blogs_blog_1497

Bigots are old-fashioned people, but not all old-fashioned people are bigots.

i like how the non-bigotted old-fashioned example is literally old fashion

You know, it's quite sad that people have to indirectly call people out in their blogs nowadays. Why can't you just PM the person that you have this issue with instead of publicly calling him out?

 

-Rez

You know, it's quite sad that people have to indirectly call people out in their blogs nowadays. Why can't you just PM the person that you have this issue with instead of publicly calling him out?

 

-Rez

 

I don't have an issue with the person so much as the oppressive worldview that would otherwise be allowed to persist, which I imagine is your goal as there is no other possible reason to object to making a blog entry saying "don't perpetrate oppressive worldviews".

 

Maybe talking stuff like this out in private is one of the harmless old-fashioned values. I don't know. It's certainly not one I live by, though. When injustice rises, I feel the need to smack it down in a place that makes it clear to all where I stand on the issue.

 

You don't have the moral high ground here by asking me to resolve an issue of sexism quietly so nobody else has to acknowledge the issue. Don't talk like you do.

You know, it's quite sad that people have to indirectly call people out in their blogs nowadays. Why can't you just PM the person that you have this issue with instead of publicly calling him out?

 

-Rez

 

I got that kind of PM once.

 

It was dumb, meant to silence me, and clearly made to avoid any sort of repercussions from the public.

I don't have a personal agenda. I'm not trying to advocate for anyone. I just happen to know why you posted this and who you targeted it at.

 

What's wrong with old-fashioned values? A lot of them are very solid. Sure, back in the day people were bigoted towards anyone different than them, but there are still some very good values they partook in.

 

The issue is already being resolved in the topic it's being discussed in. People have already acknowledged it. You already made your point in the other discussion. If you need to go further, I'm just saying that PMing the person you have the issue with instead of publicly calling them out would be nicer; at least in my opinion?

 

I can talk however I want, just like you can. If I can't talk like I do, why can you talk like you do?

 

-Rez

 

A lot of them are very solid. Sure, back in the day people were bigoted towards anyone different than them, but there are still some very good values they partook in.

 

Sure they are. Just that sometimes, people aren't advocating for the right ones.

 

I can talk however I want, just like you can. If I can't talk like I do, why can you talk like you do?

 

-Rez

 

Nobody says you can't talk. Its just that we don't like what you are saying, so we have thus the equal right of saying why you are wrong. Free speech ;3.

Quote from Octodad: "Don't talk like you do." Guess I'm the only one here that can't exercise my freedom of speech.

-Rez

Freedom of speech is a legal thing. Freedom of speech does not mean I cannot tell you that I think your tone is unnecessarily self-righteous. Me saying "don't talk like you have some sort of moral high ground" is me saying "you don't have the moral high ground and pretending you do is irritating me".

 

This entire entry literally was about the different kinds of old-fashioned values. I didn't say dealing with issues like this privately was wrong, merely that it is not a value I hold, and I prefer to deal with issues of discrimination in public. This entry wasn't only about that specific issue, either; as you may have noticed, it is a general definition of the difference between an old-fashioned value and a bigoted worldview. I was turning this into a learning experience.

I never said I had the moral high ground.

 

-Rez

I didn't say you had said it, merely that your tone implied it.

I didn't say you had said it, merely that your tone implied it.

 

And what does your tone imply?

 

-Rez

Mostly a desire to be snarky.

Good to know...

 

-Rez

What's wrong with old-fashioned values? A lot of them are very solid. Sure, back in the day people were bigoted towards anyone different than them, but there are still some very good values they partook in.

 

And some of those values would be okay - if they still didn't go hand-in-hand with the bad old-fashioned values that are still prevalent today.

 

-Tyler

If you have to defend yourself by citing freedom of speech, you're using the defense that "TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO TALK"

 

Which is, you know, pretty weak.

Quote from Octodad: "Don't talk like you do." Guess I'm the only one here that can't exercise my freedom of speech.

 

-Rez

I feel I should point out that what was actually said was basically "don't talk like you have the moral high ground" which is not necessarily the same as "don't talk like you do".

 

Also I'm having trouble thinking of pretty much any "old-fashioned" values that are actually good. Most of them stem from some type of sexism, racism, oppression of some group or whatever. Really style is the only one because it's nothing to do with moral issues.

Yo, Reznas.

 

- Claiming women aren't fit for the battlefield is an example of a bigoted old-fashioned standpoint. (One you defended in the thread it occurred in). I have no idea where you're going with "But some are good!" when the specific instance where this occurred on site was not that case in the least, and this defense is used like... all the time before someone says something that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic and so forth.

 

- Those viewpoints are actually harmful because they lead into stereotypes, societal expectations and reinforce meaningless gender roles that only serve to blockade individuals from what they may want to pursue or do.

 

- I don't even know why you're claiming your freedom of speech is being curbed, when technically none of us have that on BZPower because BZPower is not a public forum owned by the government and is a private forum owned by individuals. Or, do you just not have valid responses to why old fashioned values are by and large bigoted and harmful in some manner, as seen on this very website?

Once upon a time, women might have been less well-suited for certain tasks than men due to biological differences like having less upper body strength on average. Military combat is one of those. Today, most of those disadvantages are next to irrelevant. Most modern careers, including the military, don't require anyone to forcefully throw a spear or other heavy object, no matter what their sex. And since the differences in physical strength and other qualities between people of the same sex can be every bit as broad as the differences in physical strength between people of different sex, it makes no sense to treat sex as a qualifying factor in any non-sex-related job or position.

 

Militaries and other organizations should just set the qualifications according to the actual requirements of the task in question, like how many pounds a person should be expected to lift on a regular basis. There's no point in disqualifying a candidate just because "on average" a person of their sex would have a harder time than a person of the opposite sex.

 

With that said, a disclaimer: that also means employers shouldn't include secondary qualifications with the goal of eliminating a certain group of candidates (like setting strength requirements that few women can meet, regardless of whether those requirements are pertinent to the job in question).

 

That's the same sort of slimy maneuvering as laws in the old South that required all voters to pass a literacy test. The people putting those laws into practice knew that they would disqualify more black voters than white voters (since at the time, black people were less educated on average, some of the literacy tests were intentionally be made to be preposterously difficult, and white voters would sometimes be arbitrarily exempted from the tests by local election officials). And no higher-level reading ability was actually necessary to vote in elections, since the burden of ensuring the voters know and understand either candidate's platform is supposed to be on the backs of those candidates, not the voters. So while these laws did not exclude either race at face value, they were still racist and discriminatory.

 

The equivalent is true of rules that seek to discourage female candidates from a position in a business or the military. Seems like my disclaimer ended up being longer than the body of my post. My apologies.