I can see how that makes a good strategy. I think the best way to compare it would be an argumentative essay. You have to look at both sides of an argument in order to properly support your claim, because you can’t always look at one side. And being civil is a good way to achieve it… and it’s also beneficial towards whatever you’re advocating for.
And civility can still be forceful and relentless and even angry, if need be
That’s really good to know, because I thought of civility differently until now.
I think it has more to do with not personally attacking the opposite side - at least, not excessively. It might criticize. Like, personally, I think calling someone prejudiced can totally be civil - it’s not just an insult. It depends on the tone, and also I guess showing some respect for the other side even if its ultimately wrong. (Although if arguing against something really bad that part isn’t needed)
Truthfully, I’ve been civil throughout this entire debate. I’m not afraid of having a civil conversation, but if I’m angry, it will show through my voice — no matter how civil I am. There is a difference, though, between an oppressor and someone who disagrees with your views. Since grade school, we’re taught that opinions are not factual. Someone says:
“Hey, that is the most ridiculous haircut I have ever seen and it makes you look like a bitch.”
You thought that haircut made you look fly, but apparently, it did not. Did that opinion oppress you? No. Would it hurt if someone said that to your face? Probably.
If those “people who disagree” are actively supporting ideals that suppress a certain demographic, then it’s not about opinions anymore. You’re persecuting them because of prejudice, most likely, for something they cannot control. The oppression of multiple minorities didn’t start because “people disagreed with each other”. It started because of racism, homophobia or whatever term of hatred that exists.
To add on, I have never insinuated that you were an oppressor for disagreeing with me. I have never directly stated that you were an oppressor for disagreeing with me. When I thought of “civility”, my mind instantly clicked with “politeness” because of the definition. I may not attack you because of whatever sliver of respect I have for the person I am debating, but I will never mince my words or bite my tongue. I would show, at least, some form of hostility — some form of aggressiveness through my words while remaining civil.
people marching with confederate flags and swastikas
Normal people: wow them sure are some nazis, screw those guys
Right-wing: LOL TYPICAL LIBTARDS CALLING PPL THEY DON’T AGREE WITH NAZIS
somebody heils Hitler and shouts 14/88
Normal people: Uh, but they are actual nazis though, you see that right? Like, they’re doing the nazi thing right in front of you.
Right wing: FACTS DONT CARE ABOUT UR FEE-FEES
Is it possible to strive for the equity of all peoples without referring to oneself as “woke”?
See I wasn’t going to get into this but I think for the sake of education, empathy and understanding of the experience of marginalized identities certain things should be pointed out here.
Your stats comparing Nazi Germany to the mistreatment of members from the transgender community is a little left field and here’s why.
First of all, societal pressures are a serious tangible thing and its been killing a wide cross section of people but its been affecting marginalized communities for decades.Stress has an effect on your body in such a way that constant exposure to this creates physiological problems meaning it affects both the brain and body: depression and suicide being quite common. In the United states in comparison to other nations especially its a huge issue killing the population with heavy opioid addictions as being only a symptom to a deeper rooted problem. I think it is unwise for you to simply brush those points aside because it doesn’t fit your purview.
I think its also a very unskillful approach to assume because jews under Nazi control were physically tormented that their pain has more validity than those from the transgender community, and in many cases trans men and women are subject to physical violence. Many have to live in communities that they know would be unwelcoming to them if they revealed who they truly are so they are forced to live in situations where even in their own home they cannot feel comfortable. Imagine having to conceal your very identity through every waking minute of your life. Being a witness to constant violence against people just like you whilst you feel powerless to help them because in an instant you too would be in the same predicament. That my friend is chronic stress. This is very tangible and not some imaginary talking point that can be scientifically backed. The problem is when you approach topics like these, because they don’t affect you, you cannot just ignore the finer points of the information. That is not a debate. I don’t even like calling this a debate because marginalized identities should not have to provide evidence in a situation where those unaffected are given an inordinate amount of power to validate whether or not an experience exists. As @authorhlumelo said. Can you debate an experience?
We have to be very careful about subscribing to the danger of one story. Where there is only one narrative set by people so estranged to the experience of the stories they denounce its almost extraterrestrial. Life does not operate in silos. Neither does time. Everything has a genesis a history, and affects the present day even if it’s beyond your comprehension or experience.
To further add weight to all ive said before allow me to use the work of Dr. Sanjay Gupta where he, covered by CNN has a documentary entitled: One Nation Under Stress
and I’'ll take an excerpt from the document:
Gupta explains how the white people he grew up with were the children of the “greatest generation” and raised with optimistic predictions about what their future held. “Their sons and daughters were supposed to inherit the earth and that didn’t happen,” Gupta said.
“It’s this idea that dashed expectations – having expected to receive something and not receiving it – is particularly toxic when it comes to creating a level of relentless stress,” Gupta said. “It’s almost an existential stress; it’s about your identity.”
To zone in on this, Gupta meets with his mother and a white childhood friend, Frankie Sgambati Jr, to discuss life in Michigan in the 1970s and 1980s. Though much attention is paid to the struggles of the white working class in the documentary through wrenching personal interviews, Gupta’s own stories about wanting to change his name to Steve to fit in and about how being the only brown child in town when the Iran hostage crisis was happening was “brutal”, add another layer.
Meanwhile, in Gupta’s current hometown of Atlanta, health outcomes change by zip code – creating lasting disparities in care for the black population compared with the white population.
*For African Americans it’s been a chronic state of stress,” Moore said in the documentary. “For certain white populations it’s a new issue and possibly that’s what’s crossing that decline for them. The white working class have not seen that systemic oppression.”
And I end my excerpt. The reason why I took the time to painstakingly procure this much information because not only is it documented but it is now scientifically backing the information that marginalized communities have been saying for decades
This particular document only scratches the surface in the mentioning of systemic oppression as opposed to dissecting its many facets but here you have precise wording that obliterates the idea that African Americans have higher incarceration rates because they commit more crimes. Which with deductive reasoning “sounds okay” but when we are making statements about an entire demographic of people, I think we ought to show more mental dexterity and pay close attention to the things unrepresented voices have been saying otherwise we’d be running in circles as we have been for decades because those in power positions do far more talking about marginalized experiences than any actual listening whilst centering themselves in conversation. Note carefully that my document doesn’t even cover the experiences of the trans community. Not because it cannot, but because there is so much to unpack with respect to every marginalized community. But given what I have just presented, I don’t think its much of a stretch to say the transcommunity experience far more than you tried to minimize in your mini paragraph.
Yeah… No one is ignoring that there are problems with other countries regardless of their religion but I think its important you focus on your own back yard before pointing fingers because you don’t need to find muslim extremists to define what being anti-gay is. Ever heard nuance? I’m not saying this to be a smart ass but im trying to bring attention that there are many instances of prejudice in various shades that happen right under your nose in your own home town and the only way to lift the veil is by listening and absorbing what is being said and applying it to your vision. The west is not some paradise for everyone as you may believe. It may be better in certain instances but oppression and hate operate in micro and macro scales.
Didn’t I deal with this already? Remember when I said something about the Danger of one story?
this is apt here. How can you tell the story of something you have never experienced? And with insult to injury dismiss the plethora of actual evidence collected over decades because it doesn’t fit your purview? I think its very intellectually dishonest to be so uncreative that one would think in a world where corruption exists that in this particular instance. Every.Single.Member.Of.Said. Community. Is a criminal.
I mean, I just think that doesn’t make much sense but it isn’t just me. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is talking about that “ineffectual thing” called systematic oppression.
And this is where you lose the “debate” remember I said something about not debating an experience?
When @mediocre-prose made this comment it has nothing to with the things you’re complaining about. Its really about marginalized voices being placed in a position where their voices will be louder, where they are actually heard. Marginalized identities need justice for horrible acts committed against them like anyone else. I don’t find anything faulty with this statement.
Additionally you lose this “debate” because you’ve been very personal especially in this response. I am unable to find anywhere in her responses where you were singled out for not being a “good guy” as a matter of fact you being a hero or not wasn’t even part of the discussion even though you’ve cycled around that. This was not a discussion about whether you are a good person or not. She nor I would know and quite frankly I don’t care because it was never part of the discussion. What was part of the discussion was actual attentive listening and digesting information. Something you cannot do when you’ve centered yourself in the discussion and transmogrified your image into a martyr. This alone is what damages actual conversation. This is the kind of behaviour that sets back actual progression because the discussion somehow centers on the feelings of a single entity rather than an entire demographic. If you have personal feelings of grappling with whether you are a “good guy” or not you have to sort these things out through introspection. Not on a public debate where you were not the topic.
Yes, Black-on-black crime, caused by structural racism and social injustice, is statistically high. From this BOJ report regarding inter-racial crimes, Black-on-black crime has decreased by 78%. What does that have anything to do with police officers unjustly shooting at unarmed Black teenagers and adults?
Follow up question: is it possible to talk about systemic oppression without someone taking it as an attack against themselves?
This. This where communication is usually muddled and then the conversations become centered on anyone else but those who need it.
Like, when it comes to discussions like this, I’m pretty careful to attack the idea and the argument, not the man.
In the moment i read “Woke” my first though was “J.K. rowling is gay”
To be honest, I wish I found that report when I still had my Twitter. Do you know how many people on there use that rhetoric?
IF. IF they are supporting ideals the suppress. That IF is massive and MUST be determined with discourse.
No. It means to not maligning your opposition with nonsensical accusations the encumber the debate. What has happened is people are afraid to discuss things because they’re afraid of being called racist or whatever. They afraid of losing face and that’s not good.
I agree with this. If I haven’t made myself clear enough I’ll do so now. I’m aware the people in the LGBT community live with different stressors than cis people. I hope that continues to change. But we also need to confront the other side of the problem here, which is perhaps there’s a mental health element that needs to be addressed. I compared transgender people to the jews under Nazi rule because I was pointing out the incongruity between thier treatment and the comparable rates at which they attempt suicide. To me, it’s pretty obvious there’s something else going on that has nothing to do with prejudice. We can’t ignore that because it hurts people as much if not more than ignoring the hate.
I swear it’s like you took that out of a handbook.
Twitter seems to take a different approach at debates than Wattpad. Most over there would do so regardless and they were far more brutal than what’s on the forums, especially when talking about politics.