7 ms·

“Those are not gay rights they are human rights” You are misusing the English language. When a minority is targeted with animus and their rights are systematic

“Those are not gay rights they are human rights” You are misusing the English language. When a minority is targeted with animus and their rights are systematically violated, we tend to label the campaign to fight back against those things: Gay rights/Pride, Women’s rights/Feminism, African American’s rights, etc. This is done as a matter of pragmatism. There’s no priortization of one group’s rights over another. Are you trying to say that when a minority is called out as being supported, that it makes you, who is not a member of that minority, feel left out? If not, then what is it? Be specific.

ThomPete 8y ago
Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Yes there is a prioritization of one groups rights over another and if you don't see that you need to look more careful. Do you think it's easy being fat, Ugly, Short, Stupid, Too skinny? You are proving my point. Supporting one group but not another i.e. putting resources into fighting for the acceptance of one group but not another is the very difintion of prioritization. How many more fat people do you think there are than LGBTQ+ The right thing to do is accept them all, not focus on one group instead of another. Treat them as humans give them the same rights, treat them with equal respect, because they are human not because they are gay or straight or black or white or asian or fat etc. It's about what I feel it's about what it is by definition when a workplace prioritizes the hardship of one group and not another. It goes deep into the corporate culture when it comes to hiring and decisions of who gets which position in the company etc. Thats exactly the opposite of what humanism is. It doesn't divide it includes it doesn't prioritize it simply treat everyone the same and that is not done by making on groups hardships more important than others. At least not in any form of humanism I am prepared to support.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights. The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop that discrimination, that that type of discrimination counts. That's why this language exists. And it's not a bad thing to prioritize groups that are being treated worse. Because when you try to prioritize no one, you often end up using the majority as the barometer of whether things are fine. The fact that some people have it a lot worse gets forgotten, and the problems go unfixed.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there and thus it becomes a political statement were open doors are kicked in because it's popular NOT because it's important in those companies to focus on "gay rights". So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.
    - methodover 8y ago
      > In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. It's not ironic. It's causal. Discrimination against minorities is less of an issue in companies where minorities are explicitly and openly accepted. There's a causal relationship there. > You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there They might be for now, but the world outside is less accepting. So long as the world outside has a problem with minorities, companies need to be steadfast about ensuring that the animus outside doesn't survive inside. Think of it like a vaccine. > So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies. Uhh, virtue signaling is still a great reason to be supportive of minorities?
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. So no it's not causal, it's exactly the opposite correlational. Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about? This is what is absurd about it. Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies, conservatives on the other hand are. And no I am not a conservative. Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree. The exact opposite of what it's preaching.
        methodover 8y ago
        > We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. Huh? I think you're missing some key words in this sentence. You're trying to say that it's inappropriate for a company to "fight for" gay acceptance? Is that it? That could have many different meanings, depending on who you ask. Why don't you show me a specific thing a SV company has done that you find objectionable? > Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about? Already addressed this issue. Current existence of anti-gay animus IS NOT a prerequisite for inoculating a company against anti-gay animus. It's like I'm saying "Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher" and you're saying "But the kitchen isn't on fire yet." Anti-gay animus exists outside of the workplace; it is a threat, even in the SF bay area. (Heck, I was called a faggot on MUNI the other day for holding hands with my partner.) It's important to keep it outside the workplace. This is a point you've neglected. > Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies ??? Gay people are not in the majority, what are you talking about? > Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree Virtue signaling is ... dishonest? What? If a company advertises that they're cool with gay people, and they are actually cool with gay people, that is not dishonest. As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.
- methodover 8y ago
  > Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. You’re in favor of gay rights. I don’t get why you’re so opposed to using the phrase gay rights. If you think gay people are equal, and gay relationships should be treated the same as straight ones, then you’re in favor of gay rights. This is not complicated.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I have already explained why I have a problem with it. Gay s don't have rights because they are gays they have rights because they are humans. So yes it's not that complicated.

ThomPete 8y ago

Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Yes there is a prioritization of one groups rights over another and if you don't see that you need to look more careful. Do you think it's easy being fat, Ugly, Short, Stupid, Too skinny? You are proving my point. Supporting one group but not another i.e. putting resources into fighting for the acceptance of one group but not another is the very difintion of prioritization. How many more fat people do you think there are than LGBTQ+ The right thing to do is accept them all, not focus on one group instead of another. Treat them as humans give them the same rights, treat them with equal respect, because they are human not because they are gay or straight or black or white or asian or fat etc. It's about what I feel it's about what it is by definition when a workplace prioritizes the hardship of one group and not another. It goes deep into the corporate culture when it comes to hiring and decisions of who gets which position in the company etc. Thats exactly the opposite of what humanism is. It doesn't divide it includes it doesn't prioritize it simply treat everyone the same and that is not done by making on groups hardships more important than others. At least not in any form of humanism I am prepared to support.

Dylan16807 8y ago
> I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights. The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop that discrimination, that that type of discrimination counts. That's why this language exists. And it's not a bad thing to prioritize groups that are being treated worse. Because when you try to prioritize no one, you often end up using the majority as the barometer of whether things are fine. The fact that some people have it a lot worse gets forgotten, and the problems go unfixed.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there and thus it becomes a political statement were open doors are kicked in because it's popular NOT because it's important in those companies to focus on "gay rights". So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.
  - methodover 8y ago
    > In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. It's not ironic. It's causal. Discrimination against minorities is less of an issue in companies where minorities are explicitly and openly accepted. There's a causal relationship there. > You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there They might be for now, but the world outside is less accepting. So long as the world outside has a problem with minorities, companies need to be steadfast about ensuring that the animus outside doesn't survive inside. Think of it like a vaccine. > So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies. Uhh, virtue signaling is still a great reason to be supportive of minorities?
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. So no it's not causal, it's exactly the opposite correlational. Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about? This is what is absurd about it. Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies, conservatives on the other hand are. And no I am not a conservative. Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree. The exact opposite of what it's preaching.
      - methodover 8y ago
        > We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. Huh? I think you're missing some key words in this sentence. You're trying to say that it's inappropriate for a company to "fight for" gay acceptance? Is that it? That could have many different meanings, depending on who you ask. Why don't you show me a specific thing a SV company has done that you find objectionable? > Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about? Already addressed this issue. Current existence of anti-gay animus IS NOT a prerequisite for inoculating a company against anti-gay animus. It's like I'm saying "Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher" and you're saying "But the kitchen isn't on fire yet." Anti-gay animus exists outside of the workplace; it is a threat, even in the SF bay area. (Heck, I was called a faggot on MUNI the other day for holding hands with my partner.) It's important to keep it outside the workplace. This is a point you've neglected. > Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies ??? Gay people are not in the majority, what are you talking about? > Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree Virtue signaling is ... dishonest? What? If a company advertises that they're cool with gay people, and they are actually cool with gay people, that is not dishonest. As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.
methodover 8y ago
> Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. You’re in favor of gay rights. I don’t get why you’re so opposed to using the phrase gay rights. If you think gay people are equal, and gay relationships should be treated the same as straight ones, then you’re in favor of gay rights. This is not complicated.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I have already explained why I have a problem with it. Gay s don't have rights because they are gays they have rights because they are humans. So yes it's not that complicated.