http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027076721 Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:19 AM
Star Member cali (103,735 posts)
does anyone outside of a minority group that has historically and currently
suffered from bigotry, have the standing or right or whatever you wish to call it, to criticise members of that group regarding that bigotry and associated actions or definitions?
Are earwigs a minority group now?
Response to cali (Original post)
Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:28 AM
WDIM (912 posts)
1. People of all colors have and do suffer from bigotry.
Where you are determines if you are a minority and also determines the type of bigotry that is present.
Criticising no.
Having a debate and an understanding of what bigotry is yes.
Response to cali (Original post)
Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:39 AM
Bluenorthwest (36,975 posts)
3. In my experience that is a moot question because those critics feel entitled to criticize so calling
them for having no standing is pointless. Assume that they will do so, be prepared for it. I mean, any honest person can take a look at DU's reception to LGBT activism and see clearly that straight people have no problem at all lecturing us about how we should do what. Many people who very strongly support the tactics used by Black Lives Matter are on record very strongly condemning LGBT activists for using those tactics and on record giving absolute rejections of the tactics themselves. That demonstrates huge bias. It is not just one or two people either. It's many, many.
With LGBT issues, you will find that Straight Religious people will preach at us all day long, even if they are in the wrong. We have been shredded for criticism of the Pope, of Rick Warren, of Donnie 'they are vampires' McClurkin. Days before the Inaugural, Rick Warren called us all pedophiles and we were told to accept that, because Barack loves Ricky. Barack, who went to pander to Ricky's people to the cheers of his supporters.
Double Standards make me sick.
You know,I am beginning to think Bluenorthwest might just be a flamer.
Response to cali (Original post)
Fri Aug 14, 2015, 10:06 AM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (10,196 posts)
5. The end result of saying 'no' is to proclaim that any action taken is legitimate.
Including bombings, murders, terrorism.
If you can't criticize those actions, it legitimizes them.
I think there is a more universal opportunity to say that certain things are wrong, independent of why someone might be doing them. It is wrong to murder, no matter your reason. You might stop multiple murders, but it's still wrong, just like torturing the terrorist in the ticking time bomb scenario.
So the question is not 'How does this act serve a purpose', but simply 'Is this act morally wrong', no matter what the intended purpose?
Unless they are a towel head that is.
Response to cali (Original post)
Fri Aug 14, 2015, 10:15 AM
Star Member WinkyDink (44,052 posts)
7. People do it all the time with Jews.
Well yeah,remember that the left hates them.
