh elder tells your father in law he is not welcome in the temple because his son married a " white *****"..

or you have had your babies spat on in the pram by National Front members

You are all too familiar with blatant blasts of racism as well as the continual subtle (and even more offensive) racism masked and protected by an ability to cover tracks with PC phraseology .

Neither of these applies to my client.

 

[Ann Chovie]

FYI .. The PC term for my client is not " old" but "elderly" or " older"

The descriptive term "old" is now considered "ageist" .

Phew!!! Hard to keep up isn't it?

 

[Clueless Git]

FYI .. The PC term for my client is not " old" but "elderly" or " older"

The descriptive term "old" is now considered "ageist" .

Phew!!! Hard to keep up isn't it?

Well ...

It is 1.49am here now and 'coffin dodger' is so 1.48.

Expecting 'oxygen thief' (out at 01.47) to be back in the PC vocab by around 02.01.