Heterosexuals banned from bar

[Yeahduff]

In the US the most underpriviledged group is the straight white male, because they have all the advantages and have never been oppressed, so they don't deserve any sort of special treatment. If they decide to have a solidarity march, then they must be KKK or neo-nazis, because everyone knows that they should feel incredibly guilty about their straight white male-ness and should be forced to apologize to every other race on the planet, women, and those of alternative sexual orientation, because all those people have been oppressed and therefore deserve special treatment. That's why we have affirmative action, after all.

Save your tears. We're doing just fine.

[BrownEyedCat]

These days, if you don't belong to a specific group, you have no rights or specialness. In the US the most underpriviledged group is the straight white male, because they have all the advantages and have never been oppressed, so they don't deserve any sort of special treatment. If they decide to have a solidarity march, then they must be KKK or neo-nazis, because everyone knows that they should feel incredibly guilty about their straight white male-ness and should be forced to apologize to every other race on the planet, women, and those of alternative sexual orientation, because all those people have been oppressed and therefore deserve special treatment. That's why we have affirmative action, after all.

Because as everyone knows, equal treatment = special treatment.

[Nanda]

Because as everyone knows, equal treatment = special treatment.

Precisely my thought... Also, (I was ranting about this earlier to Stinky) why is it that if I'm pro one thing, people automatically assume that I must be anti something else? For example, if I say I'm pro women's rights, why do some people automatically assume that I'm anti-male? It's not only ridiculous, it's incredibly frustrating.

[Tellurider]

Whoa, that rant was loaded with a hefty dose of sarcasm that apparently didn't make it through.

I'm sorry if I got anyone riled up, I was kind of shooting for the "I wish people would stop defining themselves by their race/sex/sexual orientation and just be people" message. I got a little ranty, and foolishly forgot that internet does not convey tone of voice.

[Dr Legostar]

i can't believe it hasn't been said yet, but


can't we all just get along????

[Rkolter]

No.

No we can't.

Individuals can get along. But it doesn't scale up properly.

[McDuffies]

I actually find a lot of reason in what Tellurider says.
Let me make an example: I find Chris Tucker's standup comedy and comic performances rather offensive and racist. I find myself very aggravated when hearing his speeches about black/white issues. I understand them as calling the entire white race racists and whatnot and that we should feel collectively guilty for what has been done to his race.
Of course, I don't have to explain that I don't have an inch of reason to feel guilty of any racism. But there's this guy whose speech is seemingly directed to me, and there's noone to protect my rights.
Even if I'm taking it too personal, there's still the fact that he gets away with what any white comic would be pummeled for, and that's not equality.

Trouble with equality movements is that, in a large group of people who are fighting for it, there's always a loud minority who wants to to actually turn tables, and make their group have more rights. Nanda has problems because some people make equal sign between feminism and man-hating. The fact is that small but loud number of feminist movements, under the guise of equality, calls for granting females greater rights than men (of course, they'd never admit that). Now, some people generalize this minority's opinion to belong to all feminists, and that's the source of Nanda's misunderstanding.
It's such minorities that give bad name to rights movements. Extreme feminists made more damage for woman's rights movement in XX century than worst male chauvinist pigs could ever do.
To me, equality means this: women should, for instance, have right to apply for any job in the world, and not be discriminated in favour or male applicants. But on the other hand, women should sometimes hold the door for men.

[Nanda]

To me, equality means this: women should, for instance, have right to apply for any job in the world, and not be discriminated in favour or male applicants. But on the other hand, women should sometimes hold the door for men.

Oh, absolutely. My utopia is genderless. (Besides, you should always hold the door for whoever's with you, regardless of gender; It's just polite.) And while it's true that a small faction of feminists ruin it for the rest of us, the very same could be said of white males. There are still large numbers of sexist, racist, homophobic white males in positions of power all over the world, and they're making the rest of you guys look bad.

[Rkolter]

So what you're saying, is that you need me to design an explosive that only vaporizes wrong-headed nitwits?

[Nanda]

So what you're saying, is that you need me to design an explosive that only vaporizes wrong-headed nitwits?

In a nutshell. What criteria shall we use to judge who needs to be vaporized?

[Rkolter]

So what you're saying, is that you need me to design an explosive that only vaporizes wrong-headed nitwits?

In a nutshell. What criteria shall we use to judge who needs to be vaporized?

I think it's only fair that if I'm making the bomb, I get to decide on the definition of "wrong-headed".

[Killbert-Robby]

So what you're saying, is that you need me to design an explosive that only vaporizes wrong-headed nitwits?

In a nutshell. What criteria shall we use to judge who needs to be vaporized?

I think it's only fair that if I'm making the bomb, I get to decide on the definition of "wrong-headed".

*Starts renovating his bomb-shelter*

[Yeahduff]

Eh, Chris Tucker can make fun of white people (I've not seen his stand up so I can't speak to how seriously it should be taken) because equality doesn't exist. When it does, Tucker's brand of humor will go out of style in a real hurry. Because making fun of those more powerful than you makes you defiant, and making fun of those less powerful makes you a bully.

[Phact0rri]

I just wanna know how they pick who is hetero. guess they just ask.

[Nanda]

So what you're saying, is that you need me to design an explosive that only vaporizes wrong-headed nitwits?

In a nutshell. What criteria shall we use to judge who needs to be vaporized?

I think it's only fair that if I'm making the bomb, I get to decide on the definition of "wrong-headed".

No. That will eliminate far too many people. You're fired.

[Dr Legostar]

In a nutshell. What criteria shall we use to judge who needs to be vaporized?

I think it's only fair that if I'm making the bomb, I get to decide on the definition of "wrong-headed".

No. That will eliminate far too many people. You're fired.

::applies for the job but gets overlooked cause he's a white male::

[Nanda]

::applies for the job but gets overlooked cause he's a white male::

The system works!

[McDuffies]

In a nutshell. What criteria shall we use to judge who needs to be vaporized?

I think it's only fair that if I'm making the bomb, I get to decide on the definition of "wrong-headed".

No. That will eliminate far too many people. You're fired.

In line with the whole theme, I've found out that wrong-headed nitwits are very prone to making broad generalizations about groups they don't belong to. So in order to pick them out, you should make some kind of broad-generalization-detectors.

Eh, Chris Tucker can make fun of white people (I've not seen his stand up so I can't speak to how seriously it should be taken) because equality doesn't exist. When it does, Tucker's brand of humor will go out of style in a real hurry. Because making fun of those more powerful than you makes you defiant, and making fun of those less powerful makes you a bully.

Well, Tucker is just a symptom of a larger fenomenon. I may be concearned about that human rights problem at large and I'll conclude that Christian white males don't have much to complain about in western world. But I can't help looking at it on individual, personal level too, and on that level I find myself being thrown into the group I don't desire to be a part of. If white males have more rights than other groups, I choose not to use those rights. On the other side, groups with lesser rights will treat me as if I do, as if I'm average member of opressive class as they imagine him. I guess that society has to work by generalizing large groups because sociological problems cannot aproach to a problem on an individual, man-by-man basis, but it's still logical that my own individual case is prime concern for me. It's not a big deal (yet) anyways, but it's one of those little ironies of the world that aggravate us on daily basis.

[Rkolter]

I think it's only fair that if I'm making the bomb, I get to decide on the definition of "wrong-headed".

No. That will eliminate far too many people. You're fired.

In line with the whole theme, I've found out that wrong-headed nitwits are very prone to making broad generalizations about groups they don't belong to. So in order to pick them out, you should make some kind of broad-generalization-detectors.

I can't. She fired me.

I guess she's right though - I might tend towards destroying all life on earth with my "At least one X-Chromosome means you're a Nitwit" rule.

[Mr.Bob]

I just wanna know how they pick who is hetero. guess they just ask.

Bouncers demand suspiciously straight looking men in the queue to kiss them to prove they're gay.

And that is why I am for this rule.