[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8802

File: 1618887416772.jpeg (95.93 KB, 640x871, 640:871, duke-of-sus.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Continuation from https://ponyville.us/pony/res/1080199.html of the discussion that started from >>>/pony/1080500 :
>certain prejudices in society are lessening (so statements like, say, "I'd never date a transgender person", ... et cetera are becoming highly unacceptable among regular people)

 No.8803

File: 1618887561699.jpg (890.83 KB, 4096x3931, 4096:3931, burger-1596360824053.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>>/pony/1080572
>"I could never date a black person" or "I could never be friends with a Jew"
(emphasis added)
I think there's a BIG difference between those two.  If a man has strong enough sexual preferences that he can't even keep his dick up for certain characteristics of potential sexual partners, then I think he very reasonably refuse to date persons with such characteristics.

 No.8804

>>8803
Here's a take:
Suppose you meet a girl named "Ellie" on a discord chat or some group over the internet. You get along really fine, you have amazing conversations and even have intimate flirts. eventually you see the opportunity to meet in real life with romabtic intent and when you meet her at last, you find out she's black.

Is it at that point acceptable to turn her down over that fact alone?

 No.8805

File: 1618888588619.jpg (49.96 KB, 552x552, 1:1, dog-long-neck-159044668002….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8804
>Is it at that point acceptable to turn her down over that fact alone?
In principle, if he's no longer sexually attracted to her, yes.  (I'd imagine that this would be rare corner case, though, even for most racists.)

 No.8806

>>8803
There appears to be a fundamental category difference between "I could never, ever do anything romantic with somebody having this label I don't like, no matter what" versus "I feel less attracted to this label and connected to this label because of personal reasons".

Or, to be specific, like... I can imagine that for some reason a given straight man finds particular traits attractive. He might really like long, flowing blonde hair. He might be less attracted to somebody with an afro. Or other forms of natural black hair. He might have a strict personal focus on health such that he can't picture himself doing anything sexual with someone overweight, and for some reason on a certain dating website that might rule out a lot of black women.

Attraction is a weird as hell thing. Who knows why we dislike what we dislike. At the same time, context matters, right? So does the relative scale of things? The weight of stuff?

It seems like prejudice to make categories an uber alles thing and utterly reject somebody at face value arbitrarily due to a category, especially one that wouldn't even actually change what you do in terms of dating. You're not viewing your fellow person as a person anymore. They're just a vessel for your own potential pleasure or pain.

Now, of course, we don't want a Saudi Arabia style kind of sex policing going on. If somebody really has strong hang ups, and maybe they really do consent to a kind of being-treated-as-an-object situation, like... as long as we're talking consenting adults? Anything should go.

But then I think that "this is wrong" still applies even if you can say a choice isn't "legally wrong". Or maybe even "ethically that wrong".

I mean, hell, there are all kinds of skeevy adult behaviors that are perfectly legal and maybe seen by a lot of people as not unethical but still are nasty. Like imagine getting into a relationship with somebody with promises of being a completely different person that you are: lying about everything from STD status to criminal records to whatever else. That's legal. And it happens a lot. Still icky, though.

 No.8807

>>8806
>It seems like prejudice to make categories an uber alles thing and utterly reject somebody at face value arbitrarily due to a category
OK, I guess I don't really disagree with you in that respect.  I guess I was thinking more along of lines of "It's perfectly okay if a man happens to reject every black/transgender/etc woman he considers because he doesn't find her sexually attractive".

 No.8809

>>8803
In bigger terms, the line between "I'd never be friends with a Jew" compared to "I'd never date a Jew" and "I'd never be associated with a Jew in any sense" appears to be actually a bit fuzzy. The lines are clearly there. But not so clean.

Friendship relationships and romantic relationships are both, well, important psychological things in terms of a person's life and will often overlap a lot. Same thing with even more casual relationships such as a working connection or a student-and-teacher situation. A friendly teacher can very clearly change the entire course of somebody's life as much as a devoted romantic partner.

In practical terms, isn't there a kind of common sense that can be applied here?

If as a Jewish person in a certain community I find myself unable to make any friends at all to the point of never meaningfully engaging in others' lives... being just a pedestrian in the road of life, so to speak... that can have devastating consequences in the big picture. It isn't just being lonely from not finding a date. If the local community is really hung up on my identity, then everything from getting a job to pursuing higher education to having the support I need if I'm the victim of a crime to like... well, to be blunt, I'm a second-class citizen.

Yes, personal preferences are individual. People like what they like. Hate what they hate. Still, it seems that they cross into being outright prejudices very fast because someone can get run into the ground if they live somewhere completely tainted by social views against them.

 No.8811

One time I dated a guy no one liked, at all. Like, everywhere he went, people despised him! For superficial reasons. There was so much beauty about him beyond the traits people hyper-focused on. He needed love like anyone else, and I was happy to oblige. We clicked really well, even though I was hesitant. Maybe that's what this is about? Looking at those peoples' needs and giving them a fair shake?

 No.8812

File: 1618892263626.jpg (136.8 KB, 500x399, 500:399, 8634664660_714ce5d938.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8809
I'd still say that looking for a sexual partner is quite than merely being friends with someone.  Although, as noted in >>8806 >>8807, the statement "I'd never date a Jew" taken as a categorical (as opposed to something like "in the past, I have never found Jews to be sexually attractive, so the probability of me finding a Jew sexually attractive in the future is low") might be said to be prejudiced.

>someone can get run into the ground if they live somewhere completely tainted by social views against them.
That is true and unfortunate.  But there isn't really any way of forcing sexual attraction between two people.

 No.8813

>>8812
I guess I'm still frustrated in that, like, you don't seem to get that the principle of "Saying 'I'd never date a Jew' is prejudiced, and we'd live in a better world if people didn't think like that" isn't a radical left-wing SJW busybody cancel culture hipster caustic hypocritical elitist progressive liberal position done in order to hurt others.

This is anecdotal, but I get the sense that in my entire personal life out of all of the people that I've met in my three decades of existence or so... probably only two single people out of the multitude wouldn't be horrified if I told them "I'd never date a Jew." The vast majority of individuals, despite the fact that the U.S. is a country founded on systemic bigotry and reminds mired in that, would think of such a position as either outright morally wrong or at least skeevy.

 No.8814

File: 1618893431639.png (166.17 KB, 700x500, 7:5, 1458651704942.png) ImgOps Google

>>8813
>I guess I'm still frustrated in that, like, you don't seem to get that the principle of "Saying 'I'd never date a Jew' is prejudiced, and we'd live in a better world if people didn't think like that" isn't a radical left-wing SJW busybody cancel culture hipster caustic hypocritical elitist progressive liberal position done in order to hurt others.

I see two ways of interpreting "I'd never date a Jew":

(1) a literal categorical -- I agree with you that this is prejudiced.

(2) an abbreviation for something like "in the past, I have never found Jews to be sexually attractive, so the probability of me finding a Jew sexually attractive in the future is low" -- I don't think this is prejudiced.  Do you disagree?

 No.8815

>>8814
I'm not sure if I can answer that question if whichever answer I give might mean that you think of me as evil given my SJW ways.

 No.8816

File: 1618893853467.jpg (209.96 KB, 530x772, 265:386, anime-girl-playing-violin.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8814
Oh, let me clarify something: Some people want to date others from their own faith, so that they can raise children in their common faith.  So I don't think "I would date only someone from <insert religious domination>" is prejudiced even though it logically entails "I would never date a <person outside my denomination>".

>>8815
I don't make inferences like "Person X has political stance Y, so therefore person X is evil".  Mistaken, yes, but not evil.  Imputing evilness to one's political opponents leads nowhere productive.

 No.8817

>>8814
>"In the past, I have never found Jews to be sexually attractive, so the probability of me finding a Jew sexually attractive in the future is low."

Unfortunately, this is also rather a categorical statement and has a lot of complexity to it.

Is the subtext...
>"In the past, I have never found Jews to be sexually attractive due to their facial features that come from their ethnic heritage, which I find disgusting, as well as their repellant personalities because they cheat, lie, and steal at a level unlike other ethnicities."

Is it...
>"I refuse to even consider dating a Jew, despite the fact that I haven't even actually thought out how I'd be dating anyone, because I hate the notion of them believing that regular, real Americans such as myself accept them."

Or maybe...
>"I dated a Jew several years ago and she broke my heart, which spurred me on to research more and now I understand that Jews just lie as well as manipulate like that all the time."

In those three cases, I would say that while attraction preferences are understandably a haphazard and highly individual thing but that this person's preferences in realized terms (as opposed to mere thoughts) constitute "prejudice" in the definitional sense of the term.

To get to brass tacks, we should probably branch out three separate elements that come up when somebody says "I'd never date a Jew".

>"I've never found Jewish individuals that I've been exposed to in my life to be attractive enough to date, counting looks, personality, status, and everything else."
>"I'm going to assume that all Jews are a certain way due to what I've experienced about them and what I just said, regardless of context or how different some specific person might be from the group."
>"Going beyond mere thoughts to actions, I'm going to actively discriminate against Jews due to my negative views of that category of person, ruling out dating them in any circumstances."

Element one is a factual statement about somebody's past that doesn't imply either ethics or morality. It just is. That either has happened or hasn't happened. Nothing necessarily to do with prejudice.

Element two is dicey because it involves making a leap in logic. In some cases, exposure to a small subset of a large group might actually convey great information about the whole. And common sense applies. It would be dicey for somebody to say "I keep picturing black men as criminals because I got assaulted by a black kid when I was young myself", because even if we're merely talking about involuntary feelings... this represents the seeds of what could blossom into a belief structure that's factually false and involves different logical fallacies, not just guilt by association.

Element three crosses the line in which other people get directly involved, and given the compounding problems it's even more dicey. I'd make the leap and say that in broad terms it, yes, appears to be definitionally prejudice. Clearly.

 No.8818

File: 1618895750119.jpg (32.31 KB, 590x421, 590:421, shiba-inu-8f74acab-5fa7-4d….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8817
>Element three crosses the line in which other people get directly involved, and given the compounding problems it's even more dicey. I'd make the leap and say that in broad terms it, yes, appears to be definitionally prejudice. Clearly.
Yes, I think I'd agree with that.  If you go beyond merely predicting the probability of future events and instead actively discriminate against Jews as a category (as opposed to considering each individual as an individual), I'd say that's probably wrongful discrimination (excepting cases like only wanting to date people of your own religious denomination).

>Or maybe...
>>"I dated a Jew several years ago and she broke my heart, which spurred me on to research more and now I understand that Jews just lie as well as manipulate like that all the time."
Or to steel-man that case: "I dated a Jew several years ago and she broke my heart, and now whenever I try to date another Jew, I'm reminded of her and it kills my sexual attraction.  I realize that this is irrational, but I can't help it."

 No.8819

>>8818
I think that we can agree about prejudice in practical terms on something important: treating other people totally irrationally, making assumptions before you even meet a person that when said out loud appear to clearly be logical fallacies, may not always be prejudice but often is.

>"I dated a Jew several years ago and she broke my heart, and now whenever I try to date another Jew, I'm reminded of her and it kills my sexual attraction. I realize that this is irrational, but I can't help it."
Yes, in this instance, if somebody admits that what they're feeling is personal and irrational... it wouldn't be necessarily a problem if presented this way at all. The issue is the A -> B -> C logic chain. It's wrong for somebody in this situation to say "I absolutely know that my attitudes will never change and that I will never meet anyone who I interact with differently." That's simply not correct. It would be even worse to say "I have these irrational sensations that I can't help, therefore I will change my beliefs to mold around my emotions". Of course, put out loud, it's silly. But human reasoning is often flawed, and emotionally motivated arguments can persuade one into a lot of falsehood.

To bring things around to transgender individuals, I feel like there's a reasonable distinction between "I'm heavily attracted to feminine traits and very disinterested in male traits to the point that I neither come across nonbinary people nor transgender women who I can find particularly appealing physically." (which is a factual statement about the past) to "I unconditionally refuse to accept the possibility that I may come across a nonbinary person or transgender woman who I find fairly attractive." (which is a categorical statement about the future based on, at minimum, incomplete reasoning). I would consider the latter to be prejudice or at the very least a character flaw of a person who believes as such. I would refrain (if I can help it) from blaming that person, guilt-tripping that person, shaming that person, or otherwise doing something that's moral judgement when they're a typical, regular person making a logic mistake that unfortunately we do a lot.

To be crude, I think I wouldn't even say something like "I probably couldn't ever date anyone with a penis, or even somebody who used to have a penis but got an artificial thing put in" is necessarily prejudiced out of the mouth of the one who says it (though, of course, the matter should've been worded better). The context matters. Is this individual expressing a emotional thing based on a narrow physical reaction (like "I don't believe I can get it up to somebody who had an 'X'") that they recognize as outside of making categorical judgements now or in the future? Wouldn't necessarily be prejudicial at all. Is this person, though, taking an emotional hang up and then constructing a whole mini belief system in order to determine how to treat others (like "I can't believe how disgusting and perverted these types are for doing 'X' to themselves")? That's different.

 No.8820

File: 1618898519703.jpg (239.77 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, sleepy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8819
Hmm, yes, I think we've reached agreement on this now.

And now I head to bed.  Goodnight, Virtuous Porpoise!

 No.8821

>>8811
Thanks for bringing this up. I agree. Society, thankfully, seems to be slowly but surely moving more in that direction.

 No.8823

>>8804
Reverse the question; why should you be obligated to date her, because of her race?
Why does not doing so mean they are behaving immorally?

Shaming people into dating others seems a little rapey to me, honestly.
While I'll agree it may be vain, it's their body, their love, their choice. We shouldn't put moral standards to who we choose to have a relationship with like that.
Everyone has preferences.

And, with the transgender thing, there's also the simple reality that kids isn't going to be possible.
For a lot of people, that's the big point of being in a relationship.

 No.8827

>>8823
Dating and romance involves harm, often, going in multiple directions. There's not really a way around that. It just is what it is.

A certain person is going to feel like shit if they see themselves being pressured to date others that they're not that into. Another person is going to feel like shit if they see themselves being pressured not to ever date anybody because of widespread social hang ups. Yet another person is going to feel like shit because they're in a relationship that's culturally seen negativity for whatever reason, particularly if they're accused of only having a fetish and only acting the way they do out of perverted nastiness rather than free expression. And one more person is going to feel like shit because they're interested in relationships only to find that their characteristics bring up so much baggage that fetishist talk, whether for or against, ruins everything.

There's really no way around the fact that prejudice itself hurt both the victim as well as the person holding those views, plus that trying to combat prejudice can involve even more hurt. That's life. Unfortunately.

In terms of transgender people, one can be placed in a kind of death spiral in which somebody gets ruled out of relationships due to their identity over and over again only to find that their remaining options are just those that treat them as a fetishist object... but then they might find love... only, alas, their actual, real attraction gets tainted by allegations of fetishism... it's all a mess. A can of worms. Not sure there's any way around it.

 No.8828

>>8827
Each of those you cite are the result of external pressure, though.
This is the point.
There shouldn't be those pressure.

As used to be said when the Christians hasled gays, love is love.
That should purely be a matter between two consenting adults.
Both when it comes to selection and deselection.

I might just be old fashioned about it. My stance is love can Bloom from anywhere, and to anyone, but likewise that must inherently mean that love is exclusionary.
Some won't get other people's affection.
That's fine.  They are not obligated anyone's affection.

 No.8830

>>8828
It's not really as clean and easy as that, sadly.

Outside pressure often leads to individualized feelings. This is pretty clear-cut in terms of internalized homophobia and transphobia. I'd argue that it's even more common in subtler but still important ways. And it's just a can of worms.

If some random person decides that they cannot ever date outside of their race, we have to ask **why** this decision was made. It would be quite naïve to divorce that individual preference from a history of horrific racism throughout American society as well as current problems. It would also be wrong to fail to understand that while, yes, personal preferences are complex and highly particular... at the aggregate level, living a culture where being of 'X' group makes you widely subject to mistreatment to the point of wholesale isolation from others is toxic. It doesn't just harm members of 'X' group. It makes for a crueler, fundamentally worse country as people are just less nice in general.

To say that people shouldn't have prejudice in their personal lives, whether in terms of dates, friends, students, work colleagues, isn't to blame, guilt-trip, and shame those people for the sake of left-wing political correctness. Not at all. The goal is, well, basic niceness.

Instead of being seen as a sort of large soup can, with my entire worth being displayed in a certain label that sums up everything about me, I should be seen as my own person. If I'm genuinely not attracted to somebody (or they're just not interested in me), then this should be seen as a choice based on the situation and not some kind of a hard-n-fast rule. You can turn down somebody (or be turned down yourself) while still respecting that person's humanity and being nice. It's not hard. And you can accept that you might, in the future, find attractive someone similar for whatever reason.

Life is messy. We must admit that. And be as nice as we can.

 No.8833

>>8830
If you're saying we should be colorblind and not put emphasis on arbitrary characteristics, I agree 100%.
But, I just don't think two wrongs make a right, when it comes to calling it immoral to not wish to be in a relationship with someone of a particular whatever.

That should be between them and whoever they choose to love.

 No.8835

>>8833
I'm not sure what else I can say. Individual decisions add up into general problems, and harm is complicated here. It hurts to be told to do things that you don't want to do. This applies in multiple circumstances. It also hurts to be told to avoid doing things that you want to do. Again, same story. There's no easy solution here.

The fundamental thing is that we just have to stop being, well, caught in how modern society acts and just be nice. I think. Basic niceness.

 No.8837

>>8835
You shouldn't be told either of those things. That's my position.
You should be able to freely choose to do or not to do what you choose, when it comes to love

 No.8838

>>8837
I suppose we must agree to disagree. From my point of view, while it's unarguably some kind of harm to tell somebody displaying prejudice to stop that (and it's even greater harm to try to change society so that acting prejudicial is discouraged)... well, that's kind of inevitable since we're trying to prevent the harm caused by the prejudice in the first place. We must build a better word through everybody acting nicer when they can, and this will involve friction because stopping people from acting in a way that isn't nice is itself uncomfortable. Yet there's no way around it.

You should be able to freely choose to do or not to do what you choose, when it comes to love, yes. And others should be able to freely choose to call out what you're doing if you're being prejudiced. Because, well, your choice can cause harm to other's abilities to make their choices. Choice works all ways.

 No.8840

>>8838
I do not believe there is any harm whatsoever in any capacity at all in not dating someone you do not want to.

The idea that people have to date others that they do not want to is extremely rapey to begin with.  To act like it's somehow harmful is just down right absurd,  and the type of language those in abusive relationships use.
And,  again,  extremely rapey.

 No.8842

>>8840
Opposition to prejudice appears to me like something that's rather weird to call 'abusive' and 'rapey'. I guess we just have to completely agree to disagree. I think choice works all ways.

 No.8846

File: 1618952130407.jpg (926.94 KB, 1938x2603, 102:137, 1595253210729.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8840
>I do not believe there is any harm whatsoever in any capacity at all in not dating someone you do not want to.
Being turned down for date definitely hurts.  I'd classify that as "harm".  (Of course, that doesn't mean that there is any obligation at all to avoid that harm.  People have a right to choose whom they want to date, even if their rejection hurts others.)

>>8842
Huh?  If you meet someone but decide not to date her because you're not attracted to her, your decision isn't prejudiced even if your lack of attraction is rooted largely in her being transgender.

 No.8847

>>8846
This is going to go around pointlessly in circles, maybe?

As I've said multiple times, it appears that you and others definitionally view 'prejudice' in a narrow sense different than how I (and, I think, most people) view it.

Although we came to somewhat of an agreement before? I don't really feel like repeating the same points over and over again when little is getting through. Alas.

 No.8849

File: 1618954193574.png (48.35 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Gardevoir-282.png) ImgOps Google

>>8847
>it appears that you and others definitionally view 'prejudice' in a narrow sense different than how I (and, I think, most people) view it.
How would you define "prejudice"?  I'd go with something like these:
- "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"
- "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual or a group"

I'm also assuming sexual preferences as a given and fixed.  So if a given person doesn't sexually attract you, I don't see how it could be considered to be "without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" or "an irrational attitude of hostility" to decline to date him/her.  The lack of sexual attraction is a rational, just grounds to decline to date.

Of course, a person might be prejudiced against transgender persons in general, outside the dating sphere.  In that case, I'd say that person is prejudiced in general, but not in particular as to dating.

>Although we came to somewhat of an agreement before?
(Assuming you're Virtuous Porpoise) Yeah, although maybe I didn't really understand your position?

 No.8850

If someone is turned down for a job just for being black or trans or whatever alone from the outset, they are being treated as an object, and every part of their actual personal worth is being ignored completely. That doesn't just suck for them. It seems wrong morally.

If somebody who happens to be black or trans or whatever gets turned down after being looked at as an individual but things just won't work, then it sucks and hurts, but as long as the other person isn't going to be a dick about it and rub that in, well, that's just life. Nothing morally wrong. Got to move on.

I'm not sure why this can't apply to dating? Just don't be a dick. You can look at somebody as a person and just be honest with them without intentionally trying to make them feel worse. Don't see them as an object first and don't rub what you do in. Not hard.

 No.8851

>>8842
Shaming people for not wanting to date someone is likewise weird to me.

I find footing social pressures on somebody to date another rather disgusting. The idea of it seems wrong to me. Like parents who forced their daughter to marry another family that they like.
It starts to pull in all of those arranged marriage issues in my mind.

 No.8852

>>8849
Wouldn't your definition of prejudice make rejecting somebody immediately and not even bothering with viewing them as a person first, seeing them on them on their own terms, clearly prejudice and thus wrong?

I'm not sure how you can define the word in a way that doesn't mean that treating somebody as an object rather than a person doesn't apply.

 No.8853

>>8851
Disliking a group to the point where you don't just not like them but actively refuse to do have anything to do with them personally, not caring about who they are as individuals, seems pretty bad to me. I don't know if I'd call it disgusting or such, but it's being a dick in a way that's not worth doing.

 No.8854

>>8846
I am not really willing to consider rejection a form of harm, especially romantic rejection.

The notion seems to have dangerous moral implications to me.
But that might be a consequence of how I consider harm, caused by another.

Any pain causes comes from your own feelings, not the other person
It's kind of similar to arguments on offense. Offense is taken, so causing offense isn't harmful.

 No.8855

>>8854
If somebody burns a cross in somebody's yard and causes the people who live there to have their feelings hurt, would you refuse to see that as "harm" because those people chose to have their emotions put down and their offended response is an internal thing?

 No.8856

>>8855
Trespassing arson and harassment would suffice I think more than offence

 No.8858

File: 1618956310224.jpg (21.04 KB, 236x374, 118:187, 3640b33c439ab738c605ef8828….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8850
>If someone is turned down for a job just for being black or trans or whatever alone from the outset, they are being treated as an object, and every part of their actual personal worth is being ignored completely. That doesn't just suck for them. It seems wrong morally.
I don't get how "being treated as an object" is relevant.  When you apply for a job, you're ideally evaluated on how much you will contribute to the employer.  Race and transgender status are irrelevant to performing the functions of most jobs, so therefore it is wrong for an employer to discriminate on that basis (except for the minority of jobs where it is relevant, e.g., refusing a black actor a role to play a white character).

>>8852
>Wouldn't your definition of prejudice make rejecting somebody immediately and not even bothering with viewing them as a person first, seeing them on them on their own terms, clearly prejudice and thus wrong?
If your sexual arousal depends on getting to know the person or "viewing them as a person" or "seeing them on them on their own terms", then yes.  But I think most heterosexual male humans can quickly determine whether a woman sexually attracts them by simply observing her.  

>I'm not sure how you can define the word in a way that doesn't mean that treating somebody as an object rather than a person doesn't apply.
The definitions that I listed in >>8849 were copied almost verbatim from a dictionary.  There's nothing about "treating somebody as an object".  It's all about being irrational or ill-informed.

>>8854
>But that might be a consequence of how I consider harm, caused by another.
I'd say that a self-inflicted harm is still a harm.

>Any pain causes comes from your own feelings, not the other person
There are two notions of causation: 'proximate causation' and 'but-for causation'.  I understand you are saying that the mental pain of rejection is not proximately by the rejection in a morally relevant sense.  And I'd agree with that.  The pain still exists, though, which I think was Deep Crab's point in >>8838.

 No.8859

>>8858
There's a lot of verbiage in this post, and throughout this thread, but I fundamentally don't see why the general social rule of "don't be a dick" can't apply to dating the same way it just applies to the rest of life.

Look at somebody as a person rather than a set of labels. Don't judge ahead of time. If you just can't, then you just can't. Tell them gently and reasonably. And don't try to make it a big deal with additional stuff thrown in later.

I don't see why this is hard?

 No.8860

These are a lot of words to justify the U.S. being a place where just being transgender means that you get told "ew" and are ordered to kill yourself while facing all kinds of later bullying because you dared to politely ask the wrong person out. And, I mean, we live in a country where a horrible number of those frequently told to go commit suicide actually do it. I can't really see how this isn't bad at least in a general sense, and how not being a dick would be a cool step forward.

 No.8861

File: 1618958044863.jpg (75.44 KB, 617x1067, 617:1067, bee342f341b5325102a80d7ca2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8859
>I fundamentally don't see why the general social rule of "don't be a dick" can't apply to dating the same way it just applies to the rest of life.
I don't think that it shouldn't apply.  But I am wondering whether "don't be a dick" might mean something different to you than it means to me.

>>8859
>Look at somebody as a person rather than a set of labels. Don't judge ahead of time. If you just can't, then you just can't. Tell them gently and reasonably. And don't try to make it a big deal with additional stuff thrown in later.
I agree with that.  For me personally, sexual attraction depends very much on the person's physical body.  I am sexually attracted to healthy-BMI individuals with female secondary sexual characteristics, including transgender individuals who pass as female.  If a person is dressed in well-fit summer clothing, I can easily tell imagine them naked and determine whether I am sexually attracted to them.  I understand that other men are different and are not sexually attracted at all to transgender individuals.  I think it would reasonable for such a man to politely decline a date offered from a transgender individual by noting his sexual incompatibility.  

>>8860
>These are a lot of words to justify the U.S. being a place where just being transgender means that you get told "ew" and are ordered to kill yourself while facing all kinds of later bullying because you dared to politely ask the wrong person out.
That type of behavior is of course blatantly wrong.  I don't think anyone in this thread is condoning bullying or rudely rejecting transgender individuals.  

 No.8862

>>8861
>>I fundamentally don't see why the general social rule of "don't be a dick" can't apply to dating the same way it just applies to the rest of life.
>I don't think that it shouldn't apply.
Just to clarify (since double negatives can be confusing): I agree that the rule of "don't be a dick" should apply in dating.

 No.8864

>>8861
>>8862
I would consider rejecting somebody once you've seen them and spoken to them, taking them as an individual, as unfortunate and maybe painful depending on the circumstances, but that's just life.

I would consider it prejudice to reject even considering an entire group of people for something, unconditionally, when you're not even bothering to evaluate them as a person.

I suppose whether or not it's morally wrong is a can of worms since what even is morality is debated, but at the very least we can call it false reasoning since you can't from the outside overgeneralize about somebody just because of your assumptions about a label.

Practically, a random straight dude with no ax to grind might reject every trans woman, or every black woman or whatever, that he happens to find in his life, but it wouldn't really be a problem unless the guy makes some kind of category leap about the future like "I've never seen a hot black girl, therefore they're all gross for sure, and I'll always feel that". Which is them being stupid.

 No.8865

>>8859
As long as there are no social pressures to push you into dating somebody that you do not wish to personally, I agree come on don't be a Dick should apply.
That should be a general consideration for everyone in all of their conduct.

 No.8866

File: 1618959485077.png (2.53 KB, 105x112, 15:16, doomface02.png) ImgOps Google

>>8864
>Practically, a random straight dude with no ax to grind might reject every trans woman, or every black woman or whatever, that he happens to find in his life, but it wouldn't really be a problem unless the guy makes some kind of category leap about the future like "I've never seen a hot black girl, therefore they're all gross for sure, and I'll always feel that". Which is them being stupid.
I agree with that.

>I would consider it prejudice to reject even considering an entire group of people for something, unconditionally, when you're not even bothering to evaluate them as a person.
I agree with that.

>I would consider rejecting somebody once you've seen them and spoken to them, taking them as an individual, as unfortunate and maybe painful depending on the circumstances, but that's just life.
Personally, I wouldn't need to speak with them.  I am very visual when it comes to sexual attraction; I can determine simply from seeing them whether I would be sexually attracted.  

 No.8867

>>8861
For you personally, I can see you telling me sometime: "I've never dated a Latina because every time I got asked out she happened to be overweight, and even if it might be a cultural thing I just aren't wired to find people attractive if they don't look really healthy." I would say that that's bad, in the sense that trying to look for love and failing at it feels sucky, but you're clearly not like doing anything wrong really. If you followed up by telling me that on dating websites you now like refuse to consider talking to somebody with a Hispanic name because you feel happy making assumptions, then I'd call that no just bad but also wrong. Although understandable. It'd still be your choice and your life, but if you told me that out loud I'd be like "come on, no".

 No.8868

>>8865
With social pressures, there kind of seems to be a regrettable either/or problem. Either society pushes people to where they're uncomfortable and have to act in ways they see as "too nice", like having long conservations with those that aren't that attractive to them and making up excuses when turning them down in a walking on eggshells way... or else we're all pushed to be complete dicks to each other and relationships get ripped to pieces from outside pressure.

It sucks, yes, but I think we should err on the too nice side.

 No.8869

>>8867
Well yes, I agree with that.  Using Hispanic origin as a proxy for BMI like that is just stupid.  And there's nothing wrong with telling people that their strategy for dating is stupid.

But that's not at all what I was arguing for in >>8866.  Whether I find a person's body sexually attractive isn't a proxy; it's the ground truth.

 No.8870

>>8865
Honestly, I think social pressure against people that they're dating the supposedly "wrong" person in the "wrong" way... plus social pressure that makes some groups feel like shit because dating is hard for them... that feels like the way more severe problem.

Not that being shamed into dating somebody you're not attracted to isn't inherently a problem, but it seems like way less of an issue.

Maybe this is comparable to how racism by whites against blacks is just different, really, in the U.S. compared to by blacks against whites? Both are stupid. One is a worse problem.

 No.8871

>>8868
>Either society pushes people to where they're uncomfortable and have to act in ways they see as "too nice", like having long conservations with those that aren't that attractive to them and making up excuses when turning them down in a walking on eggshells way... or else we're all pushed to be complete dicks to each other and relationships get ripped to pieces from outside pressure.
Why not a happy middle path of "simply don't be a dick"?  

 No.8872

>>8870
>Not that being shamed into dating somebody you're not attracted to isn't inherently a problem, but it seems like way less of an issue.
What do you mean by "less of an issue"?  Do you mean that it isn't actually happening?

 No.8873

>>8869
I don't think it's prejudice to happen to see certain people in your past and present as not being sexually attractive, and of course you can't control what you're wired to find gross even if it makes you pretty unique.

I do think it's prejudice if you create a static label in your mind and decide that based on group assumptions alone that you'll not find somebody worth dating, making a decision not only before you even see a picture of them but like maybe before you even know their freaking name.

That's what it boils down to for me.

 No.8874

>>8871
Of course.

But we have to accept the fact also that making people who want to act like dicks stop is going to involve some kind of harm to them, not necessarily shaming them publicly or such but at the very least hurting their feelings through criticism.

And that sucks.

 No.8875

File: 1618961368148.jpg (51.68 KB, 765x807, 255:269, 1539084651264.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8873
>I do think it's prejudice if you create a static label in your mind and decide that based on group assumptions alone that you'll not find somebody worth dating, making a decision ... before you even see a picture of them []
I agree with that (modulo things like wanting to date someone with whom you can reproduce or wanting someone of your own religious denomination, etc.).  Did you think I would disagree with it?  I'm not sure what (if anything) we disagree over on this topic.

(edited to fix missing word)

 No.8876

>>8875
I'm not sure what (if anything) *we disagree over on this topic.

 No.8877

>>8872
In the U.S. today we probably have many straight dudes with narrow tastes, which they can't help and aren't wrong for having anyways, who experience pressure from friends and family to date women who they simply can't find attractive. This can be a trans woman thing, or more specifically a can't-get-over-that-they-don't-have-the-right-parts thing, or maybe an obese ladies thing, or maybe an age thing in terms of cougars thing, or maybe something else, likely maybe multiple things at once. But it boils down to their feelings being hurt again and again, which blows, and even just in general social shaming is horrible.

I'm not ignoring that. However, I can't see it as anywhere close to the problems of transphobia and guilt-tripping based on other identity stuff, to where millions of marginalized people live in depression day after day because even basic activities like asking somebody out is dangerous. That's just the way bigger problem. I think.

 No.8879

>>8877
>That's just the way bigger problem.
So, just trying to clarify your position, you're saying something like "(the average harm suffered by transgender people in the US due to prejudice against being transgender) multiplied by (the number of transgender people in the US) is greater than (the average harm suffered by people in the US who are pressured to date people whom they find sexually attractive) multiplied by (the number of people in the US who are pressured to date people whom they find sexually attractive)"?  (I added parentheses and underlining to aid syntactic parsing.)  As opposed to something like "(Forcing people to date those whom they find unattractive) is inherently less evil than transphobia"?

 No.8885

>>8879
The first assertion appears to me to be true to the point of being objectively factually correct.

Though... I admit that it should be subject to scrutiny given the ambiguous data on different things (i.e. how many Americans are transgender, how exactly does one define the concept of being transgender, how many Americans are even dating in the first place at any one time, et cetera).

The second assertion appears to be something that I'm not quite sure how to mentally process in the first place, so I can't really say that I'm likely to agree or disagree.

From my point of view as somebody who's ideological, religious, and socio-political views could probably be best described as 'agnostic theist left-leaning centrist moral idealist into progressive revelations', from the outset I tend to think of mass emotional suffering itself as inherently a bad thing in the sense that, at a grand scale, society should work to make all types of human suffering as minimal as possible... which means that I would consider it morally wrong for person 'X' publicly shaming person 'Y' for the sexual hang-ups of 'Y' to the point of causing 'Y' emotional pain and pushing toxic relationships... just as it's also morally wrong if 'Y' as a result decides to use his personal experience in order to be prejudicial towards unrelated person 'Z'.

I can understand that in practical terms it's tended, historically, to be better to be publicly shamed for not dating the right person versus being publicly shamed for your gender identity expression, the latter sometimes leading to the likes of homelessness and suicide, the same way... I can compare it to how in practical terms it's tended, historically, to be better to be a victim of skin cancer rather than brain cancer (I apologize if going there offends), the latter directing causing tragic death in more circumstances.

However, I wouldn't be able to phrase one as "inherently" distinct from the other in an ethical sense because the goal is a world without cancer, period, in the one case... just as in the other case the goal is a world without mass emotional suffering.

 No.8887

>>8868
I disagree with the premise. I do not believe it is an 1 or 0 situation.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe that people will be pressured towards  Not loving who they want just because they are not pressured into loving who they do not want.

I don't really get the logic that ties these 2 things together, to be quite honest with you

>Maybe this is comparable to how racism by whites against blacks is just different, really, in the U.S. compared to by blacks against whites? Both are stupid. One is a worse problem.
Both are wrong, morally. And so I would be against any racism of any kind, regardless which side it is.

Again I don't really understand how this applies or the logic therein.

 No.8890

>>8887
Haven't you been arguing that people should be allowed to express prejudice in their dating relationships (of  course, you don't define it as 'prejudice') without criticism?

My belief is that prejudice is to be condemned and fought, everywhere, even if doing so is uncomfortable and can very well involving doing some harm since we're trying to prevent even greater harm.

 No.8891

>>8890
>Haven't you been arguing that people should be allowed to ... without criticism?
I don't think he ever claimed that?  Or are you counting criticism as "social pressure"?

 No.8893

>>8885
>The first assertion appears to me to be true to the point of being objectively factually correct.
I agree, at least to the degree that harm can be objectively quantified.

 No.8895

>>8891
I can freely say this: given that this broad conversation has taken multiple days and has involved multiple people, with details varying a lot, I've had a hard time genuinely understanding what's being argued with me.

 No.8897

>>8890
Sort of.  The choice is on the individual level. An individual should not have anybody telling him who or who not to love. That is so leave their business and nobody else is whatsoever.

I think you can criticise it, but ultimately I don't think there should be any other factor making that persons choose who he wants to choose.
Criticism shouldn't be on a moral level,  I'd say. Call them vain if that is what you think it is, but I don't think they are evil for it. And I don't think they should be pressured into something they don't want over it.

>My belief is that prejudice is to be condemned and fought, everywhere, even if doing so is uncomfortable and can very well involving doing some harm since we're trying to prevent even greater harm.
I believe in moral action, not outcome.
Ends never justify the means.
Two wrongs just make further wrongs

 No.8898

>>8897
We seem to have to agree to disagree and leave it there, given that I believe that prejudice is morally wrong and while certainly understandable (even to the point to where I outright sympathize with the person expressing it) ought to be reasonably opposed by others who are attempting to make a world without prejudice. This includes personal business, inevitably, because when two or more individuals are potentially causing harm to each other a kind of choice has to be made as to minimize the wrongness in the first place. In dating terms, people should see people as people, not as labels, before they decide who's worth associating with.

 No.8901

>>8819
Typically prejudice is formed from environmental upbringing and influence that shapes one's view. These perceptions people carry are all unique, though modern culture in recent years encourages wide acceptance among ethnic groups and beliefs. To the point where discrimination is frowned upon. It is irrational for one to hold to a belief that they insist upon being right, while going against general consensus. Though one should should have the self respect to hold to their view.

 No.8967

People are attracted to who they are attracted to. Trying to force people to date those they are not attracted to is going to be a recipe for disaster in most any circumstance. Mutual attraction among consenting adults seems to be the winning formula.

There's some situations where i don't think mutual attraction is strictly necessary, prostitution for instance, but that's still consenting adults where each party gets something out of it.

It's funny to me that people take grievance with trans people not being able to date who they want, when this has simply been the reality for the vast majority of straight men, and a fair number of folks from other quadrants, since time immemorial. Unless you're in the 1% of men in terms of attractiveness/social status/monetary assets, then you won't get your first choice of female partner, and there's a damn good chance you won't find one at all. That's just part of life, we don't always get what we want. People rightly laugh at straight male incels for making similar claims. Sorry, but the argument doesn't hold any more water just because it's woke now.

As far as prejudice/discrimination goes, sorry, but when it comes to how people pair bond, that person has final say. You can criticize them, sure, but you have to respect their final choice. Otherwise you run basically head-first into sex slavery, and that should be avoided unless all parties involved are into that sort of thing.

 No.9008

>>8967
I don't think you understand what's been the topic of discussion.

It's not that people are advocating that prejudice in general be ended through force, or in the specific sense that prejudice in terms of refusing to be associated with certain groups in personal relationships be ended through force.

It's that people are saying that believing as much and acting as such can be reasonably seen as wrong and should be able to be criticized, with the understanding that freedom goes both ways... your liberty to be prejudiced is directly linked to my liberty to call out your prejudice because we both are free citizens who can express yourselves how we want.

You also appear to have some kind of particular animus against transgender people specifically or some larger group that we're a part of because you see us as engaged in whining and claim that we deserve to be laughed at due to our ignorant, "woke" nature... I would politely ask for you to reconsider this framing or at the least maybe hold off from expressing it when this disdain of yours doesn't really change the intellectual point discussed.

You are correct that cisgender heterosexual men have been subject to a great deal of prejudice both throughout history and in current times. I mean, statistically, most men are wired to be cisgender and heterosexual... thus, by definition, when we've seen women believe and act on stuff like "I'd never date/befriend/help/etc a guy that's black/Hispanic/blind/deaf/wheelchair-bound" that's involved the world becoming colder and crueler to such men specifically and the broader society as well. I believe that that's quite terrible.

As such, I really... don't get what your attempting to argue here. Why does more prejudice against other groups in the past and now mean that prejudice against some different group is fine? Human niceness is not like a cake or pie where more niceness for me means less niceness for you. The exact opposite appears to be the case for me. Niceness generally tends to cause more niceness, it being harder to act like a dick to somebody when you know that they won't be like to you.

You bring up incels... I don't understand. The type of person who identifies as an incel generally is viewed negatively by others because that self-label usually means that they are bigoted in a way that's not only sexist but homophobic and transphobic as well as have other bad attitudes. An incel, or so it seems, believes himself to be entitled to sex with anyone he chooses to the point of viewing others as mere pleasure vessels while also being ludicrously bound on who he may choose because he sees most women as inferior to himself. This is terrible and should be opposed.

Why is that relevant? A straight cisgender man who for whatever reason has failed his entire life to find love, by himself, isn't an incel as you and I know. I would say that they're just another average Joe, one that deserves basic niceness like all people. I obviously wouldn't call them victims of prejudice without more information, but should it be provided... like if he's explicitly told by ladies "I don't date Jews"... then, well, my empathy for him would be identical to that for, say, a fellow nonbinary person experiencing transphobia. I don't see why this is hard to understand?

 No.9212

Can the context to the OP image be given?

 No.9213

>>9212
Pic is unrelated.

It is just an Amogus meme.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sus-among-us

 No.9221

>>9213
I've actually never played it. Have you?

 No.9234

File: 1619222275750.jpg (80.92 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, amogus-champion.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9221
Nope!  Maybe one day.

 No.9236

>>9234
Same.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]