5 ms·
“Cause d’jour” (du jour) is rather dismissive. Why do you say this? Do you think that there are too many groups clamouring for their rights? Why do you think th
by bambataa 7y ago
“Cause d’jour” (du jour) is rather dismissive. Why do you say this? Do you think that there are too many groups clamouring for their rights? Why do you think this might be the case?
- jackvalentine 7y agoIf you want to take it as dismissive, that’s on you. Please don’t go making assumptions about what I believe if I didn’t outright say it. It’s not my place to compare the many people clamouring for dignity, but I am pointing out that there is definitely an unwritten hierarchy in play here.
- bambataa 7y agoSo what was your intention?
- jackvalentine 7y agoThere are many causes and only some of them see the light on any given day. Our society has some value hierarchy for which ones.
- bambataa 7y agoHow do you see this hierarchy? I’ll be frank - it seems to be the groups of people who have been most marginalised for centuries or longer, and the amount of time we’ve spent talking about them is far less than they’ve been oppressed.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jackvalentine 7y agoI'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say and so can't answer your question.
- bambataa 7y agoI want you to set out the “unwritten hierarchy” as you see it, and if possible why you think it’s in that form. “How do you see” is admittedly not that clear. I just want to know what it is.
- jackvalentine 7y agoI've given the only examples I wish to give - short and ugly people are somewhere down the order of 'things we advocate for' Probably near the bottom. 'How you see' was actually the clearest part of your post, the second half is what threw me off.
- romwell 7y agoAren't the causes we fight for correlated? In a world where the ideal man doesn't have to conform to the traditional stereotypes or masculinity (tall and strong), short people would have far fewer reasons to worry about their height, don't you think? And the mere fact that women don't have to conform to similar expectations should tell one that the cause of short people is very much tied to breaking up sex stereotypes and roles that we have today. Would you disagree?
- jackvalentine 7y agoI would point out I'm not exclusively referring to men here, which it appears you've taken it as. Short and ugly women also have lesser luck in life. I do agree that in general the loosening of the shackles of societal expectation will make space for changes, but I don't think it would actually have an appreciable effect.
- bambataa 7y agoWell, putting aside your refusal to spell out what you actually think, in the 20th century the major social groups agitating for rights have been women, black people and LGBT people. I would hope and expect that they all come above short and ugly people in this hierarchy. Short and ugly people have never been legally denied property rights on the basis of their shortness and ugliness, or denied the right the vote, or forced into segregated schools, or suffered police persecution. I’m not denying that short and ugly people are at a disadvantage but it’s obviously on a very different scale to the above and not as a result of deliberate state policy. What exactly is your problem with them being towards the bottom of this hierarchy?
- blaser-waffle 7y agoCause Célèbres are absolutely a thing; their focal point varies by era. There are some very clear ones being pushed now, driven by, I suspect, a combination of algorithmic analysis, political necessity, and economic realities. Remember when the height of social justice activism was Prohibition?