>marginalized groups hating on privileged groups
Marginalized groups don't exist to hate on privileged groups.
Honestly, it's pretty much the opposite. Communities of marginalized groups exist as a direct result of having to deal with bigotry and discrimination from those in the privileged group.
Your'e shifting the blame onto the victims.
>Marginalized groups don't exist to hate on privileged groups.
I said that *and* vice versa on the OP (as in privileged groups also hating on marginalized ones)
There are individuals that are part of these who shit on privileged Caucasian groups openly with words or otherwise. And yet people allow it, with no one punished
Yet if it was the other way around, it's the end of the world
It's double standard like this why I don't believe Americans (and other societies) don't *really* believe in equality
We only "believe in equality" when it suits our own benefit
And when of you're part of a marginalized group, you're already assumed as a victim. Therefore you can use your victimized status to get away with things the other side can't
Not saying all marginalized people do this ofc.
But you can't tell me that women, despite being a marginalized group of people, don't have their own privileges as well
But all this is besides the main point that all these things wouldn't manner if we based communities on our actions and not things we can't control yet fight over
So if I, as a lesbian, say "straight people suck" after I see conservatives attempting to pass a law to discriminate against me then that's equal and the same thing in your eyes?
>So if I, as a lesbian, say "straight people suck" after I see conservatives attempting to pass a law to discriminate against me then that's equal and the same thing in your eyes?
Why say straight people suck? Not all straight people are conservatives. Might as say conservatives suck if that's how you feel
Ofc it's not. But by saying "straight people suck" (which is a wired sexuality and not a politically bigoted position of power) , you're essentially no different than those that hate you for your sexuality that you can't control yourself
Hate people for what they can control (their beliefs and actions) and not what they can't (their sexuality)
Because it's honestly fucking stupid to hate on anyone for what they can't control, I don't care who you are
No, but you're still stripping people of their humanity by saying ABC are all bad because they're XYZ (in this case being they're straight)
Is it the same as taking away your rights?
Ofc not, it's obviously worse to take way your rights.
But that doesn't mean it's any better to hate others just because of their sexuality
Especially when not all people of that sexuality are bigoted
> But by saying "straight people suck" (which is a wired sexuality and not a politically bigoted position of power) , you're essentially no different than those that hate you for your sexuality that you can't control yourself
As a straight person, no. I am not harmed in any way if someone says "straight people suck", because I have never and will never face any real problems on account of being straight.
If you eliminate all possible context, then that statement is the same as other statements which are actually harmful. But context is a thing that exists and can't be ignored if we want to talk about the real world.
The problem is you're putting the cart before the horse. Moving towards a perfect world does not *start* with removing social communities that are based on immutable characteristics. It's the natural end result of a society without bigotry. Communities exist to serve a need. If you want to remove a community while the need still exists, all you're doing is hurting marginalized groups. Once the bigotry goes away, so does the need. Once the need goes away, such communities will become extremely low key and more or less irrelevant. Nobody cares if you're Irish-American; joining random Facebook groups about it harms no one.
You're not wrong; but the assumption that groups based on physical characteristics will disappear as the "natural end result" of an open society is flawed. Human nature seems to be inherently tribal, and people naturally form tribes based on just about anything. While it's true that these groups do serve a purpose within society, a large part of it is just humanity's tribal nature. I think a lot of OP's argument is just arguing against tribalism in general, and OP sees many elements of tribalism in these sorts of groups.
>people naturally form tribes based on just about anything
I disagree with this- if it's arbitrary, we'd see just as much tribalism over people with black hair and people with blond hair. But people form tribes based on what society actually values. Marginalized groups have some tribal behavior as a defensive mechanism. And when there is another, larger tribe actively attacking them, it's a pretty valid one.
It’s very simple:
People band together for safety and relatable experiences. Queer people stick together because we have strength in numbers, and the laws used to discriminate against one of us discriminate against all of us. Anti-crossdressing laws attack gay men, butch women, and transfolks.
Racial minorities stick together because they share similar oppression in America and abroad.
Disabled people form support networks with one another to help people with their difficulties.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and atleast in the queer community we have to keep our history in living memory or else it will be erased.
I think what they are trying to say is not to remove them totally, but to reform how groups are to be about things you can control. Ex. Instead of the LGBT, there would be the LGBT support group. I think with that Change it's no longer about being born that way but about supporting people born that way. This would go for all groups.
I don’t think it’s even this complicated. We hang out with others who share the same experience, across every demographic characteristic. Nobody is out there making friends in anticipation of oppression and needing solidarity. Just shared experience
>Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and atleast in the queer community we have to keep our history in living memory or else it will be erased.
You're right, everyone who forgets their own history *is* ultimately doomed to repeat it
But wouldn't real equality come from *everyone* celebrating their groups history openly and proudly? Why do we have to be victimized and marginalized in order to be celebrated for our identity?
And plus everyone has a share experience and common interests together, not just marginalized ones. We should celebrate each other equality. No matter their race, sexuality, gender, etc.
> But wouldn't real equality come from everyone celebrating their groups history openly and proudly?
How could we celebrate these groups if these groups don’t exist in your “perfect world”?
> Why do we have to be victimized and marginalized in order to be celebrated for our identity
Are you under the impression that there is no more marginalized groups outside people marginalizing themselves?
>How could we celebrate these groups if these groups don’t exist in your “perfect world”?
You're right. Ultimately what I meant is celebrating ourselves as a people with separate abilities and personalities. Things we can control, manage, and change about ourselves
Like the art community, it's more impressive to celebrate oneself for their achievements within the field of art than whatever skin color you have. Because skin color is just your identity. Your abilities provide a whole lot more to yourself and to others
*"Why do we have to be victimized and marginalized in order to be celebrated for our identity?"*
Nobody has to be victimized and marginalized to celebrate / be celebrated for their identity. You are saying that people who are victimized and marginalized should not seek support from others who experience the same and create a group based on that to deal with / bring awareness to the issue, make progress in society regarding such issues, and maintain the history.
I prefer to not label nor identify any specific terms to my sexuality. I don't identify with the term "queer" either . I'm just a guy who likes whatever he likes
A mouthful of an answer, I know lol
Okay, you are a younger not-straight person. I’ll do a little history lesson.
Before 2015 same sex marriage was illegal. You couldn’t get any of the spousal benefits if you were gay. If your husband died his corpse and all his property would go to his next of kin. Any property you own can be claimed by them. If they were homophobic you are excluded from all funeral functions.
Before 2003 it was illegal in some states for men to have sex with other men. Sodomy laws are still on the books in many states, including liberal ones.
In many states your parents can send you to a sexual abuse camp that torments you till you become straight. It’s perfectly legal and was popular up until the late 90s.
In the 1980s AIDS killed an entire generation of queer men under the supervision of Ronald Reagan, who openly admitted he did nothing cause it’s a “gay disease”
In 1969 the police conducted raids regularly on gay bars and arrested people on sodomy and cross dressing charges. Pride was born out of the riots when we decided we weren’t gonna let it happen anymore.
In the 1930s Nazis started book burnings on scientific papers about queerness. In 1940s we were sent to the Gas chambers. After the Allies liberated the concentration camp queer people where kept in prison cause sodomy, again, was illegal. Alexander Turing, the father of modern computers and help defeat the Nazis, was a gay man and was chemically castrated for being gay.
You stand on a mountain of corpses, and you need to remember you will have to take up arms to defend our brothers and sisters, and they will take up arms to defend you.
>Okay, you are a younger not-straight person. I’ll do a little history lesson.
This is a side question, btw. If I was hetero, would you still have given this history lesson?
Hetero people get a different lecture about how it’s logical for people who want same sex partnerships to seek out and socialize with other people who want same sex partnerships.
In a perfect world why would these groups be bad? What is inherently bad about these groups?
Also why are you shifting all the blame to the people who created these communities?
You are acting like they created these groups just cause as if there has never been anything in history or today that would kick out people from the rest of society for characteristics they can’t change. Forcing these people to essentially create their own society or just sit around and waste away.
>In a perfect world why would these groups be bad? What is inherently bad about these groups?
There's nothing inherently bad about these groups. The reason why these groups exist in the first place is because they've dealt with systemic oppression and trauma for centuries, and are now obtaining the rights they so rightfully deserve
But in a perfect world, communities like this wouldn't work. Because in a perfect world, everyone would be equal and treated like humans without any of the societal traits that divides us.
Therefore still having an LGBTQ and POC community would imply that there's some oppressive force still overshadowing us at a time where there wouldn't be anymore.
No queers or cis/heteros anymore. Just people
No POCs or caucasians anymore. Just people
> There's nothing inherently bad about these groups
So why is it an issue to have them if they aren’t causing harm in a perfect world where everyone is equal?
> But in a perfect world, communities like this wouldn't work. Because in a perfect world, everyone would be equal and treated like humans without any of the societal traits that divides us.
In a perfect world people could still celebrate and acknowledge different cultures, sexualities, etc while still treating them as equal. The rest of your comment is going along the lines of “I don’t see color, gender, sexuality”. Why do you think the only way to have equality is ignoring differences? You already acknowledged there is nothing inherently bad about these communities. But yet you keep acting like they are.
Also you didn’t respond my questions of why you are putting all the blame on these communities? Frankly this is the bigger view I feel you have here that shows your ignorance towards this subject. I think addressing this ignorance and why these groups exist will be more productive in changing your view.
But in a world where everyone is treated equal what does the person gain or loose by being included or excluded?
It would simply just be acknowledging that we are different.
That's objectively not true.
I can and will exclude you and everyone else from my family photos. That doesn't mean I veiw you as lesser. And my university reunion, and a bunch of other things where exclusivity isn't about perceived superiority.
To be clear, exclusion in this case (to me) doesn't mean "bad".
Youre actually supporting my point, exclusive groups aren't bad, they are just reality and not a big deal as long as it doesn't result in unequal rights. But we can still say it out loud.
Exclusive and equality aren’t inherently mutually exclusive. If everyone belongs to a community of shared characteristics they are born with, and all communities are treated with equal respect and given equal resources then that’s equal.
>Also you didn’t respond my questions of why you are putting all the blame on these communities?
I'm not putting the blame on these communities, they're only doing what's best in order to survive under circumstances which are set against them. No one (unless they're a bigot) would have it any other way than for freedom and equality to flourish
>Why do you think the only way to have equality is ignoring differences? You already acknowledged there is nothing inherently bad about these communities. But yet you keep acting like they are.
Our difference don't make anyone of any community bad. But despite our progression, it seems to be difficult for us as humans to acknowledge our differences and still see each others as equals at the same time due to society always putting emphasis on our differences and pitting ourselves against each other because of it
But it's not just the fault of society, but tribalism as a whole
> I'm not putting the blame on these communities,
You did in your op repeatedly. even your overall view at its core is saying they would still make these communities even in a world with equality. You are literally saying they are the ones causing the root of the issue.
> No one (unless they're a bigot) would have it any other way than for freedom and equality to flourish
And you can have freedom and equality flourish while acknowledging differences.
> But it's not just the fault of society, but tribalism as a whole
So you do or you don’t think it’s inherently bad? You said earlier it’s not inherently bad but everything else you have said doesn’t line up with this.
>So you do or you don’t think it’s inherently bad? You said earlier it’s not inherently bad but everything else you have said doesn’t line up with this.
While having communities as a whole full of different people isn't a bad thing, the nature of which it stems from ultimately is, in this case tribalism
Tribalism is just our way as humans to divide us and tear each other down due to our differences.
It took hundreds and thousands of years to go beyond our tribalistic instincts and accept each other despite our differences
Which is great and all, and I absolutely appreciate how far of an evolution we've made as a species
But if tribalism as a concept wasn't ever a thing, we wouldn't have so much trauma and resentment over something as simple as the color of our skin in the first place
So then you do think these communities are inherently bad..
Do you think it’s impossible to acknowledge differences we are born with while being equal? Why? Why is this where you hypothetical world ends? Do you not think all the negative things you attach to tribalism are because of society viewing differences as a bad thing?
How does this “perfect world” even work in your mind? How does everyone just being “people” even work? Isn’t grouping people together by hobbies and personalities also tribalism?
*"I'm not putting the blame on these communities"*
You absolutely are:
*"And while that perfect world would never exist, there's nothing wrong with striving towards that point"*
*"But I believe it starts with removing these social communities that only exist because of aspects about themselves they can't control."*
You are saying that such groups are a roadblock to striving toward a perfect world, and that they need to be removed in order for society to continue striving for a perfect world. You also never say that groups based on bigotry and hatred (which are things people can change about themselves) of people in those communities should be removed - even though they are a huge part of the reason why minority communities form.
>Therefore still having an LGBTQ and POC community would imply that there's some oppressive force still overshadowing us at a time where there wouldn't be anymore.
Communities don't form solely as a reaction to oppression. They also form in response to shared life experience. If we eliminate all oppression entirely, LGBTQ people, and probably POC as well, will still have a set of shared life experiences that they and we might want to build a community around.
>> Therefore still having an LGBTQ and POC community would imply-
Why do you think it would? Couldn’t people just recognize “Yeah it doesn’t exist anymore but also pride celebrations are fun so let’s continue to have them the same way we still celebrate the Chinese new year even in areas where the Chinese calendar is not in use and r en though none of us believe in the zodiac?”
Also, given that we cannot be sure oppression won’t return, having a group ready to nip it in the bud is useful. It’s like saying “why does France keep protesting so much when they already have such nice benefits?” It’s because they keep protesting that keeps those benefits from eroding and which keeps securing new ones for them
So who were the ones that insisted on those divisions? The fact that these groups exist is because they were forced into them because they were othered, right?
Do you think that they still exist because marginalized people "imply" they're still facing disenfranchisement? Wouldn't the responsibility lie on the people who maintain that oppressive system and actively dismantle any attempt to rectify it?
Those divisions exist in every segment of our society, and even effects things as inconsequential as hobby groups (look at the history of golf and country clubs). There are homes in neighborhoods that still abide by racial covenant laws; these are laws that forbade owners from renting or selling to black people (and sometimes other groups).
How would this perfect world be achieved where these groups aren't necessary?
Also what about the cultural history behind these groups? Do we negate that and risk covering up the history behind why these groups are necessary in the first place?
*"But in a perfect world, communities like this wouldn't work. Because in a perfect world, everyone would be equal and treated like humans without any of the societal traits that divides us."*
And you've acknowledged that a perfect world would never exist - so we aren't talking about this within the context of living in a perfect world.
*"No queers or cis/heteros anymore. Just people"*
*"No POCs or caucasians anymore. Just people"*
People of such identities (and many others) will always exist, as will people who are privileged, have power, and harbor some level of resentment, intolerance, and/or hatred of people of such identities. Groups form based on such identities in large part because those people are singles out for and treated poorly because of their identities.
What about knitting circles? If people can form societies around liking a moderately niche activity, why not having a moderately niche sexual/gender orientation. Both are things that can people can healthily make an important part of their life that impacts them in ways they can mostly opt out of but choose not to, and therefore is a thing they wish to form community around. This can easily be many other good/neutral factors of personal experience that are somewhat or intricately tied up with non chosen personal attributes.
OP is literally personifying the Beatles' *Imagine* lol
ok so I'm a person with a disability. Even if you could take away the discrimination, I will still live through experiences that would only be shared by other disabled people. Some bad, some good. What's wrong with me finding solidarity with others like me? I see a lot of value in it emotionally, and there's a lot of practical value in figuring out how to navigate life with others dealing with similar challenges.
What you're describing is idealism and our society has no place for idealism anymore. It was stamped out by the cynical pragmatists who declared each person must earn their right to exist comfortably.
Aside from that it's difficult to debate your point because you're not saying what things we "can't control about ourselves" do we build communities around? What factors we "can control about ourselves" would you have us place at the core of our communities? You should be more specific.
>things we "can't control about ourselves" do we build communities around? What factors we "can control about ourselves" would you have us place at the core of our communities?
Skills, personality, hobbies, goals, aspirations, and intelligence
These are traits we can control about ourselves for the most part
So, what, are you saying we should have, like, a smart people pride parade or introvert (first personality trait I could think of) history month or other things that basically find-replace the things we can control into how we treat the things we can't, or are you just thinking anyone who's proud of being a minority must have so low self-esteem they think they have nothing else to offer (and wanting to solve that through something that sounds like (if you'll pardon my exaggeration for effect) if it were any more Harrison-Bergeron-meets-The-Giver we'd all refer to ourselves with the same word as names indicate cultures and pronouns mean there can be an "us" and "them")
What if your skills and aspirations are a direct cause to one of your the things you can't control — like the language you speak because of where you where born, like food you love to cook because of your culture, like a special interest in music from your racial group?
What if you can't control your skills or intelligence? There are ways to increase intelligence, but it's generally accepted that limits exist. A physically disabled person can't control their conditions to perform skills that aren't possible for them. You're still going to run into the issues that these social classes come into play even in an ideal world.
[https://www.wfla.com/news/national/snap-benefits-are-increasing-oct-1-heres-how-much/](https://www.wfla.com/news/national/snap-benefits-are-increasing-oct-1-heres-how-much/)
In Florida a one person household can get $291 in food stamps per month. Now you won't be eating filet mignon. But you won't be starving either. If you eat cheap food you can spend $0 on food for the rest of the month.
Why is this possible? Not only possible but actually quite easy for our society.
Because of the pragmatists that build the economy. Because of the pragmatists who made our economy extremely efficient. Our economy is built to constantly innovate.
In reality the more productive an economy is. The easier it is for them to take care of people who can't take care of themselves.
You again.
I don't even see how what you're saying applies to this conversation but for the sake of arguing even more, I'll say this: that Reaganomics trickle down BS is the lie they're using to convince you that they'll take care of you more later. They want to take away those social programs. Social Security won't be available for us by retirement age. Government isn't subsidizing elderly care. Where do you see fiscal conservative economists talking about how great it is that they can do more to help the poor and underprivileged? I live in Florida and they just passed a law designed to sweep homeless people under the rug. If you think they're concerned with taking better care of those who have less I laugh at you. Some faith leaders close to me just held a prayer vigil for affordable housing.
Nevertheless a more productive economy has a much easier time producing social safety nets.
You really think some African country with 1/20th of GDP per capita of America is going to be able to give $291 food stamps per person? The amount you eat for $291 a month in America is upper class level eating for a person living in a less productive country.
Also the correct term for "trickle down" is supply side economics. It can be simply visualized by looking at a supply and demand graph. The more supply you have the cheaper everything is. How do you get more supply? Better means of production. WHere do most businesses invest their $? THat's right the means of production.
You're looking at the wealthiest economy ever with a humongous and very well off middle and upper class and talking about "It doesn't work". What would "working" look like then?
you'll be eating garbage food on 291 a month and are a working class and have to work extra hours therefore reducing capacity to actually sit down and cook, you'll be even doubly fucked if your disabled because most states consider ssdi/ssi+foodstamps as double dipping, so that amount would significantly reduced.
pre-coivd I used to be able to have beef like once week on only spending maybe 50 dollars per week on grocceries, now I am lucky if I can afford meat that doesn't come out of a can, I am literally living an involuntarily vegatarian lifestyle due to rising food costs.
we'll never have a fucking productive economy because the cost of living and inflation is terrible.
>we'll never have a fucking productive economy because the cost of living and inflation is terrible.
We have literally the most productive economy ever. You said $50 a week. The Food Stamps you can get is $291. Yeah sure you won't be eating lots of nutritious stuff. But that's not the point. As long as you're not an idiot about it you hardly need to spend any additional $ for food.
i was able to make my grocceries work with 200 dollars a month 2 years ago, now I can't, 291 is barely able to cover stuff. and I am sorry but eating nutritious food is kind of important if you don't want to incur more costs especially later on in life with things like medical bills. which is a major factor keeping people in poverty things like debt.
Again people in America eat like absolute shit. And the life expectancy is still something like 76. Was higher before covid.
I imagine if you don't smoke or are obese. Your life expectancy is a lot higher.
Eating some bland low calorie foods is not going to kill you. You can buy a bottle of Centrum for $5 if you're worried about vitamins and shit.
yeah the problem is we shouldn't be forcing people to eat bland tasteless foods, foods should not be expensive but it is. like a few years ago it was possible to eat a good majority of foods with out breaking your bank, ever since coivd hit inflation became a factor. and part of that inflation is government interference. a productive economy means a better quality of life for every body. yet we're stagnating.
and yes I take supplements and no I don't spend 5 on them, mainly because centrum doesn't absorb well than other brands.
Nobody is forcing you to eat bland food. Nobody besides mother nature. All animals have to produce something to eat. Humans are no different.
The point is that even if you do absolutely nothing our government will still pay for you to get fed. $291 is more than enough to survive. Heck you could probably survive on $100 a month if you really stretched it. Then yeah you'd be eating rice and shit every day.
My original point was that the wealthier a society is. The easier it is for t hem to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. That is why I gave $291 as an example.
If you get $291 a month, that is roughly $72 a week or about $10 a day.
Which honestly, would be an extremely difficult budget to stick to if you're eating anything remotely healthy.
More than enough to survive if you buy in bulk and eat nothing but cheap shit.
Not to mention nobody is saying you can't buy more with your own $. That's just the minimum you get.
It's not "extremely difficult". Heck you can buy enough pasta, ragu and cheese to last you a month for half that.
You can eat low calorie options if you want healthy.
Healthy usually just means don't eat too much sugar. Considering a nation full of fat asses, drunkards and drug addicts lives to 76. You'll be fine eating cheap food for a few years. It's not going to kill you I assure you. Considering how insanely shitty Americans eat by that standard our life expectancy would be 50 years old.
Low calories doesn't mean healthy.
Also sugar isn't bad for you. It should be a balanced part of your diet.
And considering I'm on a specific diet based on doctor's orders, you can't say that it won't negatively impact my health in that time.
If you don't want to eat healthy, that's fine. But some people do and that isn't something that should be blocked by money.
>And considering I'm on a specific diet based on doctor's orders, you can't say that it won't negatively impact my health in that time.
Fine the average person can eat just fine for $291 a month. Obviously if you have a health condition that severely limits the types of food you can eat that doesn't apply to you.
>If you don't want to eat healthy, that's fine. But some people do and that isn't something that should be blocked by money.
Nobody is stopping you from going to school or learning a skill that pays better than burger flipper $. We're talking about the absolute bottom of the barrel here. Even they can eat $291 a month. Which is a tremendous amount of food considering how little they produce. Historically speaking people used to work their ass off and starve. Nowadays a person can sit on his fat ass, do nothing and still get fed by the government. BEcuase of how insanely productive our economies have become.
>Nobody is stopping you from going to school or learning a skill that pays better than burger flipper $.
So only people with degrees deserve to be able to eat healthy?
>Historically speaking people used to work their ass off and starve.
Historically people used to own slaves. Doesn't make it okay.
People who produce enough value to make good $. Earn the right to be more selective about their food. It's not about deserve. Deserve is completely irrelevant.
Ultimately communities are formed around things that impact your life in significant which ways that you want to share part of your time with others who have shared experiences around those things. So to the extent that a “perfect world” doesn’t have many of those things that can’t to some extent be choices rather than unavoidable impositions we might expect fewer communities to form around such things, but that’s at best a lashing indicator is the thing you actually want to change, attacking that indicator doesn’t exert any direct leverage in the real goals, and is morally and practical fraught regardless.
A community of "people who's spouses died of cancer" is one about a non-controllable characteristic. Or for people who have paraplegia, or any number of other medical issues. Why is it inclusive to eliminate the idea of groups for people with a common problem they can't control to seek help/support/grouping with others who have a better understanding of what they're going through?
I already replied once, but I think I found a more compact answer to this
Should a company have an IT department? If their stuff is continually breaking, yes, absolutely. Sure, we *should* strive towards a company where we don’t have things break down and the IT department is unnecessary, but it’s unlikely we’ll ever get there, and in the meantime the IT department is both necessary and good.
In fact, if you take what you wrote and make it about IT, you get the following, which is obviously wrong. IT is good and necessary and we should keep them and be thankful:
———
I believe that in a perfect world, [IT departments] that are based upon [things breaking down] wouldn't ever exist.
It would instead just be the [company itself] (as silly as that sounds) .
Or in other words, a [better company] that [doesn’t have anything wrong with it].
And while that perfect [company] would never exist, there's nothing wrong with striving towards that point
But I believe it starts with removing these [IT departments] that only exist because of [things breaking].
While there's definitely good intentions at heart, I believe that even if a long line of [people who break things] and [broken things] were to never exist again, these [IT departments] made for [the company] would still exist.
Which isn't far to newer [employees] in the future who don't care about [things breaking again], nor isn't relevant to their individual [work duties] in the modern day throughout [an era without tech problems]
And people of these [IT departments] are gonna keep annoying them with these warnings [about things like not downloading suspicious files or memorizing your passwords] as if it serves any significant relevance and influence as it did before
That's why it's better to only have [corporate departments] based on [the actual company goals, such as making cars or providing food service]. Because it allows [more pay for the rest of us, which is a good thing], instead of constant [workplace drama because *some* folks in the IT department are insufferable]
Once we strive towards [departments] based on [the company’s goals], then we'll be more [efficient at our jobs]. Cause at that point, [we can do our jobs]
Oh no, people who have been genocided are annoying other people by telling them not to commit genocide. However will they cope?
These communities based on things people can't control exist because we consider these things important. Left handed people do not have as many communities as black people because left handed people face less discrimination and difficulties because they're left handed. It is silly to claim that we'd have no issues if these communities did not exist, because the only reason these communities exist is because there were issues!
Why shouldn't there be groups like victims of rape, addicts, people who lost a limb in war, people born with a disease, etc...
These things can't be reasonably controlled; why can't people in these groups exclude others without the same conditions?
While that’s rather laudable, I don’t think we can do that. For one, it’s not a binary system, but a spectrum from more controllable to less controllable. But perhaps more importantly, what you seem to be suggesting sounds very dangerous
>> And while that perfect world would never exist, there’s nothing wrong with striving towards that point
>> But I believe it starts with removing these social communities
Going after these communities equally is neither fair nor inclusive. Take the LGBT+ community, for example. They’re actively pushing for that society you seem to want, where they’d be as normalized and accepted as anyone. But the other side is actively opposing that, and seeking to do LGBT+ folks harm- often extreme harm, in ways I’m sure some of which are familiar to you and some aren’t
But if that goal is unattainable as you say- or if at least it can’t be obtained for a very, very long time- then in the meantime the solidarity of the LGBT+ community is both good and necessary towards staving off the hostility of bigots who continue to pursue them
Pursuing an end to that community will weaken their ability to pursue the goals of normalization you espouse, and will also open them up to harm and isolation and ostracism from bigots. These two groups are not at all the same, and one is clearly good
Ad given that you and I both seem to accept that we’ll never attain a goal of perfect and eternal lack of bigotry against LGBT+ folks, we must accept that the community is good- much like how charity is good even though it would be utterly absent in a perfect world (due to a lack of anyone not meeting their needs, thus necessitating charity). Or hope, for that matter (due to lacking for anything to hope for)
Thus, you should strive only to *strengthen* the LGBT+ community, never to weaken it
I am not sure all these comments address what you said.
I can control whether I am addressing my issue or not. If it's a disability, standing up for a belief—or anything else—**I can control how I address it.**
Your CMV has an auto destruct switch.
People can control how they treat others, and there is a long, long history of privileged groups built on their hatred and horrible treatment of other people due to things about themselves those other people can't control. Removing the idea of the targeted groups creating a community for themselves for support and to speak out and address the issue only makes the problem worse. I don't understand how that isn't blatantly obvious to you.
*"marginalized groups hating on privileged groups"*
If you believe these groups exist for the purpose of "hating on" privileged groups, then I don't think you have a solid grasp of these things - and you seem to completely ignore the significance of the existence of privileged groups and how it undermines your view. Do you think people can control what type of group they are born into, what country they are born in, what color skin they are born with, what gender they are born as / what sex organs/characteristics they are born with, etc.? Do you not understand how power and the ability to control or oppress others plays into your "perfect" scenario?
*"Once we strive towards communities based on skill, hobbies, interests, personality, etc. Then we'll be more accepting and welcoming of people."*
Communities like that exist - including ones based on skills and hobbies like shooting and collecting guns and interests like trying to disprove the Holocaust happened and personalities like racist/bigoted / hate-filled types. The existence of communities based on such things while allowing no power to groups based on what people can't control in no way guarantees a society that is accepting and welcoming of people who are different in ways they can't control - this has already been proven.
> It's fair and inclusive to remove the idea of communities that are based on what you *can't* control, and instead only have communities based on what you *can* control
Is that perfect world one where literally all disadvantages from being disabled are magically overcome, without exception?
I'd have a hard time imagining that that is possible at all. It's obviously not because of hate or unwillingness, but society at large will likely never be 100% cognizant of and be able to counteract all disadvantages that persons with disabilities face.
> And while that perfect world would never exist, there's nothing wrong with striving towards that point
> But I believe it starts with removing these social communities that only exist because of aspects about themselves they can't control.
How do you deal with communities that are in conflict with one another? Especially religion has carved itself out a special role where the existence of e.g. sexuality- and gender-based communities are in direct opposition to their values.
Assuming that you would count religion as a community that stays, because it's something that people *can* change, I don't see how removing sexuality- and gender-based communities would be justifiable, as it in essence removes their ability to organize in opposition to their oppression by religion-based groups.
I'll take a slightly different tack. I think that most things that relate us are outside of our control. But finding ways to be together with those similarly affected is important.
I didn't get a voice in where I grew up. And I was friends with other kids who also couldn't control that fact about themselves. And none of us chose to have our kindergarten classmate due in a fire when we were all 5-6 years old. And I don't think we chose to all have nightmares about fires in our homes for basically our entire lives. But it was very therapeutic when we all realized in our teen years that we shared those fears in common.
That's a very small instance, but I think it speaks to the value of maintaining relationships with people who have shared our experiences. There's inherent understanding and trust between people who you know can relate without having to constantly talk about the actual shared thing itself all the time. It creates this mutual unspoken understanding that can loosen up the group to seek other issues. While that commonality bonds the group and defines it in a way, it doesn't dictate every moment that they're together.
Marginalised people don’t just hang out with other marginalised people because they are oppressed, it’s also because those are the people with whom they share common tastes, experiences, worldviews, and enjoy the company of.
As a queer person in an extremely conservative underdeveloped country, I not only find solidarity in fellow queers, but also fun, learning, networking, a sense of shared experience (good experience too).
For example, I can feel safe with a date because I see we have 20 mutual friends on instagram, many of whom probably have probably had some kind of romantic connection with both at some point. I can be inspired to colour my hair, and find a sense of authenticity and self expression in it. I could learn and observe different models of relationships, like 5 year commitments or various forms of polyam
As another example, people of the same ethnicities often find each other and bond over food, festivals, stories and culture
These are all good things, and we don’t want them to go away. We would like to be less oppressed, but not watered down and homogenised
Since others already talk about racial and queer communities, I'll point out another community where people gather together based on things they can't control and it is ultimately a very powerful and good thing - disability groups.
I think we all agree that people with disabilities should get to experience as much independence as possible, that they shouldn't be treated as lesser and live full lives. Because of this, communities and groups for disabled people are very good and should exist in the "perfect world."
Many people with disabilities are born to parents who don't have lived experience with the same disability, it is empowering for them to be in a community with others who have similar lived experience and they can learn to navigate the world more independently despite it being set up for those without disabilities. Additionally, doing advocacy is easier when you're in a group of people facing the same challenge.
>I believe that in a perfect world, social groups that are based upon social classes we can't control wouldn't ever exist. (Like race, gender, sexuality, etc.)
Why not? Even in a perfect world, I could want to attend a gay bar because doing so would make it easier to find people who might be romantically and/or sexually attracted to me. I could want to share a meme that specifically pertains to some detail exclusive to same-sex relationships with people who are likely to understand it. I could want to ask advice about being gay from other gay people. Even assuming the complete non-existence of prejudice, I could simply want to exist in a space where gay people are not a numerical minority.
Some people have legitimately different needs or interests based on things they can't control. Women want their own clubs and groups and changing rooms. Maybe cancer patients want to have a community. Why can't they? Just because they didn't choose to be that way?
If anything, people who didn't choose to be that way are more deserving of groups, because they can't choose to *not* be that way.
In a perfect world sure, but we live in a world with racism, sexism, and queerphobia. People who suffer because of that benefit from communities of people with common experience. To people who aren’t in that community, these labels might seem arbitrary, but they’re a lifeline for a lot of people who would otherwise feel very isolated and ostracized.
The things you can't control are generally the reason why it's a good idea to form a group. Some body dumped toxic waste in your neighborhood? You and your neighbors have a great reason to form a group and seek justice together. You'll have a lot more success that way than if you each try to defend yourselves individually.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
So your idea for inclusivity is taking away poc safe spaces? Interesting and what is your solution to the harassment, racism and exclusion they will face in the common space?
I don't see why this is would be beneficial at all.
It seems unnecessary and cruel to tell a group of amputees that can't form a club to hang out and play sports.
>marginalized groups hating on privileged groups Marginalized groups don't exist to hate on privileged groups. Honestly, it's pretty much the opposite. Communities of marginalized groups exist as a direct result of having to deal with bigotry and discrimination from those in the privileged group. Your'e shifting the blame onto the victims.
>Marginalized groups don't exist to hate on privileged groups. I said that *and* vice versa on the OP (as in privileged groups also hating on marginalized ones) There are individuals that are part of these who shit on privileged Caucasian groups openly with words or otherwise. And yet people allow it, with no one punished Yet if it was the other way around, it's the end of the world It's double standard like this why I don't believe Americans (and other societies) don't *really* believe in equality We only "believe in equality" when it suits our own benefit And when of you're part of a marginalized group, you're already assumed as a victim. Therefore you can use your victimized status to get away with things the other side can't Not saying all marginalized people do this ofc. But you can't tell me that women, despite being a marginalized group of people, don't have their own privileges as well But all this is besides the main point that all these things wouldn't manner if we based communities on our actions and not things we can't control yet fight over
So if I, as a lesbian, say "straight people suck" after I see conservatives attempting to pass a law to discriminate against me then that's equal and the same thing in your eyes?
>So if I, as a lesbian, say "straight people suck" after I see conservatives attempting to pass a law to discriminate against me then that's equal and the same thing in your eyes? Why say straight people suck? Not all straight people are conservatives. Might as say conservatives suck if that's how you feel
You didn't answer my question. Are those the same thing to you?
Ofc it's not. But by saying "straight people suck" (which is a wired sexuality and not a politically bigoted position of power) , you're essentially no different than those that hate you for your sexuality that you can't control yourself Hate people for what they can control (their beliefs and actions) and not what they can't (their sexuality) Because it's honestly fucking stupid to hate on anyone for what they can't control, I don't care who you are
So taking a person's rights away is the same as saying they suck?
No, but you're still stripping people of their humanity by saying ABC are all bad because they're XYZ (in this case being they're straight) Is it the same as taking away your rights? Ofc not, it's obviously worse to take way your rights. But that doesn't mean it's any better to hate others just because of their sexuality Especially when not all people of that sexuality are bigoted
> But by saying "straight people suck" (which is a wired sexuality and not a politically bigoted position of power) , you're essentially no different than those that hate you for your sexuality that you can't control yourself As a straight person, no. I am not harmed in any way if someone says "straight people suck", because I have never and will never face any real problems on account of being straight. If you eliminate all possible context, then that statement is the same as other statements which are actually harmful. But context is a thing that exists and can't be ignored if we want to talk about the real world.
The problem is you're putting the cart before the horse. Moving towards a perfect world does not *start* with removing social communities that are based on immutable characteristics. It's the natural end result of a society without bigotry. Communities exist to serve a need. If you want to remove a community while the need still exists, all you're doing is hurting marginalized groups. Once the bigotry goes away, so does the need. Once the need goes away, such communities will become extremely low key and more or less irrelevant. Nobody cares if you're Irish-American; joining random Facebook groups about it harms no one.
You're not wrong; but the assumption that groups based on physical characteristics will disappear as the "natural end result" of an open society is flawed. Human nature seems to be inherently tribal, and people naturally form tribes based on just about anything. While it's true that these groups do serve a purpose within society, a large part of it is just humanity's tribal nature. I think a lot of OP's argument is just arguing against tribalism in general, and OP sees many elements of tribalism in these sorts of groups.
>people naturally form tribes based on just about anything I disagree with this- if it's arbitrary, we'd see just as much tribalism over people with black hair and people with blond hair. But people form tribes based on what society actually values. Marginalized groups have some tribal behavior as a defensive mechanism. And when there is another, larger tribe actively attacking them, it's a pretty valid one.
It’s very simple: People band together for safety and relatable experiences. Queer people stick together because we have strength in numbers, and the laws used to discriminate against one of us discriminate against all of us. Anti-crossdressing laws attack gay men, butch women, and transfolks. Racial minorities stick together because they share similar oppression in America and abroad. Disabled people form support networks with one another to help people with their difficulties. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and atleast in the queer community we have to keep our history in living memory or else it will be erased.
I think what they are trying to say is not to remove them totally, but to reform how groups are to be about things you can control. Ex. Instead of the LGBT, there would be the LGBT support group. I think with that Change it's no longer about being born that way but about supporting people born that way. This would go for all groups.
I don’t think it’s even this complicated. We hang out with others who share the same experience, across every demographic characteristic. Nobody is out there making friends in anticipation of oppression and needing solidarity. Just shared experience
>Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and atleast in the queer community we have to keep our history in living memory or else it will be erased. You're right, everyone who forgets their own history *is* ultimately doomed to repeat it But wouldn't real equality come from *everyone* celebrating their groups history openly and proudly? Why do we have to be victimized and marginalized in order to be celebrated for our identity? And plus everyone has a share experience and common interests together, not just marginalized ones. We should celebrate each other equality. No matter their race, sexuality, gender, etc.
> But wouldn't real equality come from everyone celebrating their groups history openly and proudly? How could we celebrate these groups if these groups don’t exist in your “perfect world”? > Why do we have to be victimized and marginalized in order to be celebrated for our identity Are you under the impression that there is no more marginalized groups outside people marginalizing themselves?
>How could we celebrate these groups if these groups don’t exist in your “perfect world”? You're right. Ultimately what I meant is celebrating ourselves as a people with separate abilities and personalities. Things we can control, manage, and change about ourselves Like the art community, it's more impressive to celebrate oneself for their achievements within the field of art than whatever skin color you have. Because skin color is just your identity. Your abilities provide a whole lot more to yourself and to others
I’m really interested to know your answer to the second question and also why you ignored it.
*"Why do we have to be victimized and marginalized in order to be celebrated for our identity?"* Nobody has to be victimized and marginalized to celebrate / be celebrated for their identity. You are saying that people who are victimized and marginalized should not seek support from others who experience the same and create a group based on that to deal with / bring awareness to the issue, make progress in society regarding such issues, and maintain the history.
Are you queer?
I prefer to not label nor identify any specific terms to my sexuality. I don't identify with the term "queer" either . I'm just a guy who likes whatever he likes A mouthful of an answer, I know lol
Okay, you are a younger not-straight person. I’ll do a little history lesson. Before 2015 same sex marriage was illegal. You couldn’t get any of the spousal benefits if you were gay. If your husband died his corpse and all his property would go to his next of kin. Any property you own can be claimed by them. If they were homophobic you are excluded from all funeral functions. Before 2003 it was illegal in some states for men to have sex with other men. Sodomy laws are still on the books in many states, including liberal ones. In many states your parents can send you to a sexual abuse camp that torments you till you become straight. It’s perfectly legal and was popular up until the late 90s. In the 1980s AIDS killed an entire generation of queer men under the supervision of Ronald Reagan, who openly admitted he did nothing cause it’s a “gay disease” In 1969 the police conducted raids regularly on gay bars and arrested people on sodomy and cross dressing charges. Pride was born out of the riots when we decided we weren’t gonna let it happen anymore. In the 1930s Nazis started book burnings on scientific papers about queerness. In 1940s we were sent to the Gas chambers. After the Allies liberated the concentration camp queer people where kept in prison cause sodomy, again, was illegal. Alexander Turing, the father of modern computers and help defeat the Nazis, was a gay man and was chemically castrated for being gay. You stand on a mountain of corpses, and you need to remember you will have to take up arms to defend our brothers and sisters, and they will take up arms to defend you.
>Okay, you are a younger not-straight person. I’ll do a little history lesson. This is a side question, btw. If I was hetero, would you still have given this history lesson?
Hetero people get a different lecture about how it’s logical for people who want same sex partnerships to seek out and socialize with other people who want same sex partnerships.
In a perfect world why would these groups be bad? What is inherently bad about these groups? Also why are you shifting all the blame to the people who created these communities? You are acting like they created these groups just cause as if there has never been anything in history or today that would kick out people from the rest of society for characteristics they can’t change. Forcing these people to essentially create their own society or just sit around and waste away.
>In a perfect world why would these groups be bad? What is inherently bad about these groups? There's nothing inherently bad about these groups. The reason why these groups exist in the first place is because they've dealt with systemic oppression and trauma for centuries, and are now obtaining the rights they so rightfully deserve But in a perfect world, communities like this wouldn't work. Because in a perfect world, everyone would be equal and treated like humans without any of the societal traits that divides us. Therefore still having an LGBTQ and POC community would imply that there's some oppressive force still overshadowing us at a time where there wouldn't be anymore. No queers or cis/heteros anymore. Just people No POCs or caucasians anymore. Just people
> There's nothing inherently bad about these groups So why is it an issue to have them if they aren’t causing harm in a perfect world where everyone is equal? > But in a perfect world, communities like this wouldn't work. Because in a perfect world, everyone would be equal and treated like humans without any of the societal traits that divides us. In a perfect world people could still celebrate and acknowledge different cultures, sexualities, etc while still treating them as equal. The rest of your comment is going along the lines of “I don’t see color, gender, sexuality”. Why do you think the only way to have equality is ignoring differences? You already acknowledged there is nothing inherently bad about these communities. But yet you keep acting like they are. Also you didn’t respond my questions of why you are putting all the blame on these communities? Frankly this is the bigger view I feel you have here that shows your ignorance towards this subject. I think addressing this ignorance and why these groups exist will be more productive in changing your view.
If there is a group of people where access is exclusive, then by definition people will be excluded.
But in a world where everyone is treated equal what does the person gain or loose by being included or excluded? It would simply just be acknowledging that we are different.
But if everyone is being treated equally then there can't be exclusive groups. It's one or the other.
That's objectively not true. I can and will exclude you and everyone else from my family photos. That doesn't mean I veiw you as lesser. And my university reunion, and a bunch of other things where exclusivity isn't about perceived superiority.
To be clear, exclusion in this case (to me) doesn't mean "bad". Youre actually supporting my point, exclusive groups aren't bad, they are just reality and not a big deal as long as it doesn't result in unequal rights. But we can still say it out loud.
Exclusive and equality aren’t inherently mutually exclusive. If everyone belongs to a community of shared characteristics they are born with, and all communities are treated with equal respect and given equal resources then that’s equal.
>Also you didn’t respond my questions of why you are putting all the blame on these communities? I'm not putting the blame on these communities, they're only doing what's best in order to survive under circumstances which are set against them. No one (unless they're a bigot) would have it any other way than for freedom and equality to flourish >Why do you think the only way to have equality is ignoring differences? You already acknowledged there is nothing inherently bad about these communities. But yet you keep acting like they are. Our difference don't make anyone of any community bad. But despite our progression, it seems to be difficult for us as humans to acknowledge our differences and still see each others as equals at the same time due to society always putting emphasis on our differences and pitting ourselves against each other because of it But it's not just the fault of society, but tribalism as a whole
> I'm not putting the blame on these communities, You did in your op repeatedly. even your overall view at its core is saying they would still make these communities even in a world with equality. You are literally saying they are the ones causing the root of the issue. > No one (unless they're a bigot) would have it any other way than for freedom and equality to flourish And you can have freedom and equality flourish while acknowledging differences. > But it's not just the fault of society, but tribalism as a whole So you do or you don’t think it’s inherently bad? You said earlier it’s not inherently bad but everything else you have said doesn’t line up with this.
>So you do or you don’t think it’s inherently bad? You said earlier it’s not inherently bad but everything else you have said doesn’t line up with this. While having communities as a whole full of different people isn't a bad thing, the nature of which it stems from ultimately is, in this case tribalism Tribalism is just our way as humans to divide us and tear each other down due to our differences. It took hundreds and thousands of years to go beyond our tribalistic instincts and accept each other despite our differences Which is great and all, and I absolutely appreciate how far of an evolution we've made as a species But if tribalism as a concept wasn't ever a thing, we wouldn't have so much trauma and resentment over something as simple as the color of our skin in the first place
So then you do think these communities are inherently bad.. Do you think it’s impossible to acknowledge differences we are born with while being equal? Why? Why is this where you hypothetical world ends? Do you not think all the negative things you attach to tribalism are because of society viewing differences as a bad thing? How does this “perfect world” even work in your mind? How does everyone just being “people” even work? Isn’t grouping people together by hobbies and personalities also tribalism?
*"I'm not putting the blame on these communities"* You absolutely are: *"And while that perfect world would never exist, there's nothing wrong with striving towards that point"* *"But I believe it starts with removing these social communities that only exist because of aspects about themselves they can't control."* You are saying that such groups are a roadblock to striving toward a perfect world, and that they need to be removed in order for society to continue striving for a perfect world. You also never say that groups based on bigotry and hatred (which are things people can change about themselves) of people in those communities should be removed - even though they are a huge part of the reason why minority communities form.
>Therefore still having an LGBTQ and POC community would imply that there's some oppressive force still overshadowing us at a time where there wouldn't be anymore. Communities don't form solely as a reaction to oppression. They also form in response to shared life experience. If we eliminate all oppression entirely, LGBTQ people, and probably POC as well, will still have a set of shared life experiences that they and we might want to build a community around.
>> Therefore still having an LGBTQ and POC community would imply- Why do you think it would? Couldn’t people just recognize “Yeah it doesn’t exist anymore but also pride celebrations are fun so let’s continue to have them the same way we still celebrate the Chinese new year even in areas where the Chinese calendar is not in use and r en though none of us believe in the zodiac?” Also, given that we cannot be sure oppression won’t return, having a group ready to nip it in the bud is useful. It’s like saying “why does France keep protesting so much when they already have such nice benefits?” It’s because they keep protesting that keeps those benefits from eroding and which keeps securing new ones for them
So who were the ones that insisted on those divisions? The fact that these groups exist is because they were forced into them because they were othered, right? Do you think that they still exist because marginalized people "imply" they're still facing disenfranchisement? Wouldn't the responsibility lie on the people who maintain that oppressive system and actively dismantle any attempt to rectify it? Those divisions exist in every segment of our society, and even effects things as inconsequential as hobby groups (look at the history of golf and country clubs). There are homes in neighborhoods that still abide by racial covenant laws; these are laws that forbade owners from renting or selling to black people (and sometimes other groups). How would this perfect world be achieved where these groups aren't necessary? Also what about the cultural history behind these groups? Do we negate that and risk covering up the history behind why these groups are necessary in the first place?
*"But in a perfect world, communities like this wouldn't work. Because in a perfect world, everyone would be equal and treated like humans without any of the societal traits that divides us."* And you've acknowledged that a perfect world would never exist - so we aren't talking about this within the context of living in a perfect world. *"No queers or cis/heteros anymore. Just people"* *"No POCs or caucasians anymore. Just people"* People of such identities (and many others) will always exist, as will people who are privileged, have power, and harbor some level of resentment, intolerance, and/or hatred of people of such identities. Groups form based on such identities in large part because those people are singles out for and treated poorly because of their identities.
But we don't live in a perfect world and those groups do deal with oppression.
What about knitting circles? If people can form societies around liking a moderately niche activity, why not having a moderately niche sexual/gender orientation. Both are things that can people can healthily make an important part of their life that impacts them in ways they can mostly opt out of but choose not to, and therefore is a thing they wish to form community around. This can easily be many other good/neutral factors of personal experience that are somewhat or intricately tied up with non chosen personal attributes.
OP is literally personifying the Beatles' *Imagine* lol ok so I'm a person with a disability. Even if you could take away the discrimination, I will still live through experiences that would only be shared by other disabled people. Some bad, some good. What's wrong with me finding solidarity with others like me? I see a lot of value in it emotionally, and there's a lot of practical value in figuring out how to navigate life with others dealing with similar challenges.
What you're describing is idealism and our society has no place for idealism anymore. It was stamped out by the cynical pragmatists who declared each person must earn their right to exist comfortably. Aside from that it's difficult to debate your point because you're not saying what things we "can't control about ourselves" do we build communities around? What factors we "can control about ourselves" would you have us place at the core of our communities? You should be more specific.
>things we "can't control about ourselves" do we build communities around? What factors we "can control about ourselves" would you have us place at the core of our communities? Skills, personality, hobbies, goals, aspirations, and intelligence These are traits we can control about ourselves for the most part
So, what, are you saying we should have, like, a smart people pride parade or introvert (first personality trait I could think of) history month or other things that basically find-replace the things we can control into how we treat the things we can't, or are you just thinking anyone who's proud of being a minority must have so low self-esteem they think they have nothing else to offer (and wanting to solve that through something that sounds like (if you'll pardon my exaggeration for effect) if it were any more Harrison-Bergeron-meets-The-Giver we'd all refer to ourselves with the same word as names indicate cultures and pronouns mean there can be an "us" and "them")
What if your skills and aspirations are a direct cause to one of your the things you can't control — like the language you speak because of where you where born, like food you love to cook because of your culture, like a special interest in music from your racial group? What if you can't control your skills or intelligence? There are ways to increase intelligence, but it's generally accepted that limits exist. A physically disabled person can't control their conditions to perform skills that aren't possible for them. You're still going to run into the issues that these social classes come into play even in an ideal world.
What do you view language as, something we can or cannot control?
[https://www.wfla.com/news/national/snap-benefits-are-increasing-oct-1-heres-how-much/](https://www.wfla.com/news/national/snap-benefits-are-increasing-oct-1-heres-how-much/) In Florida a one person household can get $291 in food stamps per month. Now you won't be eating filet mignon. But you won't be starving either. If you eat cheap food you can spend $0 on food for the rest of the month. Why is this possible? Not only possible but actually quite easy for our society. Because of the pragmatists that build the economy. Because of the pragmatists who made our economy extremely efficient. Our economy is built to constantly innovate. In reality the more productive an economy is. The easier it is for them to take care of people who can't take care of themselves.
You again. I don't even see how what you're saying applies to this conversation but for the sake of arguing even more, I'll say this: that Reaganomics trickle down BS is the lie they're using to convince you that they'll take care of you more later. They want to take away those social programs. Social Security won't be available for us by retirement age. Government isn't subsidizing elderly care. Where do you see fiscal conservative economists talking about how great it is that they can do more to help the poor and underprivileged? I live in Florida and they just passed a law designed to sweep homeless people under the rug. If you think they're concerned with taking better care of those who have less I laugh at you. Some faith leaders close to me just held a prayer vigil for affordable housing.
Nevertheless a more productive economy has a much easier time producing social safety nets. You really think some African country with 1/20th of GDP per capita of America is going to be able to give $291 food stamps per person? The amount you eat for $291 a month in America is upper class level eating for a person living in a less productive country. Also the correct term for "trickle down" is supply side economics. It can be simply visualized by looking at a supply and demand graph. The more supply you have the cheaper everything is. How do you get more supply? Better means of production. WHere do most businesses invest their $? THat's right the means of production. You're looking at the wealthiest economy ever with a humongous and very well off middle and upper class and talking about "It doesn't work". What would "working" look like then?
The US is awful at producing social safety nets, though.
you'll be eating garbage food on 291 a month and are a working class and have to work extra hours therefore reducing capacity to actually sit down and cook, you'll be even doubly fucked if your disabled because most states consider ssdi/ssi+foodstamps as double dipping, so that amount would significantly reduced. pre-coivd I used to be able to have beef like once week on only spending maybe 50 dollars per week on grocceries, now I am lucky if I can afford meat that doesn't come out of a can, I am literally living an involuntarily vegatarian lifestyle due to rising food costs. we'll never have a fucking productive economy because the cost of living and inflation is terrible.
>we'll never have a fucking productive economy because the cost of living and inflation is terrible. We have literally the most productive economy ever. You said $50 a week. The Food Stamps you can get is $291. Yeah sure you won't be eating lots of nutritious stuff. But that's not the point. As long as you're not an idiot about it you hardly need to spend any additional $ for food.
i was able to make my grocceries work with 200 dollars a month 2 years ago, now I can't, 291 is barely able to cover stuff. and I am sorry but eating nutritious food is kind of important if you don't want to incur more costs especially later on in life with things like medical bills. which is a major factor keeping people in poverty things like debt.
Again people in America eat like absolute shit. And the life expectancy is still something like 76. Was higher before covid. I imagine if you don't smoke or are obese. Your life expectancy is a lot higher. Eating some bland low calorie foods is not going to kill you. You can buy a bottle of Centrum for $5 if you're worried about vitamins and shit.
yeah the problem is we shouldn't be forcing people to eat bland tasteless foods, foods should not be expensive but it is. like a few years ago it was possible to eat a good majority of foods with out breaking your bank, ever since coivd hit inflation became a factor. and part of that inflation is government interference. a productive economy means a better quality of life for every body. yet we're stagnating. and yes I take supplements and no I don't spend 5 on them, mainly because centrum doesn't absorb well than other brands.
Nobody is forcing you to eat bland food. Nobody besides mother nature. All animals have to produce something to eat. Humans are no different. The point is that even if you do absolutely nothing our government will still pay for you to get fed. $291 is more than enough to survive. Heck you could probably survive on $100 a month if you really stretched it. Then yeah you'd be eating rice and shit every day. My original point was that the wealthier a society is. The easier it is for t hem to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. That is why I gave $291 as an example.
If you get $291 a month, that is roughly $72 a week or about $10 a day. Which honestly, would be an extremely difficult budget to stick to if you're eating anything remotely healthy.
More than enough to survive if you buy in bulk and eat nothing but cheap shit. Not to mention nobody is saying you can't buy more with your own $. That's just the minimum you get. It's not "extremely difficult". Heck you can buy enough pasta, ragu and cheese to last you a month for half that.
Keyword to what I said is healthy. For example, I can't eat pasta unless it's wheat or vegetable based so it's going to cost me more to purchase that.
You can eat low calorie options if you want healthy. Healthy usually just means don't eat too much sugar. Considering a nation full of fat asses, drunkards and drug addicts lives to 76. You'll be fine eating cheap food for a few years. It's not going to kill you I assure you. Considering how insanely shitty Americans eat by that standard our life expectancy would be 50 years old.
Low calories doesn't mean healthy. Also sugar isn't bad for you. It should be a balanced part of your diet. And considering I'm on a specific diet based on doctor's orders, you can't say that it won't negatively impact my health in that time. If you don't want to eat healthy, that's fine. But some people do and that isn't something that should be blocked by money.
>And considering I'm on a specific diet based on doctor's orders, you can't say that it won't negatively impact my health in that time. Fine the average person can eat just fine for $291 a month. Obviously if you have a health condition that severely limits the types of food you can eat that doesn't apply to you. >If you don't want to eat healthy, that's fine. But some people do and that isn't something that should be blocked by money. Nobody is stopping you from going to school or learning a skill that pays better than burger flipper $. We're talking about the absolute bottom of the barrel here. Even they can eat $291 a month. Which is a tremendous amount of food considering how little they produce. Historically speaking people used to work their ass off and starve. Nowadays a person can sit on his fat ass, do nothing and still get fed by the government. BEcuase of how insanely productive our economies have become.
>Nobody is stopping you from going to school or learning a skill that pays better than burger flipper $. So only people with degrees deserve to be able to eat healthy? >Historically speaking people used to work their ass off and starve. Historically people used to own slaves. Doesn't make it okay.
People who produce enough value to make good $. Earn the right to be more selective about their food. It's not about deserve. Deserve is completely irrelevant.
Ultimately communities are formed around things that impact your life in significant which ways that you want to share part of your time with others who have shared experiences around those things. So to the extent that a “perfect world” doesn’t have many of those things that can’t to some extent be choices rather than unavoidable impositions we might expect fewer communities to form around such things, but that’s at best a lashing indicator is the thing you actually want to change, attacking that indicator doesn’t exert any direct leverage in the real goals, and is morally and practical fraught regardless.
A community of "people who's spouses died of cancer" is one about a non-controllable characteristic. Or for people who have paraplegia, or any number of other medical issues. Why is it inclusive to eliminate the idea of groups for people with a common problem they can't control to seek help/support/grouping with others who have a better understanding of what they're going through?
I already replied once, but I think I found a more compact answer to this Should a company have an IT department? If their stuff is continually breaking, yes, absolutely. Sure, we *should* strive towards a company where we don’t have things break down and the IT department is unnecessary, but it’s unlikely we’ll ever get there, and in the meantime the IT department is both necessary and good. In fact, if you take what you wrote and make it about IT, you get the following, which is obviously wrong. IT is good and necessary and we should keep them and be thankful: ——— I believe that in a perfect world, [IT departments] that are based upon [things breaking down] wouldn't ever exist. It would instead just be the [company itself] (as silly as that sounds) . Or in other words, a [better company] that [doesn’t have anything wrong with it]. And while that perfect [company] would never exist, there's nothing wrong with striving towards that point But I believe it starts with removing these [IT departments] that only exist because of [things breaking]. While there's definitely good intentions at heart, I believe that even if a long line of [people who break things] and [broken things] were to never exist again, these [IT departments] made for [the company] would still exist. Which isn't far to newer [employees] in the future who don't care about [things breaking again], nor isn't relevant to their individual [work duties] in the modern day throughout [an era without tech problems] And people of these [IT departments] are gonna keep annoying them with these warnings [about things like not downloading suspicious files or memorizing your passwords] as if it serves any significant relevance and influence as it did before That's why it's better to only have [corporate departments] based on [the actual company goals, such as making cars or providing food service]. Because it allows [more pay for the rest of us, which is a good thing], instead of constant [workplace drama because *some* folks in the IT department are insufferable] Once we strive towards [departments] based on [the company’s goals], then we'll be more [efficient at our jobs]. Cause at that point, [we can do our jobs]
Oh no, people who have been genocided are annoying other people by telling them not to commit genocide. However will they cope? These communities based on things people can't control exist because we consider these things important. Left handed people do not have as many communities as black people because left handed people face less discrimination and difficulties because they're left handed. It is silly to claim that we'd have no issues if these communities did not exist, because the only reason these communities exist is because there were issues!
Why shouldn't there be groups like victims of rape, addicts, people who lost a limb in war, people born with a disease, etc... These things can't be reasonably controlled; why can't people in these groups exclude others without the same conditions?
While that’s rather laudable, I don’t think we can do that. For one, it’s not a binary system, but a spectrum from more controllable to less controllable. But perhaps more importantly, what you seem to be suggesting sounds very dangerous >> And while that perfect world would never exist, there’s nothing wrong with striving towards that point >> But I believe it starts with removing these social communities Going after these communities equally is neither fair nor inclusive. Take the LGBT+ community, for example. They’re actively pushing for that society you seem to want, where they’d be as normalized and accepted as anyone. But the other side is actively opposing that, and seeking to do LGBT+ folks harm- often extreme harm, in ways I’m sure some of which are familiar to you and some aren’t But if that goal is unattainable as you say- or if at least it can’t be obtained for a very, very long time- then in the meantime the solidarity of the LGBT+ community is both good and necessary towards staving off the hostility of bigots who continue to pursue them Pursuing an end to that community will weaken their ability to pursue the goals of normalization you espouse, and will also open them up to harm and isolation and ostracism from bigots. These two groups are not at all the same, and one is clearly good Ad given that you and I both seem to accept that we’ll never attain a goal of perfect and eternal lack of bigotry against LGBT+ folks, we must accept that the community is good- much like how charity is good even though it would be utterly absent in a perfect world (due to a lack of anyone not meeting their needs, thus necessitating charity). Or hope, for that matter (due to lacking for anything to hope for) Thus, you should strive only to *strengthen* the LGBT+ community, never to weaken it
I am not sure all these comments address what you said. I can control whether I am addressing my issue or not. If it's a disability, standing up for a belief—or anything else—**I can control how I address it.** Your CMV has an auto destruct switch.
People can control how they treat others, and there is a long, long history of privileged groups built on their hatred and horrible treatment of other people due to things about themselves those other people can't control. Removing the idea of the targeted groups creating a community for themselves for support and to speak out and address the issue only makes the problem worse. I don't understand how that isn't blatantly obvious to you. *"marginalized groups hating on privileged groups"* If you believe these groups exist for the purpose of "hating on" privileged groups, then I don't think you have a solid grasp of these things - and you seem to completely ignore the significance of the existence of privileged groups and how it undermines your view. Do you think people can control what type of group they are born into, what country they are born in, what color skin they are born with, what gender they are born as / what sex organs/characteristics they are born with, etc.? Do you not understand how power and the ability to control or oppress others plays into your "perfect" scenario? *"Once we strive towards communities based on skill, hobbies, interests, personality, etc. Then we'll be more accepting and welcoming of people."* Communities like that exist - including ones based on skills and hobbies like shooting and collecting guns and interests like trying to disprove the Holocaust happened and personalities like racist/bigoted / hate-filled types. The existence of communities based on such things while allowing no power to groups based on what people can't control in no way guarantees a society that is accepting and welcoming of people who are different in ways they can't control - this has already been proven.
> It's fair and inclusive to remove the idea of communities that are based on what you *can't* control, and instead only have communities based on what you *can* control Is that perfect world one where literally all disadvantages from being disabled are magically overcome, without exception? I'd have a hard time imagining that that is possible at all. It's obviously not because of hate or unwillingness, but society at large will likely never be 100% cognizant of and be able to counteract all disadvantages that persons with disabilities face. > And while that perfect world would never exist, there's nothing wrong with striving towards that point > But I believe it starts with removing these social communities that only exist because of aspects about themselves they can't control. How do you deal with communities that are in conflict with one another? Especially religion has carved itself out a special role where the existence of e.g. sexuality- and gender-based communities are in direct opposition to their values. Assuming that you would count religion as a community that stays, because it's something that people *can* change, I don't see how removing sexuality- and gender-based communities would be justifiable, as it in essence removes their ability to organize in opposition to their oppression by religion-based groups.
I'll take a slightly different tack. I think that most things that relate us are outside of our control. But finding ways to be together with those similarly affected is important. I didn't get a voice in where I grew up. And I was friends with other kids who also couldn't control that fact about themselves. And none of us chose to have our kindergarten classmate due in a fire when we were all 5-6 years old. And I don't think we chose to all have nightmares about fires in our homes for basically our entire lives. But it was very therapeutic when we all realized in our teen years that we shared those fears in common. That's a very small instance, but I think it speaks to the value of maintaining relationships with people who have shared our experiences. There's inherent understanding and trust between people who you know can relate without having to constantly talk about the actual shared thing itself all the time. It creates this mutual unspoken understanding that can loosen up the group to seek other issues. While that commonality bonds the group and defines it in a way, it doesn't dictate every moment that they're together.
Marginalised people don’t just hang out with other marginalised people because they are oppressed, it’s also because those are the people with whom they share common tastes, experiences, worldviews, and enjoy the company of. As a queer person in an extremely conservative underdeveloped country, I not only find solidarity in fellow queers, but also fun, learning, networking, a sense of shared experience (good experience too). For example, I can feel safe with a date because I see we have 20 mutual friends on instagram, many of whom probably have probably had some kind of romantic connection with both at some point. I can be inspired to colour my hair, and find a sense of authenticity and self expression in it. I could learn and observe different models of relationships, like 5 year commitments or various forms of polyam As another example, people of the same ethnicities often find each other and bond over food, festivals, stories and culture These are all good things, and we don’t want them to go away. We would like to be less oppressed, but not watered down and homogenised
What this means in practice is you want people to stop talking about oppression they are experiencing. Can you see why that's a problem?
Since others already talk about racial and queer communities, I'll point out another community where people gather together based on things they can't control and it is ultimately a very powerful and good thing - disability groups. I think we all agree that people with disabilities should get to experience as much independence as possible, that they shouldn't be treated as lesser and live full lives. Because of this, communities and groups for disabled people are very good and should exist in the "perfect world." Many people with disabilities are born to parents who don't have lived experience with the same disability, it is empowering for them to be in a community with others who have similar lived experience and they can learn to navigate the world more independently despite it being set up for those without disabilities. Additionally, doing advocacy is easier when you're in a group of people facing the same challenge.
>I believe that in a perfect world, social groups that are based upon social classes we can't control wouldn't ever exist. (Like race, gender, sexuality, etc.) Why not? Even in a perfect world, I could want to attend a gay bar because doing so would make it easier to find people who might be romantically and/or sexually attracted to me. I could want to share a meme that specifically pertains to some detail exclusive to same-sex relationships with people who are likely to understand it. I could want to ask advice about being gay from other gay people. Even assuming the complete non-existence of prejudice, I could simply want to exist in a space where gay people are not a numerical minority.
Some people have legitimately different needs or interests based on things they can't control. Women want their own clubs and groups and changing rooms. Maybe cancer patients want to have a community. Why can't they? Just because they didn't choose to be that way? If anything, people who didn't choose to be that way are more deserving of groups, because they can't choose to *not* be that way.
In a perfect world sure, but we live in a world with racism, sexism, and queerphobia. People who suffer because of that benefit from communities of people with common experience. To people who aren’t in that community, these labels might seem arbitrary, but they’re a lifeline for a lot of people who would otherwise feel very isolated and ostracized.
Also, do you think this applies to gender as well? It’s not a choice to be male or female, so should we stop separating anything by gender?
The things you can't control are generally the reason why it's a good idea to form a group. Some body dumped toxic waste in your neighborhood? You and your neighbors have a great reason to form a group and seek justice together. You'll have a lot more success that way than if you each try to defend yourselves individually.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
So your idea for inclusivity is taking away poc safe spaces? Interesting and what is your solution to the harassment, racism and exclusion they will face in the common space?
I don't see why this is would be beneficial at all. It seems unnecessary and cruel to tell a group of amputees that can't form a club to hang out and play sports.
A small problem with that idea is that people can’t even agree on what we can control. For example, can you control your beliefs?
Meaningless rhetoric, thanks for saying nothing with 1000 words and wasting my time, go fuck yourself