'White genocide in space': Racist "fans" seething at racial diversity in Discovery...

That's easy for some people. Some of us are actually being denied rights and have to worry about being murdered. So forgive me if I can't forgive my enemy, they don't consider me worthy of life.

 

I'm sorry that you're going through that. I'm not asking you to forgive your enemy or even interact with them.

I'm stating what I will do and how I think that hating them will only beget evil against evil.

 

Progressives always seem to want to take the high road. Ideologically, that makes sense. Practically speaking, it doesn't work very well.

There's no one right way for everybody. Those that preach that there is though are blatantly and obviously wrong and should be marginalized as such.

 

I don't hate them, I simply have no use for them.

 

I respect that. I just disagree.

 

The goal should be to prevent people from becoming ignorant bigots in the first place. It's easier to cultivate an open-minded generation than it is to convince an entrenched mind, especially when a bigot views their bigotry as part of their identity. Marginalizing bigots and their views and encouraging open-mindedness, acceptance of others, and generally not being an asshole are better than engaging in pointless "debates" with racists.

And I think shows like Star Trek can have some cultural impact in encouraging open-mindedness and celebration of diversity. DSC is part of the solution, if in a small way. Giving racists a platform in the name of "hearing them out" and "building bridges" is counterproductive.

 

My only disagreement is the marginalizing people. I'll marginalize views all day long, but a person is different.

 

That's a false equivalence.

You can never compare those who defended more rights for Black people in the 1800s to those who defend less rights for Black people today.

A racist can never truly "respectfully disagree" with you. Racism is a disrespectful ideology.

Racist "opinions" are not mere opinions, they are an act of violence against groups of people marginalized by Society.

 

Your takeaway from his post was that there shouldn't have been any debate on granting basic civil rights? Good grief. Clearly his point was that when it comes to basic human rights there's no need to equally tolerate the opinions of those who would deny those rights from others.

And even then, it's a far cry from talking about free speech rights provided by law to talking about what you should have to put up with in an informal setting like a message board. I don't have to give equal weight to the opinion of a sexist or bigot who can't stand that there's a higher percentage of black people or gays or women on the show and throws a hissyfit about it.

 

Which is exactly my point. Even though they lost the war they just stayed racist and bitter. So while changing the legal structure it didn't actually change any hearts and minds.

But I have to disagree with you on the whole losing thing. I don't think there is such a things as winning or losing or even progress. There is only change. Today's "progressives" are tomorrows conservatives and the cause of today will become antiquated in 100 years time. It's been the same through out all of human history. What you perceive as the "bigots always losing" is really just a manifestation of the fact that things will always change. They always will. The way things are right now will always die out in favor of the way things will be tomorrow. I don't find this indicative of the rightness of anybody's view points. In fact I would even go so far as to bet that every single conservative ideal throughout time was at some point a "liberal/progressive" ideal at one point. And all the "liberal/progressive" ideals of today will be the archaic conservative ideals in 100 years.

If nobody gets to question what human rights are, then we could never have reached a point when people with darker skin color have the same rights as people with lighter skin color in the United States.

Unless physical harm comes then it is not violence. An opinion cannot be violent unless it comes with an associated physically harmful act, at which point it ceases to be just an opinion.

If nobody had the right to question what constitutes human rights, then we could have never arrived our understanding of human rights today. It's as simple as that.

 

Do yall seriously think there is anything better to run a galaxy with than old white men? I mean, look where we are today because of them!

 

I ignore them and avoid them at all costs. But I don't hate them, I'm afraid of them.

 

For that, I am most sorry.

 

Some people are denied rights by their own "peers" (for lack of more appropriate term), since the "peers" are in the same group of people being marginalized yet never understood the irony of their own situation, among other possible and/or hypothetical conditions.

As civilized people, we all could find a middle ground/compromise regardless of the groups we're inside of or looking at. Most of us don't exist to hamper others' freedoms. But there's more going on than "rights" when history is replete with issues where people in the same peer group/community/etc consciously do nasty things to others inside their own group while whining about being badly treated by other groups. So the group in question must be part of the question too.

 

"It's human to marginalize views. It's inhuman to marginalize people." - internet meme

 

It still seems like a lot of words being wasted over idiotic tweets. Those folks don't represent "Star Trek fans", they represent "racist idiots."

 

Can't help but thing of this (yes, I have a meme for everything):

 

No, it's alway been about action and adventure and pew-pew. Advocation of a certain social viewpoint was a sprikling on the side.

I have a certain dislike for "fans" who seem to hate other fans.

Missing is the "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

You are aware that the two/thirds thing was about anti-slavers in congress inhibiting the power of slavers to use their slaves to vote? It was never about non-Whites being only two/thirds of a person.

Anti-slavers (who were White) put that into place.