Onlinemans…

Editing

Straight White Affluent Male Native-Born Protestants Are Uniquely Oppressed

1
  • The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit. If you are undoing an edit that is …
Latest revision Your text
Line 2: Line 2:
 
When you get a user who claims to be race-blind. you know they're probably white and are certainly not black, because whites can afford to ignore racial issues, but blacks never can. However, when you get a user who archly explains that he disapproves of curbs on hate speech because he's a First Amendment absolutist, you can pretty much assume that you're dealing with a straight white affluent male.
 
When you get a user who claims to be race-blind. you know they're probably white and are certainly not black, because whites can afford to ignore racial issues, but blacks never can. However, when you get a user who archly explains that he disapproves of curbs on hate speech because he's a First Amendment absolutist, you can pretty much assume that you're dealing with a straight white affluent male.
   
For some reason, this subspecies believes that if there are problems stemming from prejudice and/or ugly language, the right answer is not to suppress the behavior or the speech; it's to publicly debate the issue at length until everyone can see why prejudice and hate speech are bad things. There are three problems with this. First, it would mean any troll or bigot could derail any discussion, and their beliefs would take center stage in the public discourse. Second, naive First Amendment absolutists are seldom politically active, and they never attend or read about the sort of earnest public debates they urge on everyone else. Third, such debates don't actually have much power to change people's minds.
+
For some reason, this subspecies believes that if there are problems stemming from prejudice and/or ugly language, the right answer is not to suppress the behavior or the speech; it's to publicly debate the issue at length until everyone can see why prejudice and hate speech are bad things. There are three problems with this. First, if practiced, it would mean that any discussion or meeting could be completely derailed by one or two bigots, and their beliefs would get more attention than any other subject in the general discourse. Second, the naive First Amendment absolutists rarely turn out to be politically active, and they have zero inclination to attend or read about earnest public debates of exactly the sort they urge on everyone else. Third, earnest public discussion doesn't have much power to change people's minds, as the absolutists would know if they ever paid attention to actual instances of it.
 
What they're really saying is "I don't want anyone else to have the power to say I'm in the wrong."
 
   
 
'''See also (including the comment threads):'''
 
'''See also (including the comment threads):'''
  Loading editor
Below are some commonly used wiki markup codes. Simply click on what you want to use and it will appear in the edit box above.

View this template