Quit a friendship due to political/social issues?

[artdecogirl]

No virulent prejudice, not against anyone - that nonsense is contagious.

This is so true and says it all. I am so sorry Cherryblossom that your friendship is ending this hurtfull way, hugs to you...

 

[supergirl10]

Oh Cherry so the clarification just confirmed your suspicions. I'm sorry but in this case i think it is definitely better you know.

Don't even get me started on the "your racist because you married outside your own race" (i'm paraphrasing) comment

What does your partner, FI, DH think???

 

[Black Jade]

I know that I don't like people jumping on ME. I sincerely, sincerely believe that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. I have considered this subject a lot and I have yet to hear anything that comes close to convincing me otherwise. Whenever the subject comes up, I think this has such major societal ramifications that I think it's important to say so and I would be very willing to tell my reasons why--except that nowadays people, especially younger people, start screaming at once that they don't want to hear anymore and that I am extremely and deeply prejudiced and that I need to meet some homosexuals and realize that they are real human beings. I grew up in New York City in the seventies, have an uncle who is very close to me who is a homosexual and lived near the Village forever, went to school in that area and not only did I have and do I have many close friends there, but some of my best friends died when the AIDS epidemic first hit in 1981. I don't need someone to tell me that they were human beings and good people who deserve to be treated like people and deserve their human rights and civil rights. I agree with all that already. But I don't think marriage is a civil right. Maybe I am right and maybe I am wrong but I have to say I do start shutting down when I am yelled at and people assume all these thingsand tell me that I think this and that when they have no idea what I think, because they didn't let me talk. Adn they don't actually know me or anything about my life, my past, my friendships--ANYTHING, but have just put in a box--and nailed the lid down. I know I am not alone in this kind of feeling and so far as 'marriage equality' so long as these kinds of tactics go on all that is going to happen is what is happening already. Where people know better than to bring up any other opinion on this subject than the loudest one, but are not having their minds changed about anything because they are not hearing any actual logical arguments on the subject, but just being screamed down.

that is not how us blacks got our civil rights (which did not have anything to do with changing basic societal institutions by the way but were rights like the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to sit anywhere on the bus). But I think I made my point,w hich is that refusing to ever listen or talk to people who don't absolutely agree with you (and I've read some incredible things on this thread-- do some of you really break off friendships because someone watches a tv news station you don't agree with?) is not really going to accomplish very much other than you feeling virtuous--and the other person feeling you are obnoxious and not changing their mind at all.

Oh--I should add that I do have places that I draw the line. I won't keep talking to anyone advocating violence and making threats against other people for whatever reason. And as I said above, I won't talk to people who are using the N word with me--but I do kind of think that YOUR job might be to keep talking to them, if change is really what you want.

Um, yeah, and I guess that would be MORE AND MORE states getting same sex marriage and civil union laws.

Did you ever think that maybe you are, um, wrong? Maybe you are NOT LISTENING to the arguments that have been given to you? Or maybe you think that all those different states got same sex marriage and civil union laws without any "logical arguments"? I'm sure.

Well, thank you for that. It's so nice to know that you don't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people in society. And like anyone asked.

Umm, I think I listen to people. I also read what they write and respond to what they actually SAID. Did I say I am against civil unions? And did I not say that I think everyone should have the same civil rights--but that marriage is not a civil right in my opinon? And I didn't bring up the subject out of thin air--I think it was very germane to the point I was making about listening to what people say even if you don't agree, instead of cutting a relationship off, which does no good to anyone.

But if it makes you feel better to cut off the relationship, fine. I don't mean you in particular here, I'mdanny, I mean people in general.

And of course there is no reason for you to have a discussion with me, a stranger on the internet--why would you care what I think about anything? I was discussing the question of the OP cutting off a relationship with a close friend, as well as the people who were saying things about feeling differently about a family member.

 

[Circe]

I know that I don't like people jumping on ME. I sincerely, sincerely believe that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. I have considered this subject a lot and I have yet to hear anything that comes close to convincing me otherwise. Whenever the subject comes up, I think this has such major societal ramifications that I think it's important to say so and I would be very willing to tell my reasons why--except that nowadays people, especially younger people, start screaming at once that they don't want to hear anymore and that I am extremely and deeply prejudiced and that I need to meet some homosexuals and realize that they are real human beings. I grew up in New York City in the seventies, have an uncle who is very close to me who is a homosexual and lived near the Village forever, went to school in that area and not only did I have and do I have many close friends there, but some of my best friends died when the AIDS epidemic first hit in 1981. I don't need someone to tell me that they were human beings and good people who deserve to be treated like people and deserve their human rights and civil rights. I agree with all that already. But I don't think marriage is a civil right. Maybe I am right and maybe I am wrong but I have to say I do start shutting down when I am yelled at and people assume all these thingsand tell me that I think this and that when they have no idea what I think, because they didn't let me talk. Adn they don't actually know me or anything about my life, my past, my friendships--ANYTHING, but have just put in a box--and nailed the lid down. I know I am not alone in this kind of feeling and so far as 'marriage equality' so long as these kinds of tactics go on all that is going to happen is what is happening already. Where people know better than to bring up any other opinion on this subject than the loudest one, but are not having their minds changed about anything because they are not hearing any actual logical arguments on the subject, but just being screamed down.

that is not how us blacks got our civil rights (which did not have anything to do with changing basic societal institutions by the way but were rights like the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to sit anywhere on the bus). But I think I made my point,w hich is that refusing to ever listen or talk to people who don't absolutely agree with you (and I've read some incredible things on this thread-- do some of you really break off friendships because someone watches a tv news station you don't agree with?) is not really going to accomplish very much other than you feeling virtuous--and the other person feeling you are obnoxious and not changing their mind at all.

Oh--I should add that I do have places that I draw the line. I won't keep talking to anyone advocating violence and making threats against other people for whatever reason. And as I said above, I won't talk to people who are using the N word with me--but I do kind of think that YOUR job might be to keep talking to them, if change is really what you want.

Um, yeah, and I guess that would be MORE AND MORE states getting same sex marriage and civil union laws.

Did you ever think that maybe you are, um, wrong? Maybe you are NOT LISTENING to the arguments that have been given to you? Or maybe you think that all those different states got same sex marriage and civil union laws without any "logical arguments"? I'm sure.

Well, thank you for that. It's so nice to know that you don't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people in society. And like anyone asked.

Umm, I think I listen to people. I also read what they write and respond to what they actually SAID. Did I say I am against civil unions? And did I not say that I think everyone should have the same civil rights--but that marriage is not a civil right in my opinon? And I didn't bring up the subject out of thin air--I think it was very germane to the point I was making about listening to what people say even if you don't agree, instead of cutting a relationship off, which does no good to anyone.

But if it makes you feel better to cut off the relationship, fine. I don't mean you in particular here, I'mdanny, I mean people in general.

And of course there is no reason for you to have a discussion with me, a stranger on the internet--why would you care what I think about anything? I was discussing the question of the OP cutting off a relationship with a close friend, as well as the people who were saying things about feeling differently about a family member.

It's a civil right so long as it has civil benefits: from tax breaks to inheritance to the right to be at a dying partner's bedside. No civil union I've seen grants equally broad-spanning rights, or is recognized across federal boundaries. Way I see it, we either expand marriage to include everyone, or abolish it entirely, use civil unions for legal tender, and allow whatever religious ceremonies people desire, on their own time.

And as for reasons to have conversations ... dude, it's an internet thread about racism. You bring in the somewhat tangential issue of gay marriage, it's not surprising people will respond. In fact, to tie it back into the thread proper, it's almost an obligation if you disagree - too many people believe that silence equals consent, which is both how and why bigots like Cherry's ex-friend assume they have the approval of their (cringing, embarrassed, horrified) peers, and why the status quo can be so difficult to change.

That said, won't catch me cutting off the conversation - what on earth's a good debate without a worthy opponent? So long as it doesn't reach Cherry's-ex-friend levels of impossible variance (hard to agree to disagree with somebody using the n-word), it whets one's arguments and hopefully provides some insight into what the other side is thinking.

 

[CherryBlossom]

I wish that I could take this picture and metaphorically smack her in the head with it

 

[Circe]

I actually laughed out loud. Also, I will be saving that on my computer for future application.

 

[iheartscience]

Ha, that's fantastic, CB!

 

[Black Jade]

Some of you are either very young or very uninformed.

What racism means--

You qualify for a certain job, but you can't get it because they don't hire blacks.
You have the money to live in a certain neighborhood, but you can't buy the house because they don't sell to blacks. If they do sell to you, everyone white in the neighborhood moves as soon as they can afford it.
You are not allowed to vote. If you show up at the voting place, you are in real danger--like in danger of being burned to death, hanged or both and having various of your body parts saved and exhibited on people's shelves in bottles.
You have perfectly good money but you can't spend it at certain places--you have to think about where you are going to buy lunch because everywhere will not sell to you.
You are a famous entertainer and you are allowed to sing/dance etc. in front of white people--but you have to use the back entrance.
You are a famous entertainer and you are admired all over the rest of the world--but you can't sing/perform in the United States in certain venues because you are black.
You are a brilliant athlete and you have to play in a separate/not well paid league made specifically for 'your kind'.
You cannot use the bathroom when you have to go--at least, not the same bathroom and often there is none for you. When you take long trips, you have to be prepared to 'hold it' or to know people on the way who will let you inside of their homes.
If a well-meaning white person who somehow doesn't know the rules wishes to befriend you, THEY are called names and treated abusively until they stop.
You are never, ever called by any term of respect such as "Mr." or "Mrs." no matter how old you get.
You are not allowed into the same hospitals. You can actually bleed to death on the way to a 'black'[ hospital because a white one will not let you in--even if you happen to be a brilliant doctor who did work on the process of blood transfusions which is saving countless other people's lives.
You never get rightful credit for anything. For instance, if you are musician and have written and sung wonderful songs, you still can only be recorded on what are called 'race' records (records are what there were before cd's)--and then white performers can sing the same songs without crediting you and make millions of dollars.
You cannot be buried in the same cemetery as white people.
It can happen to you that you are blond, blue eyed and white skinned and if people find out that you have what is called 'one drop' of negro (black) ancestry, you are subject to all of the above treatment.
Medical experiments can be performed on you without your permission or even knowledge. You can be allowed to live with untreated syphilis for 40 years even though there is a cure, because someone wants to study exactly what untreated syphilis does to a human being.
If you go to the hospital to have a baby, you might just wake up from the anesthesia with your tubes ties without your permission, because everyone knows blacks breed like rabbits and have too many babies.
If you are well off and own nice things (through EXTRA hard work given the situation in the country that you were actually born in) you are still in the position where any rowdy white teenager can deface your car, because you shouldn't own it, etc. etc.
Any crime committed against you is much less likely to be prosecuted. If a white person perpetrated the crime, forget it. If another black person perpetrated the crime, the police show no interest in coming to your area of town to listen to any complaints or give your any protection. There are no black police.
If you get to serve in the armed services as something other than the janitor or cook (which you can't until World War II), no matter how you distinguish yourself, when you return home you can be set upon and beaten by any group of white as an n-word who does not deserve to wear the U.S. army uniform.
If you happen to be a woman you are are subject to harassment, sexual abuse and rape with NO chance of any retribution. Other women may also have to go through this to some extent, but not the extent that you do, with no punishment or consideration possible if the harasser/rapist is white. (and none either if the harasser is black,see above about the neighborhood).

I could go on and on but this is the US as it was when I was a young girl, and all of the examples I have given above are either very famous and well documented historical events--or happened personally to either my family members or me. My second cousin was the returning vet who was beaten and kicked in the head for being in uniform--and has severe brain injury; another cousin was kidnapped, raped and shot dead with the perpetrators never being charged or even looked for and as for the buying a house and looking for a job stuff, this was just our life, we expected it because that was how it WAS. We always kept going on and trying however and kept educating ourselves and never GAVE up--and as a child I was constantly told not to become bitter because this is worse for you than the person you are bitter against.

This is what racism was like, people. Yes, there are still remnants and yes, your annoying Uncle Charlie may use the n-word in private and embarrass you becuase you have got so enlightened and progressive, but we have made some giant leaps forward and are continuing to make them. Currently, I honestly believe that a large part of the remaining problem is that many black still have their minds back in the first half of the twentieth century, cannot really believe that there is change and/or want to be given stuff to 'make up' for what prevous generations went through, which can't ever be done. I agree with the great Bill Cosby in this regards-- at this point blacks need to take some responsiblity for the dysfunction and MOVE ON.

By the way, the things that black people really really wanted and fought for in the civil rights era really did not include the right to marry white people, that was not a major interest with the MUCH MORE SERIOUS problems we had at that time. It is amazing the amount of the time that I hear young people say that the US was so racist because black people could not marry white people--it is true that in a lot of states that was against the law but that was not something of great interest. Actually a lot of blacks were like my father, who would have killed me and my sister dead if we brought some white guy home. I don't know if this is the result of whites finding out about racism, to the extent that they know ANYTHING about it, through movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, or because of this idea that marriage is a civil right, which is never going to fly in the black community because it happens that we know what civil rights actually are, from not having had had them for ---oh, 400 years or so.

 

[Black Jade]

Some of you are either very young or very uninformed.

What racism means--

You qualify for a certain job, but you can't get it because they don't hire blacks.
You have the money to live in a certain neighborhood, but you can't buy the house because they don't sell to blacks. If they do sell to you, everyone white in the neighborhood moves as soon as they can afford it.
You are not allowed to vote. If you show up at the voting place, you are in real danger--like in danger of being burned to death, hanged or both and having various of your body parts saved and exhibited on people's shelves in bottles.
You have perfectly good money but you can't spend it at certain places--you have to think about where you are going to buy lunch because everywhere will not sell to you.
You are a famous entertainer and you are allowed to sing/dance etc. in front of white people--but you have to use the back entrance.
You are a famous entertainer and you are admired all over the rest of the world--but you can't sing/perform in the United States in certain venues because you are black.
You are a brilliant athlete and you have to play in a separate/not well paid league made specifically for 'your kind'.
You cannot use the bathroom when you have to go--at least, not the same bathroom and often there is none for you. When you take long trips, you have to be prepared to 'hold it' or to know people on the way who will let you inside of their homes.
If a well-meaning white person who somehow doesn't know the rules wishes to befriend you, THEY are called names and treated abusively until they stop.
You are never, ever called by any term of respect such as "Mr." or "Mrs." no matter how old you get.
You are not allowed into the same hospitals. You can actually bleed to death on the way to a 'black'[ hospital because a white one will not let you in--even if you happen to be a brilliant doctor who did work on the process of blood transfusions which is saving countless other people's lives.
You never get rightful credit for anything. For instance, if you are musician and have written and sung wonderful songs, you still can only be recorded on what are called 'race' records (records are what there were before cd's)--and then white performers can sing the same songs without crediting you and make millions of dollars.
You cannot be buried in the same cemetery as white people.
It can happen to you that you are blond, blue eyed and white skinned and if people find out that you have what is called 'one drop' of negro (black) ancestry, you are subject to all of the above treatment.
Medical experiments can be performed on you without your permission or even knowledge. You can be allowed to live with untreated syphilis for 40 years even though there is a cure, because someone wants to study exactly what untreated syphilis does to a human being.
If you go to the hospital to have a baby, you might just wake up from the anesthesia with your tubes ties without your permission, because everyone knows blacks breed like rabbits and have too many babies.
If you are well off and own nice things (through EXTRA hard work given the situation in the country that you were actually born in) you are still in the position where any rowdy white teenager can deface your car, because you shouldn't own it, etc. etc.
Any crime committed against you is much less likely to be prosecuted. If a white person perpetrated the crime, forget it. If another black person perpetrated the crime, the police show no interest in coming to your area of town to listen to any complaints or give your any protection. There are no black police.
If you get to serve in the armed services as something other than the janitor or cook (which you can't until World War II), no matter how you distinguish yourself, when you return home you can be set upon and beaten by any group of white as an n-word who does not deserve to wear the U.S. army uniform.
If you happen to be a woman you are are subject to harassment, sexual abuse and rape with NO chance of any retribution. Other women may also have to go through this to some extent, but not the extent that you do, with no punishment or consideration possible if the harasser/rapist is white. (and none either if the harasser is black,see above about the neighborhood).

I could go on and on but this is the US as it was when I was a young girl, and all of the examples I have given above are either very famous and well documented historical events--or happened personally to either my family members or me. My second cousin was the returning vet who was beaten and kicked in the head for being in uniform--and has severe brain injury; another cousin was kidnapped, raped and shot dead with the perpetrators never being charged or even looked for and as for the buying a house and looking for a job stuff, this was just our life, we expected it because that was how it WAS. We always kept going on and trying however and kept educating ourselves and never GAVE up--and as a child I was constantly told not to become bitter because this is worse for you than the person you are bitter against.

This is what racism was like, people. Yes, there are still remnants and yes, your annoying Uncle Charlie may use the n-word in private and embarrass you becuase you have got so enlightened and progressive, but we have made some giant leaps forward and are continuing to make them. Currently, I honestly believe that a large part of the remaining problem is that many black still have their minds back in the first half of the twentieth century, cannot really believe that there is change and/or want to be given stuff to 'make up' for what prevous generations went through, which can't ever be done. I agree with the great Bill Cosby in this regards-- at this point blacks need to take some responsiblity for the dysfunction and MOVE ON.

By the way, the things that black people really really wanted and fought for in the civil rights era really did not include the right to marry white people, that was not a major interest with the MUCH MORE SERIOUS problems we had at that time. It is amazing the amount of the time that I hear young people say that the US was so racist because black people could not marry white people--it is true that in a lot of states that was against the law but that was not something of great interest. Actually a lot of blacks were like my father, who would have killed me and my sister dead if we brought some white guy home. I don't know if this is the result of whites finding out about racism, to the extent that they know ANYTHING about it, through movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, or because of this idea that marriage is a civil right, which is never going to fly in the black community because it happens that we know what civil rights actually are, from not having had had them for ---oh, 400 years or so.

 

[Black Jade]

More modern forms of racism, by the way, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, many African Americans would definitely include assuming that we always need help/a break due to being so scarred by racism that we just can't function like actual people and be judged by the exact same standards that white people are; always making the assumption that we come from an 'underprivileged' background and have lived a life of suffering and woe that whites can't even begin to understand etc. etc. This is called 'soft racism' and it's not life threatening or anything but it is really, really annoying. Also seriously annoying is to be lectured about the proper way to think about things by people who haven't lived the life but know all about everything because of some class they took in college, who first tell you that your life was suffering (although you are too stupid to have realized this) and that it can all be explained by Marxist theory or something of that sort, that they know ALL about because they took one class in college.
I'm being nasty here but I really am irritated. I didn't say that I think it is more reasonable to discuss things with your family members and friends than to just cut them off because I am stupid or blind or don't take real racisim seriously and I just wanted to make that ABSOLUTELY clear since some of you seem to need to have everything spelled out. I may have a different opinion than yours but it is a well-considered one, whether you agree with it or not.
Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

 

[Black Jade]

And, by the way, that would be Black JADE, Circe, not just 'Black'.
But maybe you just had a typo there?

 

[Circe]

And, by the way, that would be Black JADE, Circe, not just 'Black'.
But maybe you just had a typo there?

I ... do not see where I did that? But, I apologize heartily, and it most certainly would have been a typo - if I ever abbreviate your name, I call you BJ! I've always thought it was an excellent choice of name and a nifty pun, actually, ever since I saw you explain it in a different thread, so it's securely stuck in my head.

ETA: I succumbed to being OCD, and actually checked the whole thread to see if I'd done something so dumb - I really didn't, swear! At least, not so far as the "find" function can help me to discover. But, nevertheless - whatever wording might have given the impression I was abusing your name, inadvertent!

 

[Autumnovember]

More modern forms of racism, by the way, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, many African Americans would definitely include assuming that we always need help/a break due to being so scarred by racism that we just can't function like actual people and be judged by the exact same standards that white people are; always making the assumption that we come from an 'underprivileged' background and have lived a life of suffering and woe that whites can't even begin to understand etc. etc. This is called 'soft racism' and it's not life threatening or anything but it is really, really annoying. Also seriously annoying is to be lectured about the proper way to think about things by people who haven't lived the life but know all about everything because of some class they took in college, who first tell you that your life was suffering (although you are too stupid to have realized this) and that it can all be explained by Marxist theory or something of that sort, that they know ALL about because they took one class in college.
I'm being nasty here but I really am irritated. I didn't say that I think it is more reasonable to discuss things with your family members and friends than to just cut them off because I am stupid or blind or don't take real racisim seriously and I just wanted to make that ABSOLUTELY clear since some of you seem to need to have everything spelled out. I may have a different opinion than yours but it is a well-considered one, whether you agree with it or not.
Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

That. Thank you.

 

[iheartscience]

TL;DR, Black Jade. But that helpful chart CB posted pretty much sums up everything you typed out.

 

[jstarfireb]

Don't even get me started on the "your racist because you married outside your own race" (i'm paraphrasing) comment

I hate it when people say things like this!!! So ignorant! I'm white and married an Asian man. My brother is unfortunately quite prejudiced, and I have no idea where he got it from...my mom taught a message of tolerance and understanding to both of us. He's told me that he doesn't really approve of my marrying outside my race, but it's tolerable as long as we don't have kids. I don't actually want kids, but that's a whole other issue. Of course I can't quit my relationship with my own brother because of this, but it drives me insane.

 

[Circe]

Some of you are either very young or very uninformed.

What racism means--

You qualify for a certain job, but you can't get it because they don't hire blacks.
You have the money to live in a certain neighborhood, but you can't buy the house because they don't sell to blacks. If they do sell to you, everyone white in the neighborhood moves as soon as they can afford it.
You are not allowed to vote. If you show up at the voting place, you are in real danger--like in danger of being burned to death, hanged or both and having various of your body parts saved and exhibited on people's shelves in bottles.
You have perfectly good money but you can't spend it at certain places--you have to think about where you are going to buy lunch because everywhere will not sell to you.
You are a famous entertainer and you are allowed to sing/dance etc. in front of white people--but you have to use the back entrance.
You are a famous entertainer and you are admired all over the rest of the world--but you can't sing/perform in the United States in certain venues because you are black.
You are a brilliant athlete and you have to play in a separate/not well paid league made specifically for 'your kind'.
You cannot use the bathroom when you have to go--at least, not the same bathroom and often there is none for you. When you take long trips, you have to be prepared to 'hold it' or to know people on the way who will let you inside of their homes.
If a well-meaning white person who somehow doesn't know the rules wishes to befriend you, THEY are called names and treated abusively until they stop.
You are never, ever called by any term of respect such as "Mr." or "Mrs." no matter how old you get.
You are not allowed into the same hospitals. You can actually bleed to death on the way to a 'black'[ hospital because a white one will not let you in--even if you happen to be a brilliant doctor who did work on the process of blood transfusions which is saving countless other people's lives.
You never get rightful credit for anything. For instance, if you are musician and have written and sung wonderful songs, you still can only be recorded on what are called 'race' records (records are what there were before cd's)--and then white performers can sing the same songs without crediting you and make millions of dollars.
You cannot be buried in the same cemetery as white people.
It can happen to you that you are blond, blue eyed and white skinned and if people find out that you have what is called 'one drop' of negro (black) ancestry, you are subject to all of the above treatment.
Medical experiments can be performed on you without your permission or even knowledge. You can be allowed to live with untreated syphilis for 40 years even though there is a cure, because someone wants to study exactly what untreated syphilis does to a human being.
If you go to the hospital to have a baby, you might just wake up from the anesthesia with your tubes ties without your permission, because everyone knows blacks breed like rabbits and have too many babies.
If you are well off and own nice things (through EXTRA hard work given the situation in the country that you were actually born in) you are still in the position where any rowdy white teenager can deface your car, because you shouldn't own it, etc. etc.
Any crime committed against you is much less likely to be prosecuted. If a white person perpetrated the crime, forget it. If another black person perpetrated the crime, the police show no interest in coming to your area of town to listen to any complaints or give your any protection. There are no black police.
If you get to serve in the armed services as something other than the janitor or cook (which you can't until World War II), no matter how you distinguish yourself, when you return home you can be set upon and beaten by any group of white as an n-word who does not deserve to wear the U.S. army uniform.
If you happen to be a woman you are are subject to harassment, sexual abuse and rape with NO chance of any retribution. Other women may also have to go through this to some extent, but not the extent that you do, with no punishment or consideration possible if the harasser/rapist is white. (and none either if the harasser is black,see above about the neighborhood).

I could go on and on but this is the US as it was when I was a young girl, and all of the examples I have given above are either very famous and well documented historical events--or happened personally to either my family members or me. My second cousin was the returning vet who was beaten and kicked in the head for being in uniform--and has severe brain injury; another cousin was kidnapped, raped and shot dead with the perpetrators never being charged or even looked for and as for the buying a house and looking for a job stuff, this was just our life, we expected it because that was how it WAS. We always kept going on and trying however and kept educating ourselves and never GAVE up--and as a child I was constantly told not to become bitter because this is worse for you than the person you are bitter against.

This is what racism was like, people. Yes, there are still remnants and yes, your annoying Uncle Charlie may use the n-word in private and embarrass you becuase you have got so enlightened and progressive, but we have made some giant leaps forward and are continuing to make them. Currently, I honestly believe that a large part of the remaining problem is that many black still have their minds back in the first half of the twentieth century, cannot really believe that there is change and/or want to be given stuff to 'make up' for what prevous generations went through, which can't ever be done. I agree with the great Bill Cosby in this regards-- at this point blacks need to take some responsiblity for the dysfunction and MOVE ON.

By the way, the things that black people really really wanted and fought for in the civil rights era really did not include the right to marry white people, that was not a major interest with the MUCH MORE SERIOUS problems we had at that time. It is amazing the amount of the time that I hear young people say that the US was so racist because black people could not marry white people--it is true that in a lot of states that was against the law but that was not something of great interest. Actually a lot of blacks were like my father, who would have killed me and my sister dead if we brought some white guy home. I don't know if this is the result of whites finding out about racism, to the extent that they know ANYTHING about it, through movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, or because of this idea that marriage is a civil right, which is never going to fly in the black community because it happens that we know what civil rights actually are, from not having had had them for ---oh, 400 years or so.

Youth and ignorance are relative.

I wouldn't presume to school anybody on their personal experience, and I agree with everything you wrote in your list ... though not in the last two paragraphs. I disagree with Cosby, 'cause his experience isn't universal, even among people of color, and he did enjoy some relative privilege ... and I disagree on marriage as a civil right, still, for all the reasons listed before. The only reason I mentioned Loving vs. Virginia was in reference to that.

Queer folk could write their own version of that list, and probably have bigger things to worry about than marriage, too, but it's a different question for them: for one thing, since it's not a case of being denied to marry an individual for whom you have feelings, but the whole class of people to whom you could potentially get married, it basically means you can't get married, period. Think of it sort of like this: I hate to quote Wikipedia, but it's a nicely written article:

In the Monks case (Estate of Monks, 4. Civ. 2835, Records of California Court of Appeals, Fourth district), the Superior Court of San Diego County in 1939 decided to invalidate the marriage of Marie Antoinette and Allan Monks because she was deemed to have "one eighth negro blood". The court case involved a legal challenge over the conflicting wills that had been left by the late Allan Monks, an old one in favor of a friend named Ida Lee and a newer one in favor of his wife. Lee's lawyers charged that the marriage of the Monkses, which had taken place in Arizona, was invalid under Arizona state law because Marie Antoinette was "a Negro" and Alan had been white. Despite conflicting testimony by various expert witnesses, the judge defined Mrs. Monks' race by relying on the anatomical "expertise" of a surgeon. The judge ignored the arguments of an anthropologist and a biologist that it was impossible to tell a person's race from physical characteristics.[9]

Monks then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation law itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Monks's lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed-race person from marrying anyone: "As such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of any of them. Likewise ... as a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian...." The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona, and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her liberty. The court, however, dismissed this argument as inapplicable, because the case presented involved not two mixed-race spouses but a mixed-race and a white spouse: "Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute."[10] Dismissing Monks' appeal in 1942, the United States Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

[galeteia]

Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

I think you missed the part where she FLOUNCED out after CB stated she wasn't going to indulge hella passive-aggressive Q_Qing over what happened in another thread. That's not being driven away, that's someone having a hissy when their attention seeking doesn't get them what they want.

No one criticized her point of view, because it's wasn't clear what her POV on the topic WAS. People were questioning why she wasn't providing a POV other than "you were a jerk in MY thread and therefore it taints my view of YOU" instead of discussion the topic of THIS thread.

Edit: Since threadjacking for purposes of attention seeking is an internet pet peeve of mine, I readily admit I am a lot less tolerant of it than most people probably are. I am now going to go read AN's thread and give her the benefit of the doubt when I read her OP.

 

[Autumnovember]

Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

I think you missed the part where she FLOUNCED out after CB stated she wasn't going to indulge hella passive-aggressive Q_Qing over what happened in another thread. That's not being driven away, that's someone having a hissy when their attention seeking doesn't get them what they want.

No one criticized her point of view, because it's wasn't clear what her POV on the topic WAS. People were questioning why she wasn't providing a POV other than "you were a jerk in MY thread and therefore it taints my view of YOU" instead of discussion the topic of THIS thread.

Edit: Since threadjacking for purposes of attention seeking is an internet pet peeve of mine, I readily admit I am a lot less tolerant of it than most people probably are. I am now going to go read AN's thread and give her the benefit of the doubt when I read her OP.

Actually I had plenty to add and would have loved to state my reasons WHY I wrote what I did. When you fabricate and make up garbage about someone and make lousy assumptions and call them names, its not cool. Just like it wasn't 'cool' of me to come into this thread and write what I did. Even when she finally came to answer what I had responded to her, she avoided my response and went back to her original fabrication of thoughts and avoided the facts. Along with that she became preoccupied with my status at my school. Way to drive divert the topic at hand. The way she started out her initial post to me was rude and guess what? If you're gonna be rude, you can bet I'll act the same way back. The way she acted in her initial post and what I have read in THIS thread so far really made me think that maybe this wasn't all her friend like she was saying. No one criticized my point of view because I NEVER EVEN STATED IT. CB got too caught up on the fact that I said "topic" not "racism." What was the point of me even coming back and backing up what I said? It was useless anyway because as BlackJade said, you guys already decided what is right and wrong here and we all know how PS goes...once there is a group of individuals who think something is right there is no arguing that. By the way, Galateia, wasn't it you who said that since I came into this thread doing what I did, it tainted your view of me? Interesting....considering that CB's rude attitude in my thread is EXACTLY why my view is tainted of her. Glad you can understand then. Don't even waste your time going to check out that original thread so you could 'give me the benefit of the doubt.' Your "view" is already tainted.

As Circe said in a previous thread, play nice.

By the way, I wasn't seeking anyones attention except for CB's since I had tried to point out to her multiple times that I had responded back to her. I've been here for over a year and I'm pretty sure that if I were an attention-seeker, it would have been pretty obvious by now but thanks anyway for the insight.

 

[Imdanny]

Queer folk could write their own version of that list, and probably have bigger things to worry about than marriage, too, but it's a different question for them: for one thing, since it's not a case of being denied to marry an individual for whom you have feelings, but the whole class of people to whom you could potentially get married, it basically means you can't get married, period. Think of it sort of like this: I hate to quote Wikipedia, but it's a nicely written article:

In the Monks case (Estate of Monks, 4. Civ. 2835, Records of California Court of Appeals, Fourth district), the Superior Court of San Diego County in 1939 decided to invalidate the marriage of Marie Antoinette and Allan Monks because she was deemed to have "one eighth negro blood". The court case involved a legal challenge over the conflicting wills that had been left by the late Allan Monks, an old one in favor of a friend named Ida Lee and a newer one in favor of his wife. Lee's lawyers charged that the marriage of the Monkses, which had taken place in Arizona, was invalid under Arizona state law because Marie Antoinette was "a Negro" and Alan had been white. Despite conflicting testimony by various expert witnesses, the judge defined Mrs. Monks' race by relying on the anatomical "expertise" of a surgeon. The judge ignored the arguments of an anthropologist and a biologist that it was impossible to tell a person's race from physical characteristics.[9]

Monks then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation law itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Monks's lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed-race person from marrying anyone: "As such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of any of them. Likewise ... as a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian...." The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona, and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her liberty. The court, however, dismissed this argument as inapplicable, because the case presented involved not two mixed-race spouses but a mixed-race and a white spouse: "Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute."[10] Dismissing Monks' appeal in 1942, the United States Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

This.

I don't think I'd like to list the horrors, including violence and homicide, hundreds, scratch that, make that thousands, of years of the "death penalty," eugenics, Nazi concentrations camps, and so on.

The definition of a "minority group" is one which has historically faced oppression and discrimination. Frankly, I find it mildly offensive to even be talking about whether GLBT people are "really" a minority group, and whether they/ we are "really" fighting for "civil rights."

The only federal case law that I know of that spells out what's involved here that I can think of off the top of my head is the federal court decision overturning California's Prop. 8, in which, unless I'm not remembering it correctly, the judge held that same sex marriage is a matter of equal protection under the law. They/ we were held to be criminals until the Supreme Court decided otherwise in 2003. This means that they/ I have been held to be, basically, criminal until not even ten years ago.

It boils down to some people, a minority in this country now, thinking that GLBT are "lesser" than other people or other groups, if they/ we aren't to have the same rights under the law as other people, yes, including the right to marry. They/ we are full citizens. They/ we pay taxes to the state and federal governments just like everyone else. The law and its protections aren't supposed to be for "some" people in this country and not for others. Neither is it fair to say that they/ we want to "change," "destroy," or otherwise harm "society," "the children," or "marriage." I do find such arguments (and, yes, I've heard such arguments before, many times) to be misguided at best.

I still think that the OP could not have done better. She tried to reason with her friend. It was impossible. I'm not surprised.

 

[Imdanny]

What's a "flounce"? I'm so ignorant.

 

[Circe]

Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

I think you missed the part where she FLOUNCED out after CB stated she wasn't going to indulge hella passive-aggressive Q_Qing over what happened in another thread. That's not being driven away, that's someone having a hissy when their attention seeking doesn't get them what they want.

No one criticized her point of view, because it's wasn't clear what her POV on the topic WAS. People were questioning why she wasn't providing a POV other than "you were a jerk in MY thread and therefore it taints my view of YOU" instead of discussion the topic of THIS thread.

Edit: Since threadjacking for purposes of attention seeking is an internet pet peeve of mine, I readily admit I am a lot less tolerant of it than most people probably are. I am now going to go read AN's thread and give her the benefit of the doubt when I read her OP.

Actually I had plenty to add and would have loved to state my reasons WHY I wrote what I did. When you fabricate and make up garbage about someone and make lousy assumptions and call them names, its not cool. Just like it wasn't 'cool' of me to come into this thread and write what I did. Even when she finally came to answer what I had responded to her, she avoided my response and went back to her original fabrication of thoughts and avoided the facts. Along with that she became preoccupied with my status at my school. Way to drive divert the topic at hand. The way she started out her initial post to me was rude and guess what? If you're gonna be rude, you can bet I'll act the same way back. The way she acted in her initial post and what I have read in THIS thread so far really made me think that maybe this wasn't all her friend like she was saying. No one criticized my point of view because I NEVER EVEN STATED IT. CB got too caught up on the fact that I said "topic" not "racism." What was the point of me even coming back and backing up what I said? It was useless anyway because as BlackJade said, you guys already decided what is right and wrong here and we all know how PS goes...once there is a group of individuals who think something is right there is no arguing that. By the way, Galateia, wasn't it you who said that since I came into this thread doing what I did, it tainted your view of me? Interesting....considering that CB's rude attitude in my thread is EXACTLY why my view is tainted of her. Glad you can understand then. Don't even waste your time going to check out that original thread so you could 'give me the benefit of the doubt.' Your "view" is already tainted.

As Circe said in a previous thread, play nice.

By the way, I wasn't seeking anyones attention except for CB's since I had tried to point out to her multiple times that I had responded back to her. I've been here for over a year and I'm pretty sure that if I were an attention-seeker, it would have been pretty obvious by now but thanks anyway for the insight.

I hope I'm being as nice as I tell other people to be - 'cause I genuinely intend to, and quite like you, AN! The thing is ... Cherry Blossom came on to ask what people would do if a friend came out with the n-word out of the blue and started ranting about the president being a Muslim. (If I remember correctly - I haven't got the energy this hour of the day to set up a water-tight legal defense, so I'm going off of memory: if I'm wrong on anything, by all means, correct me!) She got two pages of advice that boiled down to, "Yeah, I'd call a friend on that, both to be sure I'd understood them correctly, and because I don't like letting that sort of thing stand." She checked with her friend, who proceeded to not just defend racism in the abstract as a freedom-of-speech issue - which it is, but, SERIOUSLY, every time I think about the well-meaning liberals who march to defend the KKK's right to public protest who are then shocked and appalled to hear that the same KKK has, oh, burned a cross on someone's lawn, attacked them physically, or otherwise taken a yard as soon as they were given an inch, I kind of sigh in exasperation - but to attack her personally on the basis of her race.

Them's the facts as we've got 'em. I mean, sure, you can assume CB came out with guns blazing (which, from where I stand, would be merited), but you'd have just about as much basis as to come down on her for attacking her friend with a mallard. (Bonus points for anybody geek enough to get that reference.) Sure, she might have omitted to mention that little detail - but we can't really just assume it and get to work on correcting her. And since that's kinda what it looked like in the absence of seeing exactly what your thought process was ... dude. I'm sorry if you felt ganged up on, but it really did look like a direct transfer from your other thread, like an assumption that if CB goes on the attack over a misunderstanding once, she must do it as a matter of course. But I just do not see which part of her friends attitude, a) could be interpreted that way, or, b) is really worthy of being defended. Please, explain to me what it is I'm missing, if I left anything out!

And, on a slightly tangential note ... could I just put in a general request that anybody who feels misunderstood speak up? Like, at the time? I think a lot of what's seen as the PS "gang mentality" is the frustration of wanting a response running headlong into female gender norms. If a lot of people share an opinion, and there's no response to the first person who utters it, everybody who agrees with them chimes in, going "Yup," because they want some kind of an answer out of sheer curiosity, and, I suppose, 'cause they figure maybe the first person was overlooked, or phrased it badly, or something. And if the person who's being challenged/is in the minority waits for back-up, it gets to looking like a pile-on, even if everybody is being nice ... and then somebody comes along to point out that PS is full of bullies, mean girls, etc. ... and then it turns into a four page debate about net-nannying ... and then the poster people disagreed with comes back, 'cause, finally, enough people are willing to back them up, and it deflates into muttering about how back in the day PS was nicer and you only had to pay a nickle for a Coke. Ay yi yi! I am obviously exaggerating in the case of this thread, so, please, nobody take it personally. It's a general phenomenon, we've all seen it, let's start cutting it off at the head as soon as it rears, aight?

 

[galeteia]

Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

I think you missed the part where she FLOUNCED out after CB stated she wasn't going to indulge hella passive-aggressive Q_Qing over what happened in another thread. That's not being driven away, that's someone having a hissy when their attention seeking doesn't get them what they want.

No one criticized her point of view, because it's wasn't clear what her POV on the topic WAS. People were questioning why she wasn't providing a POV other than "you were a jerk in MY thread and therefore it taints my view of YOU" instead of discussion the topic of THIS thread.

Edit: Since threadjacking for purposes of attention seeking is an internet pet peeve of mine, I readily admit I am a lot less tolerant of it than most people probably are. I am now going to go read AN's thread and give her the benefit of the doubt when I read her OP.

Actually I had plenty to add and would have loved to state my reasons WHY I wrote what I did. When you fabricate and make up garbage about someone and make lousy assumptions and call them names, its not cool.

So are you saying that CG fabricated her friend calling someone the N-word because she made lousy assumptions about her and called her a racist in an attempt to call her a bad name? Because that wasn't at all what I got out of her thread. Circe summed it nicely: friend calls someone the N-word, which is NEVER OKAY, and if you want to accuse me of 'groupthink' for condemning someone for doing it, then I can't even squeak out an 'agree to disagree' because that is some flat-out racist garbage and I wish I could slap every dingbat I hear who uses it against someone. By the same token, if I hear someone call a member of the LGBT the 'f' word at work, I'm going to drag their despicable ass to HR. (we need an 'angrily shaking their fist' emotie here on PS)

Racism is alive and well, and I am TIRED of hearing balls-out racism and homophobia used EVERY DAY where I work, and if no one speaks up and confronts this behaviour, they carry on thinking that it's okay.

'Just like it wasn't cool' of me to come into this thread and write what I did. Even when she finally came to answer what I had responded to her, she avoided my response and went back to her original fabrication of thoughts and avoided the facts. Along with that she became preoccupied with my status at my school. Way to drive divert the topic at hand. The way she started out her initial post to me was rude and guess what? If you're gonna be rude, you can bet I'll act the same way back. The way she acted in her initial post and what I have read in THIS thread so far really made me think that maybe this wasn't all her friend like she was saying. No one criticized my point of view because I NEVER EVEN STATED IT.

That's exactly my point. You never stated your POV, you just came in this thread to insinuate things about CB's story based on her behaviour in YOUR thread. Chasing someone on different threads because they won't respond to you in your thread isn't exactly good manners, eh?

CB got too caught up on the fact that I said "topic" not "racism." What was the point of me even coming back and backing up what I said? It was useless anyway because as BlackJade said, you guys already decided what is right and wrong here and we all know how PS goes...once there is a group of individuals who think something is right there is no arguing that. By the way, Galateia, wasn't it you who said that since I came into this thread doing what I did, it tainted your view of me?

Uh, yes? That's exactly what I was getting at, and why I referred back to me saying as much in my earlier post?

Interesting....considering that CB's rude attitude in my thread is EXACTLY why my view is tainted of her. Glad you can understand then. Don't even waste your time going to check out that original thread so you could 'give me the benefit of the doubt.' Your "view" is already tainted.

Too late, I already did. I didn't see what CB was talking about in terms of you having attitude about 'poor people', and for what it is worth I agree taking expensive items to a place with high crime rates is foolhardy. Crime can happen anywhere, but it's never inappropriate to be cautious.

As Circe said in a previous thread, play nice.

By the way, I wasn't seeking anyones attention except for CB's since I had tried to point out to her multiple times that I had responded back to her. I've been here for over a year and I'm pretty sure that if I were an attention-seeker, it would have been pretty obvious by now but thanks anyway for the insight.

Again, not polite to try to corner someone in another thread because they won't respond you in your thread. I was with you on the reluctance to flaunt your ring in front of have-nots; even SO will not wear his wedding band while at work to avoid 'flaunting' his marriage/relationship to his counselling patients, but your reply to her peppered with such mature gems as "LOL" and "I don't give a poop about you" kinda lost me again. If you like, we can continue this discussion in your thread.

 

[CherryBlossom]

Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

I think you missed the part where she FLOUNCED out after CB stated she wasn't going to indulge hella passive-aggressive Q_Qing over what happened in another thread. That's not being driven away, that's someone having a hissy when their attention seeking doesn't get them what they want.

No one criticized her point of view, because it's wasn't clear what her POV on the topic WAS. People were questioning why she wasn't providing a POV other than "you were a jerk in MY thread and therefore it taints my view of YOU" instead of discussion the topic of THIS thread.

Edit: Since threadjacking for purposes of attention seeking is an internet pet peeve of mine, I readily admit I am a lot less tolerant of it than most people probably are. I am now going to go read AN's thread and give her the benefit of the doubt when I read her OP.

Actually I had plenty to add and would have loved to state my reasons WHY I wrote what I did. When you fabricate and make up garbage about someone and make lousy assumptions and call them names, its not cool. Just like it wasn't 'cool' of me to come into this thread and write what I did. Even when she finally came to answer what I had responded to her, she avoided my response and went back to her original fabrication of thoughts and avoided the facts. Along with that she became preoccupied with my status at my school. Way to drive divert the topic at hand. The way she started out her initial post to me was rude and guess what? If you're gonna be rude, you can bet I'll act the same way back. The way she acted in her initial post and what I have read in THIS thread so far really made me think that maybe this wasn't all her friend like she was saying. No one criticized my point of view because I NEVER EVEN STATED IT. CB got too caught up on the fact that I said "topic" not "racism." What was the point of me even coming back and backing up what I said? It was useless anyway because as BlackJade said, you guys already decided what is right and wrong here and we all know how PS goes...once there is a group of individuals who think something is right there is no arguing that. By the way, Galateia, wasn't it you who said that since I came into this thread doing what I did, it tainted your view of me? Interesting....considering that CB's rude attitude in my thread is EXACTLY why my view is tainted of her. Glad you can understand then. Don't even waste your time going to check out that original thread so you could 'give me the benefit of the doubt.' Your "view" is already tainted.

As Circe said in a previous thread, play nice.

By the way, I wasn't seeking anyones attention except for CB's since I had tried to point out to her multiple times that I had responded back to her. I've been here for over a year and I'm pretty sure that if I were an attention-seeker, it would have been pretty obvious by now but thanks anyway for the insight.

Can we drop this? honestly if you need me to say this (and maybe I should) I AM SORRY FOR SAYING THAT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE OTHER THREAD SOUNDED SNOBBY. I am sorry for assuming things without asking and giving you the opportunity to elaborate on the point that you were making. I should have asked you what you meant instead of assuming what you meant.

Okay?

seriously, let it go. It's not worth it. I posted this because I did want to hear different perspectives on it, even yours.

I am not lying to you when I said I didn't see your response in the other thread or this one right away. I was not attempting to "ignore" you - sometimes I post here for a few days or a couple hours and I disappear for days/weeks etc. So I just didn't see what you said. that's all.

 

[CherryBlossom]

It boils down to some people, a minority in this country now, thinking that GLBT are "lesser" than other people or other groups, if they/ we aren't to have the same rights under the law as other people, yes, including the right to marry. They/ we are full citizens. They/ we pay taxes to the state and federal governments just like everyone else. The law and its protections aren't supposed to be for "some" people in this country and not for others. Neither is it fair to say that they/ we want to "change," "destroy," or otherwise harm "society," "the children," or "marriage." I do find such arguments (and, yes, I've heard such arguments before, many times) to be misguided at best.

I agree with this a lot and have tried to explain it to most people from this standpoint. It does not matter if you you are against gay marriage, etc. The fact is that individuals from the LGBTQ community are tax paying citizens in this country. To deny them the rights that are afforded to others, simply based on their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Furthermore, to actually insert something a state constitution (Prop 8 in CA) which removes rights based on sexual orientation, is unconstitutional. Simply based on that it makes it wrong.

As far as my "friend" goes - I don't have an ounce of remorse on how I dealt with her. Not .0001% - I am open minded, but only so open minded. What she said to me is right up there w/ her saying that she understands some people who molest children. I put it on the same level, even if that's harsh. There is something broken in her mind, and honestly while I feel bad for her. As a very privileged and well educated woman she has every opportunity to educate herself. She is a grown adult, not a child. I have energy for people who are ignorant, but I don't have the same level of energy for people who are WILLINGLY ignorant. She is willingly ignorant and is not one bit interested in even hearing anything out. I remained calm throughout our entire conversation, I spoke to her in a neutral manner and even let her know at the start of our convo that I loved her and value our friendship and everything we have done for each other over the years. I even went as far as telling her that on some points I could "understand" her frustration, and that it must have been awful to be robbed. She didn't want to hear any of it, instead of listening or acknowledging A SINGLE point that I made she was actually trying to convince me to come over to her side and how could I possibly not recognize a scientific and clear difference between the races. It was INSANE. I only snapped at her and said "what is wrong with you" AFTER I realized that she wasn't just defending her hateful words, she was trying to make a case for and defend her views on polygenism. She was telling me that the reason she said what she did is because she believes there are clear difference SCIENTIFICALLY between the races. She brought up the works of ethnographers Christoph Meiners and Georg Forster. Hello, I am not going to have a debate about scientific racism with my FRIEND. never. ever. ever. I really do not care if that makes me closed minded. It's not going to happen. I have better things to do w/ my time

 

[Autumnovember]

Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

I think you missed the part where she FLOUNCED out after CB stated she wasn't going to indulge hella passive-aggressive Q_Qing over what happened in another thread. That's not being driven away, that's someone having a hissy when their attention seeking doesn't get them what they want.

No one criticized her point of view, because it's wasn't clear what her POV on the topic WAS. People were questioning why she wasn't providing a POV other than "you were a jerk in MY thread and therefore it taints my view of YOU" instead of discussion the topic of THIS thread.

Edit: Since threadjacking for purposes of attention seeking is an internet pet peeve of mine, I readily admit I am a lot less tolerant of it than most people probably are. I am now going to go read AN's thread and give her the benefit of the doubt when I read her OP.

Actually I had plenty to add and would have loved to state my reasons WHY I wrote what I did. When you fabricate and make up garbage about someone and make lousy assumptions and call them names, its not cool.

So are you saying that CG fabricated her friend calling someone the N-word because she made lousy assumptions about her and called her a racist in an attempt to call her a bad name? Because that wasn't at all what I got out of her thread. Circe summed it nicely: friend calls someone the N-word, which is NEVER OKAY, and if you want to accuse me of 'groupthink' for condemning someone for doing it, then I can't even squeak out an 'agree to disagree' because that is some flat-out racist garbage and I wish I could slap every dingbat I hear who uses it against someone. By the same token, if I hear someone call a member of the LGBT the 'f' word at work, I'm going to drag their despicable a$$ to HR. (we need an 'angrily shaking their fist' emotie here on PS)

Racism is alive and well, and I am TIRED of hearing balls-out racism and homophobia used EVERY DAY where I work, and if no one speaks up and confronts this behaviour, they carry on thinking that it's okay.

'Just like it wasn't cool' of me to come into this thread and write what I did. Even when she finally came to answer what I had responded to her, she avoided my response and went back to her original fabrication of thoughts and avoided the facts. Along with that she became preoccupied with my status at my school. Way to drive divert the topic at hand. The way she started out her initial post to me was rude and guess what? If you're gonna be rude, you can bet I'll act the same way back. The way she acted in her initial post and what I have read in THIS thread so far really made me think that maybe this wasn't all her friend like she was saying. No one criticized my point of view because I NEVER EVEN STATED IT.

That's exactly my point. You never stated your POV, you just came in this thread to insinuate things about CB's story based on her behaviour in YOUR thread. Chasing someone on different threads because they won't respond to you in your thread isn't exactly good manners, eh?

CB got too caught up on the fact that I said "topic" not "racism." What was the point of me even coming back and backing up what I said? It was useless anyway because as BlackJade said, you guys already decided what is right and wrong here and we all know how PS goes...once there is a group of individuals who think something is right there is no arguing that. By the way, Galateia, wasn't it you who said that since I came into this thread doing what I did, it tainted your view of me?

Uh, yes? That's exactly what I was getting at, and why I referred back to me saying as much in my earlier post?

Interesting....considering that CB's rude attitude in my thread is EXACTLY why my view is tainted of her. Glad you can understand then. Don't even waste your time going to check out that original thread so you could 'give me the benefit of the doubt.' Your "view" is already tainted.

Too late, I already did. I didn't see what CB was talking about in terms of you having attitude about 'poor people', and for what it is worth I agree taking expensive items to a place with high crime rates is foolhardy. Crime can happen anywhere, but it's never inappropriate to be cautious.

As Circe said in a previous thread, play nice.

By the way, I wasn't seeking anyones attention except for CB's since I had tried to point out to her multiple times that I had responded back to her. I've been here for over a year and I'm pretty sure that if I were an attention-seeker, it would have been pretty obvious by now but thanks anyway for the insight.

Again, not polite to try to corner someone in another thread because they won't respond you in your thread. I was with you on the reluctance to flaunt your ring in front of have-nots; even SO will not wear his wedding band while at work to avoid 'flaunting' his marriage/relationship to his counselling patients, but your reply to her peppered with such mature gems as "LOL" and "I don't give a poop about you" kinda lost me again. If you like, we can continue this discussion in your thread.

So are you saying that CG fabricated her friend calling someone the N-word because she made lousy assumptions about her and called her a racist in an attempt to call her a bad name? Because that wasn't at all what I got out of her thread. Circe summed it nicely: friend calls someone the N-word, which is NEVER OKAY, and if you want to accuse me of 'groupthink' for condemning someone for doing it, then I can't even squeak out an 'agree to disagree' because that is some flat-out racist garbage and I wish I could slap every dingbat I hear who uses it against someone. By the same token, if I hear someone call a member of the LGBT the 'f' word at work, I'm going to drag their despicable a$$ to HR. (we need an 'angrily shaking their fist' emotie here on PS)

No, thats not what I was saying at all, I was referring to the other thread. I could comment on the rest of what you said and point out how you completely contradicted yourself but because CB already responded here, I'm not going on further with this.

 

[Autumnovember]

Someone else has already been driven away from this discussion because y'all had already decided what the proper point of view was and wouldn't let her put a word in, but I'm not her, you know?

I think you missed the part where she FLOUNCED out after CB stated she wasn't going to indulge hella passive-aggressive Q_Qing over what happened in another thread. That's not being driven away, that's someone having a hissy when their attention seeking doesn't get them what they want.

No one criticized her point of view, because it's wasn't clear what her POV on the topic WAS. People were questioning why she wasn't providing a POV other than "you were a jerk in MY thread and therefore it taints my view of YOU" instead of discussion the topic of THIS thread.

Edit: Since threadjacking for purposes of attention seeking is an internet pet peeve of mine, I readily admit I am a lot less tolerant of it than most people probably are. I am now going to go read AN's thread and give her the benefit of the doubt when I read her OP.

Actually I had plenty to add and would have loved to state my reasons WHY I wrote what I did. When you fabricate and make up garbage about someone and make lousy assumptions and call them names, its not cool. Just like it wasn't 'cool' of me to come into this thread and write what I did. Even when she finally came to answer what I had responded to her, she avoided my response and went back to her original fabrication of thoughts and avoided the facts. Along with that she became preoccupied with my status at my school. Way to drive divert the topic at hand. The way she started out her initial post to me was rude and guess what? If you're gonna be rude, you can bet I'll act the same way back. The way she acted in her initial post and what I have read in THIS thread so far really made me think that maybe this wasn't all her friend like she was saying. No one criticized my point of view because I NEVER EVEN STATED IT. CB got too caught up on the fact that I said "topic" not "racism." What was the point of me even coming back and backing up what I said? It was useless anyway because as BlackJade said, you guys already decided what is right and wrong here and we all know how PS goes...once there is a group of individuals who think something is right there is no arguing that. By the way, Galateia, wasn't it you who said that since I came into this thread doing what I did, it tainted your view of me? Interesting....considering that CB's rude attitude in my thread is EXACTLY why my view is tainted of her. Glad you can understand then. Don't even waste your time going to check out that original thread so you could 'give me the benefit of the doubt.' Your "view" is already tainted.

As Circe said in a previous thread, play nice.

By the way, I wasn't seeking anyones attention except for CB's since I had tried to point out to her multiple times that I had responded back to her. I've been here for over a year and I'm pretty sure that if I were an attention-seeker, it would have been pretty obvious by now but thanks anyway for the insight.

Can we drop this? honestly if you need me to say this (and maybe I should) I AM SORRY FOR SAYING THAT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE OTHER THREAD SOUNDED SNOBBY. I am sorry for assuming things without asking and giving you the opportunity to elaborate on the point that you were making. I should have asked you what you meant instead of assuming what you meant.

Okay?

seriously, let it go. It's not worth it. I posted this because I did want to hear different perspectives on it, even yours.

I am not lying to you when I said I didn't see your response in the other thread or this one right away. I was not attempting to "ignore" you - sometimes I post here for a few days or a couple hours and I disappear for days/weeks etc. So I just didn't see what you said. that's all.

Yes, we can drop it now. Thank you for apologizing. I'm absolutely not snobby. I'm actually really far from snobby and thats why it bothered me... EVEN if you're just a stranger.

Next time, I won't intervene in a thread about a different topic, I apologize for that.

Also, I absolutely don't agree with your friends thoughts or actions whatsoever ESPECIALLY what she said about marriage. I think if anything, that would piss me off most. I was pointing out that *maybe* the way you approached the situation could have been a reason why she reacted the way that she did. I said before that this was really the best thing you could have done since it really did solidify and confirm your choice about leaving the friendship behind...

 

[aviastar]

I wish that I could take this picture and metaphorically smack her in the head with it

Are we really limiting the definition of racism to the acts or beliefs of white people only? Racism is an belief or doctrine based on preconcieved ideas associated with the color of one's skin, regardless of what color your own skin is or the color of the group you have pre-judged.

I understand the point of the graphic, and agree with it in principle- that we often limit our definitions of racism to conform with our own behavior landing in the 'acceptable' range- and there is certainly the argument (nay, fact, in the US) that the most common form of racism is white judging black. But are there not numerous sad examples of genocides, throughout ancient and recent history, around the world that do not involve white populations at all?

Racism in any form- from any person or group against another- is abhorrent. Let us not overlook that any person of any group is capable of behaving so badly, and any one displaying such ignorance should be called on it.

Which, I don't think, has anything to do with being friends with people with varying political views. The key here is not what you believe, but your abilty to engage in civil discourse. Racist are racists, no matter their political stripe, and are generally incapable of calm, informative discussions because of their limited tolerance for any other viewpoints. But I will be friends with anyone of varying political views if we can have a conversation that never devolves into name calling, snide remarks, or general nastiness. In fact, my (politcally and religiously diverse) group of friends regularly has Pizza n' Politics get togethers that end with smiles, hugs, and laughter.

It's a beautifully diverse world out there, I would hate to stem the flow of information or my own personal growth by limiting my interactions to people who only agree with me.

 

[Kimmy]

I appreciate those who have different opinions than myself and enjoy a little debate, but I have ended friendships over political/social issues. It hasn't been so much about differing views, but how they were expressed. I am an Ayn Rand loving Libertarian/Capitalist and my best friend is a hardcore Socialist (bordering on Communist). We talk every single day and talk about everything. We frequently ask for one anthers opinion on a matter just because its nice to get another perspective. It is only because we always remain respectful and we're both open to re-evaluating our views that we are able to remain friends. We both happen to be from mixed backgrounds (not the same ones) and I think that has made both of us very openminded. There are people I have ended friendships with because they were combative or offensive when they expressed their opinions. To me it really isn't about views so much as how they are expressed. You have every right to end a friendship for any reason.

 

[Black Jade]

I am sorry, Circe, if I misread something and let's call it closed.

 

[Black Jade]

On the subject of gay marriage as a 'right', Loving vs. Virginia, which is often brought up is not a good analogy. That case was not about the very definition of marriage, which would be one man and one woman, not related to one another in ways that can be variously defined, of legal age, legally bound together. One Loving was a man and the other was a woman. It was clearly a question of racism only which was causing the state to deny that they were legally married. Making their marriage legal changed nothing about marriage.
Now if Loving (male) had wanted to marry his sister or Loving (female) had wanted to have the state decide that it was okay for her to marry her brother, that would have changed something fundamental about the law. As it would have if Loving (male) was already married to one woman and decided to bring another into the house and say that he was legally married to her, also. Or if either of the Lovings had wanted to marry a five-year old. But, granted that the Lovings are both human beings (which the original law was trying to deny, making the black wife something less than a human being), the change in law changed nothing about the institution of marriage.

Neither of the Lovings claimed that they had the 'right' to be married just because they wanted to--they were saying that they were being treated differently in a essential way since any other man and woman, not related to each other, of age in the state of Virginia could get married and they could not. I repeat, the case was about Loving (the wife) being an equal human being, since human beings of opposite sexes are allowed to marry each other.

Why are human beings of opposite sex allowed to marry each other? And why does society interfere in it at all? Because society assumes that (while not true in 100% of cases obviously), a man and woman marrying can procreate and are likely to have children--which is good for society in general because it creates a future. Becuase it creates a future for the society, the society does things to encourage it (with the selfish reason of getting something back, that is, the children). It tries to create a situation in which the children will have the most stable envirnoment possible, dealing with the facts that men have no real incentive to stay and support children, once they are conceived, without the benefits that they get from a marriage, and that women prefer to get pregnant when they are in a stable situation and tend not to do it if they are not, and also that the average woman is going to be weaker and unable to do outside work in the same way, at least in the advanced stages of pregnancy and immediately afterwards, and also because while their children are small, women need some help. these are facts,not prejudice--if you doubt them look at what unwed mothers have to deal with, and divorced mothers--the way that the standard of living goes down and how overwhelmed these women are. It is in society's interest to try to avoid this. So it meddles in marriage, not because of wanting to interfere in people's private sex lives, but because it is all about the children. A lot of the so-called 'rights and privilges' of marriage are there solely because of the special circumstances of a pregnant or child-bearing woman or a mother with very young children--to give her some protection while she is doing something that society wishes her to do so that it can continue--and something that she gets very little out of it, in real terms. As you can see from the threads popping on Pscope about people nto wanting to have children. There is really very little in this for a woman, if you think in purely practical terms. Careers get behind, freedom is lost--once women start to think about this, they are very likely to think 'what's in it for me' without some help and encouragement.

A lot of the automatic inheritance rights in marriage are so that a widow (or widower also, actually) will not be left helpless with CHILDREN or so that a woman who (as many women used to do) gave up her strongest years raising children instead of thinking of her career, wouldn't be stuck in her old age in extreme poverty as if she were someone who had contributed nothing--society was essentially saying, you gave up a great deal to do this, which is good for all of us and we are making sure that you are not thrown aside like garbage now that your child-bearing years --or your attractive years--are over. Do you know how many men would dump the wife in favor of someone younger once she was worn out bearing kids if there were not some laws to protect her?

Obviously this system does nto work perfectly, and in fact it is working less and less well but that is the reasoning behind it. And many people want to preserve as much of this as they can, because it is time-proven system that works well. Nothing else works so well for bringing up children as a stable environment with a mother and a father, if it can be managed AT ALL. And gay marriage does nothing to make society continue in the same way and the same issues are not germane--i.e., society will not get back the main thing that it wants and needs to continue, the procreation of children, from gay marriage. So there is no reason for society to create this new thing which is of no benefit to society as a whole. So far as the two gay individuals are concerned, civil unions will take care of issues like not being allowed to see your partner if sick in the hospital and so forth. No one has a 'right' to the special protections of marriage--it is a privilege that society allows.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with giving gay individuals protection from the various unfairnesses they might suffer from because of being 'different'. Granting gay marriage will not help with that one bit--that is a whole separate issue. And, as I was saying before, marriage was not on the slate of civil rights issues that blacks were concerned with. The civil rights movement was not about Loving vs. Virginia, which as I have stated above was an issue of a man not being allowed to marry a woman and not about anything else at all.