@Ruberiot said in #18:
> @WorldRenownPatzer
> As a straight person I really don't understand how does this "prop up one group above the rest". I really never felt that way about any of this. You might not get offended by what orientation a person it but the truth is a lot of people DO get offended and write horrible things to people who have publicly revealed their orientation. And that's something we never experience and why we fail to understand them. IM Greg Shahade got a lot of backlash when he revealed he is polyamorous. Until this stuff changes what you say is pointless.
That ultimatum at the end, "Until A is done, then B will continue." doesn't help anything or anyone. It's easy for everyone to hide behind a computer and say anything, but we should be addressing the action not the religion, race, or sexual orientation of someone when a wrong is committed.
For example, say a racial minority group is being treated unfairly. Let's use health benefits at work or school as an example. Because where they are and the concentration of their race being 80% to 20% of other races in their area, they find this as an injustice to their community. Why do we need to know their race to resolve this issue? Why not look at the objective criteria? A health benefit given to a red person should also be given to a blue person. So, just say person B1 is not getting the benefits persons A1-A9999 are getting (where B1 could be in the 80% or 20%, and the A group is outside of the "problem area"). And then B2 comes along, and say B2 is not getting the benefits either, and so on and so on.
Eventually, the objective numbers may amount to 80% (probably even higher if they are all of the same minority group). Then that minority group would be addressed without even knowing their race. They would individually be treated rather than being called out from a group label.
If a patient is diabetic and needs insulin, you don't know they are diabetic until you do objective testing. Same kind of thing. You can't know if someone is diabetic based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. You would have to test without bias.
> @WorldRenownPatzer
> As a straight person I really don't understand how does this "prop up one group above the rest". I really never felt that way about any of this. You might not get offended by what orientation a person it but the truth is a lot of people DO get offended and write horrible things to people who have publicly revealed their orientation. And that's something we never experience and why we fail to understand them. IM Greg Shahade got a lot of backlash when he revealed he is polyamorous. Until this stuff changes what you say is pointless.
That ultimatum at the end, "Until A is done, then B will continue." doesn't help anything or anyone. It's easy for everyone to hide behind a computer and say anything, but we should be addressing the action not the religion, race, or sexual orientation of someone when a wrong is committed.
For example, say a racial minority group is being treated unfairly. Let's use health benefits at work or school as an example. Because where they are and the concentration of their race being 80% to 20% of other races in their area, they find this as an injustice to their community. Why do we need to know their race to resolve this issue? Why not look at the objective criteria? A health benefit given to a red person should also be given to a blue person. So, just say person B1 is not getting the benefits persons A1-A9999 are getting (where B1 could be in the 80% or 20%, and the A group is outside of the "problem area"). And then B2 comes along, and say B2 is not getting the benefits either, and so on and so on.
Eventually, the objective numbers may amount to 80% (probably even higher if they are all of the same minority group). Then that minority group would be addressed without even knowing their race. They would individually be treated rather than being called out from a group label.
If a patient is diabetic and needs insulin, you don't know they are diabetic until you do objective testing. Same kind of thing. You can't know if someone is diabetic based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. You would have to test without bias.
