4 ms·

He answered with a useful, relevant comment that provided the data point you were asking for. I'll back his experience up with another source: https://thegavoi

by Latty 9y ago

He answered with a useful, relevant comment that provided the data point you were asking for. I'll back his experience up with another source: https://thegavoice.com/atlanta-police-release-details-12-recent-anti-gay-hate-crimes/ https://thegavoice.com/atlanta-police-release-details-12-rec... The point you were trying to make was that these were isolated incidents, that these people could live their lives around them. Reading that list, it's clear that isn't true - people threatening to kill you, beating you up, these aren't signs that you can live you life normally. Clearly, we aren't in the same place we were when we had state-supported segregation, but there is a reason these minorities are still protected, and there is still significant discrimination. This all means that there is a big difference between a community coming together in a space exclusively for them to try and push for inclusion, and discrimination.

mistermann 9y ago
> He answered with a useful, relevant comment that provided the data point you were asking for. Pardon me for nitpicking, but I can't help it. :) Here is the original post to which I replied: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704091 >> True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill. > Untrue. There are still many communities where you can be totally ostracized for those things. The point of contention is not whether some (and sometimes very severe) discrimination exists, it is whether as he claims that there are places where it is so common/frequent that you could be considered ostracized. I was looking for proof of the latter (his original assertion), not proof of the former (that which was provided, and now provided by you). > The point you were trying to make was that these were isolated incidents I'm not asserting anything, I am simply being skeptical and asking for proof of an extraordinary claim. If my "stance" pisses you off, I beg that you reconsider. To win over those who are still not "on your side" (and I'm not one of them, by the way), using exaggerations and half-truths is most definitely not the way to go about it, especially in this modern day "everyone's-a-victim" culture we live in. I am not your enemy, I'm just offering some well-intentioned advice on how to talk to your enemies in order to persuade them.
- Latty 9y ago
  I was the one who wrote that original post. I just don't understand how "some severe discrimination exists" but that doesn't ostracise people? You don't need everyone to hate you to be ostracised - just enough people to stop you living your life. If there are three local venues suitable for a wedding and those three people are anti-gay, good luck getting married locally. It's not exaggerations or half-truths - being gay, black or of a given religion (or lack thereof) can mean your life is basically unlivable in some communities. If you need more concrete examples, go read the ex-mormon subreddit, for example. People who, because they are atheists, are disowned by their family and lose every friend they ever had, and have to leave the only place they ever lived. It's easy to not see it outselves and say "it's all stuff of the past", but it isn't. Even if your life isn't completely unlivable, quality of life can be severly reduced. I was talking about the extremes that triggered the laws, not trying to say that's the only thing that's an issue. More importantly, the point of my first post (the root of the chain) was that minority groups that are designed to provide a path into a field aren't the same as segregation.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ostracise http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ostracise verb (used with object), ostracized, ostracizing. 1. to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc.: His friends ostracized him after his father's arrest. 2. to banish (a person) from his or her native country; expatriate. 3. (in ancient Greece) to banish (a citizen) temporarily by popular vote. > If there are three local venues suitable for a wedding and those three people are anti-gay, good luck getting married locally. Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Are there a significant number of such places? (There very well may be, if there is it causes me no mental anguish whatsoever to acknowledge this, it was merely a simple honest question from the very start of this absurd thread.) > Even if your life isn't completely unlivable, quality of life can be severly reduced. Now this sounds like a more honest description of objective reality. Liberals often accuse those who are opposed to their ideas that they are small minded. Well, is it completely false that there is a relatively new movement that has taken hold on college campuses, where a significant number of students suddenly (as in, there was almost no incidences of this 2 to 5 years ago) need "safe spaces", and simply hearing ideas that they philosophically disagree with causes them to "literally shake", and people of color are now self-segregating themselves into their own events because suddenly mainstream society is so racist it is literally unbearable (despite the reality being continued improvement, if anything, in mainstream "acceptance" of people of color)? It is my belief that the well-intentioned (actually, I'm not even sure) actions of some people on the left is significantly setting back the true progress of their stated intentions, and in many cases are causing genuinely serious mental illness in impressionable teens. I am not joking in the slightest when I say that these people (not you necessarily, but based on your faux incredulity I'm suspicious) are FAR more damaging to society than the "evils" they claim to be fighting. And if your response to this is the typical smug liberal, deliberate misinterpretation of what I've said, that will be just yet another confirmation that your "movement" is insincere, whose goal is not to genuinely move society to a more accepting-of-diversity place as you claim, but instead that you are in fact an architect of hate, but just with a different target in mind. Some people are indeed just like that, some of my very best friends in fact.

by Latty 9y ago

mistermann 9y ago

> He answered with a useful, relevant comment that provided the data point you were asking for. Pardon me for nitpicking, but I can't help it. :) Here is the original post to which I replied: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704091 >> True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill. > Untrue. There are still many communities where you can be totally ostracized for those things. The point of contention is not whether some (and sometimes very severe) discrimination exists, it is whether as he claims that there are places where it is so common/frequent that you could be considered ostracized. I was looking for proof of the latter (his original assertion), not proof of the former (that which was provided, and now provided by you). > The point you were trying to make was that these were isolated incidents I'm not asserting anything, I am simply being skeptical and asking for proof of an extraordinary claim. If my "stance" pisses you off, I beg that you reconsider. To win over those who are still not "on your side" (and I'm not one of them, by the way), using exaggerations and half-truths is most definitely not the way to go about it, especially in this modern day "everyone's-a-victim" culture we live in. I am not your enemy, I'm just offering some well-intentioned advice on how to talk to your enemies in order to persuade them.

Latty 9y ago
I was the one who wrote that original post. I just don't understand how "some severe discrimination exists" but that doesn't ostracise people? You don't need everyone to hate you to be ostracised - just enough people to stop you living your life. If there are three local venues suitable for a wedding and those three people are anti-gay, good luck getting married locally. It's not exaggerations or half-truths - being gay, black or of a given religion (or lack thereof) can mean your life is basically unlivable in some communities. If you need more concrete examples, go read the ex-mormon subreddit, for example. People who, because they are atheists, are disowned by their family and lose every friend they ever had, and have to leave the only place they ever lived. It's easy to not see it outselves and say "it's all stuff of the past", but it isn't. Even if your life isn't completely unlivable, quality of life can be severly reduced. I was talking about the extremes that triggered the laws, not trying to say that's the only thing that's an issue. More importantly, the point of my first post (the root of the chain) was that minority groups that are designed to provide a path into a field aren't the same as segregation.
- mistermann 9y ago
  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ostracise http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ostracise verb (used with object), ostracized, ostracizing. 1. to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc.: His friends ostracized him after his father's arrest. 2. to banish (a person) from his or her native country; expatriate. 3. (in ancient Greece) to banish (a citizen) temporarily by popular vote. > If there are three local venues suitable for a wedding and those three people are anti-gay, good luck getting married locally. Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Are there a significant number of such places? (There very well may be, if there is it causes me no mental anguish whatsoever to acknowledge this, it was merely a simple honest question from the very start of this absurd thread.) > Even if your life isn't completely unlivable, quality of life can be severly reduced. Now this sounds like a more honest description of objective reality. Liberals often accuse those who are opposed to their ideas that they are small minded. Well, is it completely false that there is a relatively new movement that has taken hold on college campuses, where a significant number of students suddenly (as in, there was almost no incidences of this 2 to 5 years ago) need "safe spaces", and simply hearing ideas that they philosophically disagree with causes them to "literally shake", and people of color are now self-segregating themselves into their own events because suddenly mainstream society is so racist it is literally unbearable (despite the reality being continued improvement, if anything, in mainstream "acceptance" of people of color)? It is my belief that the well-intentioned (actually, I'm not even sure) actions of some people on the left is significantly setting back the true progress of their stated intentions, and in many cases are causing genuinely serious mental illness in impressionable teens. I am not joking in the slightest when I say that these people (not you necessarily, but based on your faux incredulity I'm suspicious) are FAR more damaging to society than the "evils" they claim to be fighting. And if your response to this is the typical smug liberal, deliberate misinterpretation of what I've said, that will be just yet another confirmation that your "movement" is insincere, whose goal is not to genuinely move society to a more accepting-of-diversity place as you claim, but instead that you are in fact an architect of hate, but just with a different target in mind. Some people are indeed just like that, some of my very best friends in fact.