"Gingerism is unquestionably prejudice. It's just not in the same league as racism."
So if you cut me, then I don't bleed-- because YOU said "it's not in the same league." Gotcha. So when Jews and blacks made slurs against me, it's ok-- but it would be wrong for me to return-fire with slurs against them.
GOD I want to stomp your face in.
You are cherry-picking facts in order to be a politically-correct toady, and claim that racial slurs are worse than slur against redheads. But when you say:
"Redheads don't form a group that's like a race or an ethnicity."
Then you're being ignorant and simplistic. Redheads are not a race or ethnicity-- but it is genetic; the only difference unlike them, it's caused by a recessive gene, rather than dominant. That’s the only difference. And recessive genes simply are expressed more diversely among a population—i.e. we are the world’s only genetic minority, even among our own group.
This means that while we didn’t have the same group-disadvantages that they had—i.e. we couldn’t be targeted and oppressed as a group like they were-- we also don't have the same group advantages that they have from their cohesiveness. On the contrary, each of us is basically on our own, having no group-support that they have, and without the ability to band together for group-protection. So we are basically divided, outnumbered, and targeted individually for a common phenotypical characteristic.
Therefore we need more protection than other minority-groups, since we can’t protect each other like they can: even our own parents can look different than we do, and this can cause us to become targets even within our own families. It's insane to say that a larger, more powerful and more cohesive group, should get more protection than a more weaker and more disparate one!
Consider Jews: they are not only an ethnicity, but also a religion: that gives them homogeneity as well as cohesiveness This gives them great power in terms of mutual support and activism. It’s similar with blacks, who likewise have made gains in this area because of their homogeneity.
True, we can't be targeted jointly in history like the others could, but only because we aren't homogeneous like they are-- and therefore there was no opportunity to oppress us as homogenous group. However, it's absurd to say that it's better to target and oppress people individually based on their color, than not as a group. Individuals have rights-- not groups; and when there is a widespread public mentality or belief which causes individuals to be targeted and oppressed based on their color, then the CAUSE of such is irrelevant: they deserve to be just a safe.
Redheads don't have the NAACP, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, or any other group looking out for them-- but they have the same right to their safety, their sanctity and their self-respect. Therefore the law must act to ensure that we have the same rights as everyone else: if someone makes a slur against us, then the law should do not only what it would do against a racist or anti-semitic slur, but ALSO what the NAACP or the ADL would do. For example, when Rush Limbaugh made slurs against redheads, not only should he be sanctioned by the FCC like he would against an anti-semitic slur, but should also fine him the same amount as he would suffer. The purpose of the law is to protect those who can't protect themselves, in order to protect everyone equally-- there is no such thing as a "safe prejudice." So basically, Limbaugh should lose his job on ABC radio for his comments, just like he lost his job on ESPN when he made a racist comment (which wasn't anywhere NEAR as offensive as his anti-redhead slur).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
You're the world's biggest hypocrite
Date: 2009-08-19 09:16 pm (UTC)So if you cut me, then I don't bleed-- because YOU said "it's not in the same league." Gotcha. So when Jews and blacks made slurs against me, it's ok-- but it would be wrong for me to return-fire with slurs against them.
GOD I want to stomp your face in.
You are cherry-picking facts in order to be a politically-correct toady, and claim that racial slurs are worse than slur against redheads. But when you say:
"Redheads don't form a group that's like a race or an ethnicity."
Then you're being ignorant and simplistic. Redheads are not a race or ethnicity-- but it is genetic; the only difference unlike them, it's caused by a recessive gene, rather than dominant.
That’s the only difference. And recessive genes simply are expressed more diversely among a population—i.e. we are the world’s only genetic minority, even among our own group.
This means that while we didn’t have the same group-disadvantages that they had—i.e. we couldn’t be targeted and oppressed as a group like they were-- we also don't have the same group advantages that they have from their cohesiveness. On the contrary, each of us is basically on our own, having no group-support that they have, and without the ability to band together for group-protection. So we are basically divided, outnumbered, and targeted individually for a common phenotypical characteristic.
Therefore we need more protection than other minority-groups, since we can’t protect each other like they can: even our own parents can look different than we do, and this can cause us to become targets even within our own families. It's insane to say that a larger, more powerful and more cohesive group, should get more protection than a more weaker and more disparate one!
Consider Jews: they are not only an ethnicity, but also a religion: that gives them homogeneity as well as cohesiveness This gives them great power in terms of mutual support and activism. It’s similar with blacks, who likewise have made gains in this area because of their homogeneity.
True, we can't be targeted jointly in history like the others could, but only because we aren't homogeneous like they are-- and therefore there was no opportunity to oppress us as homogenous group. However, it's absurd to say that it's better to target and oppress people individually based on their color, than not as a group. Individuals have rights-- not groups; and when there is a widespread public mentality or belief which causes individuals to be targeted and oppressed based on their color, then the CAUSE of such is irrelevant: they deserve to be just a safe.
Redheads don't have the NAACP, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, or any other group looking out for them-- but they have the same right to their safety, their sanctity and their self-respect. Therefore the law must act to ensure that we have the same rights as everyone else: if someone makes a slur against us, then the law should do not only what it would do against a racist or anti-semitic slur, but ALSO what the NAACP or the ADL would do.
For example, when Rush Limbaugh made slurs against redheads, not only should he be sanctioned by the FCC like he would against an anti-semitic slur, but should also fine him the same amount as he would suffer. The purpose of the law is to protect those who can't protect themselves, in order to protect everyone equally-- there is no such thing as a "safe prejudice."
So basically, Limbaugh should lose his job on ABC radio for his comments, just like he lost his job on ESPN when he made a racist comment (which wasn't anywhere NEAR as offensive as his anti-redhead slur).