Total Posts:271|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Heterosexual Privilege

briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 3:30:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Before I even continue, let me say, don't bother responding to this post if you aren't going to be mature, read the whole thing or open your mind to what is being said. Too many times I have posted something, many users found it necessary to bring up and attack me for things that have nothing to do with what I posted, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like this.

This is the first installment of the "Check Your Privilege" series and today I am going to discuss the topic of heterosexual privilege. A while ago I created a poll called "Does Straight Privilege Exist?" as a kind of social experiment analyzing the thoughts of the DDO community on the topic of privilege and how it affects our society. And while most sensible people with adequate critical thinking skills voted 'yes' agreeing with and acknowledging its existence, as expected, there were some who outwardly denied and/or made excuses for the existence of Heterosexual Privilege in society. This comes as no surprise since part of being privileged in society is being obviously to it, and those like this are usually part of the problem.

The poll here http://www.debate.org...

Now I know the topic of privilege, of any kind, to some people may seem controversial, and even "offensive," to those who prefer to pretend it's not real while simultaneously benefiting from it, but that is really no excuse for denying its existence because it does exist and despite all of the progress being made on behalf of the gay/lesbian/bisexual community it's still an issue.

Here are a few examples...

- Heterosexuals receive public recognition and support for an intimate relationship. And if they don't, it's not because of the sex of their partner.

- Heterosexuals are free to express affection in most social situations and do not expect hostile or violent reactions from others because of their sexual orientation.

- Heterosexual youth do not have to worry about being abused, kicked out of their homes or even murdered by their parents because of their sexual orientation.

- Heterosexuals do not have to "come out" to the people they are close to, mostly because it is already assumed they are straight.

- Heterosexuals can marry the person they love and are attracted to in pretty much every country, state, province, on every continent. Meanwhile same-sex marriage is still illegal in most countries, and homosexuality is criminalized in many countries as well.

- Heterosexual youth have plenty of role models and representation in the media, and unlike LGB individuals, nobody assumes they have some sort of "agenda" when people like them are represented.

- Heterosexuals are not subjected to negative stereotypes, or wrongfully associated with disease and the destruction of society.

- Nobody assumes people are straight because of something traumatic in their past that supposedly made them that way.

- Heterosexuals do not have to hide who they are from friends, family, co-workers, their community etc... for fear of persecution, opposition or discrimination.

- Nobody calls straight people "confused" because of their sexual orientation.

- Straight people can be as obnoxiously affectionate in front of other people without someone accusing them of "shoving their sexuality down their throats" or "rubbing their perversion in their faces"

- Heterosexuals aren't fallaciously compared to people who rape animals, children or people who sleep with their family members.

I can go on but I will end it here...
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 3:35:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And what I find funny is, when confronted with their privilege, a lot of people get offended and upset about it, as if some sort of attack to simply acknowledge that you have an advantage for being born who you are and any attempts at pointing out this fact is met with denial and criticism.

They also try to find every reason to distort reality and shift their privilege to those less privileged by saying things like "Gays have it better because they have their own TV networks" or "Why do gay people always have to 'come out?' you don't see straight people announcing their sexuality to the world!" and other ridiculous things. They also falsely accuse the LGBT community of wanting "special rights" when what we really want is to be treated equally in society and not subjected to persecution because of who we are.

(Most) People who are underprivileged in some way don't WANT to be victims of society's ignorance despite what some may believe, but it seems a lot of privileged people out there who say this would find every excuse to claim why they are victims themselves, which is always something ridiculous as stated above. I never said straight people (or any privileged person) couldn't have challenges, or negative experiences, but when this occurs, it's likely NOT because of their sexual orientation, and if it is it's an incredibly rare occurrence and doesn't change the fact that heterosexual privilege does exist. If you are a straight person who denies the fact that you are better off in life because of your sexuality compared to a gay, bisexual or even an asexual person, you're probably not being honest with yourself.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:27:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is probably because the word privilege implies that somebody is getting something extra and undeserved. Respecting another as a human being isn't bestowing privilege on somebody, it is just what people should do.

I can't imagine a context where attacking heterosexuals (that is what it comes across as), is beneficial in any way, so instead of attacking people by saying they have something unearned, and putting them on the defensive, it may be best to attack the problems of society by finding a new term to explain how homosexuals are being persecuted.

Again, privilege is a rich kid getting a job he is not qualified for, because of who his daddy is, not being persecuted isn't a privilege. It is just the baseline amount of respect, everyone should have.

Words are important, so I'd advise people not to use words that seem like an attack, and instead get people on your side, by explaining how society treats you in a negative way.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:43:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:27:33 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is probably because the word privilege implies that somebody is getting something extra and undeserved. Respecting another as a human being isn't bestowing privilege on somebody, it is just what people should do.

I can't imagine a context where attacking heterosexuals (that is what it comes across as), is beneficial in any way, so instead of attacking people by saying they have something unearned, and putting them on the defensive, it may be best to attack the problems of society by finding a new term to explain how homosexuals are being persecuted.

Again, privilege is a rich kid getting a job he is not qualified for, because of who his daddy is, not being persecuted isn't a privilege. It is just the baseline amount of respect, everyone should have.

Words are important, so I'd advise people not to use words that seem like an attack, and instead get people on your side, by explaining how society treats you in a negative way.

nice.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:45:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:27:33 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is probably because the word privilege implies that somebody is getting something extra and undeserved. Respecting another as a human being isn't bestowing privilege on somebody, it is just what people should do.

I can't imagine a context where attacking heterosexuals (that is what it comes across as), is beneficial in any way, so instead of attacking people by saying they have something unearned, and putting them on the defensive, it may be best to attack the problems of society by finding a new term to explain how homosexuals are being persecuted.

Again, privilege is a rich kid getting a job he is not qualified for, because of who his daddy is, not being persecuted isn't a privilege. It is just the baseline amount of respect, everyone should have.

Nicely said.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:51:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:27:33 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is probably because the word privilege implies that somebody is getting something extra and undeserved. Respecting another as a human being isn't bestowing privilege on somebody, it is just what people should do.

Definition of Privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Straight have an advantage in regards to their sexual orientation in society, therefore they are privileged. It doesn't automatically imply that they have something they don't deserve, they simply have an advantage over their non-heterosexual counterparts. Heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals should all be entitled to the same equal treatment, but that isn't the case as one group generally has it better than the other.

I can't imagine a context where attacking heterosexuals (that is what it comes across as), is beneficial in any way, so instead of attacking people by saying they have something unearned, and putting them on the defensive, it may be best to attack the problems of society by finding a new term to explain how homosexuals are being persecuted.

See above. Calling heterosexuals "privileged" is not an insult or an attack. If you are defensive over the fact that someone pointed out the fact that you have an advantage in society because of who you are, you chose to interpret it that way. Being privileged doesn't make you a bad person. You didn't choose to be straight, you just benefit from it in ways that non-heterosexuals do not.

Again, privilege is a rich kid getting a job he is not qualified for, because of who his daddy is, not being persecuted isn't a privilege. It is just the baseline amount of respect, everyone should have.

It is a privilege, both the examples you mentioned are in some way a privilege by definition. For example, I am not transgender, therefore I experience the benefits in society that transgender people do not. That is privilege. Does it make me a bad person? Of course not. What would make me a bad person is if I were to ignore my privilege while simultaneously benefiting from it and using it to further the persecution of trans people.

Words are important, so I'd advise people not to use words that seem like an attack, and instead get people on your side, by explaining how society treats you in a negative way.

Again, not an attack. You chose to interpret it that way.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As expected, straight people oblivious to their own privilege falsely accusing the person without the privilege of attacking them without evidence or justification. Why am I not surprised?
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:03:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:52:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Having the right to be racist or a homophobic bigot is not a privilege.

It's just plain wrong.

Clearly you missed the point. This post has absolutely nothing to do with racism, and no where did I say homophobia was a privilege. I said heterosexual benefit from the privileges afforded to them by our society, where homophobia is still an issue. You guys are simply proving my point with every response, acting like victims, and looking to be attacked instead of acknowledging the fact that, yes, you do generally have it better than non-heterosexuals in society in regards to your sexual orientation.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:08:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:51:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:27:33 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is probably because the word privilege implies that somebody is getting something extra and undeserved. Respecting another as a human being isn't bestowing privilege on somebody, it is just what people should do.

Definition of Privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Straight have an advantage in regards to their sexual orientation in society, therefore they are privileged. It doesn't automatically imply that they have something they don't deserve, they simply have an advantage over their non-heterosexual counterparts. Heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals should all be entitled to the same equal treatment, but that isn't the case as one group generally has it better than the other.

I can't imagine a context where attacking heterosexuals (that is what it comes across as), is beneficial in any way, so instead of attacking people by saying they have something unearned, and putting them on the defensive, it may be best to attack the problems of society by finding a new term to explain how homosexuals are being persecuted.

See above. Calling heterosexuals "privileged" is not an insult or an attack. If you are defensive over the fact that someone pointed out the fact that you have an advantage in society because of who you are, you chose to interpret it that way. Being privileged doesn't make you a bad person. You didn't choose to be straight, you just benefit from it in ways that non-heterosexuals do not.

Again, privilege is a rich kid getting a job he is not qualified for, because of who his daddy is, not being persecuted isn't a privilege. It is just the baseline amount of respect, everyone should have.

It is a privilege, both the examples you mentioned are in some way a privilege by definition. For example, I am not transgender, therefore I experience the benefits in society that transgender people do not. That is privilege. Does it make me a bad person? Of course not. What would make me a bad person is if I were to ignore my privilege while simultaneously benefiting from it and using it to further the persecution of trans people.

Words are important, so I'd advise people not to use words that seem like an attack, and instead get people on your side, by explaining how society treats you in a negative way.

Again, not an attack. You chose to interpret it that way.

The word privilege is slang for precisely what I said. It is an attack meant to get people on the defensive, if it wasn't meant as an attack the word advantage would be used. The word privilege and advantage are not and never have been synonyms.

I look at a group of rich kids attending an exclusive private school, I think privileged.

Privilege is typically used as a synonym for the old phrase "born with a silver spoon".

It is not hard, just substitute the word advantage for privilege if it is meant as a statement of fact and not an attack or crybaby excuse.

The word privilege and advantage have different connotations, and the word privilege was chosen for a very specific reason.

There are 2 different forms of rhetoric that needs to be addressed. When speaking to people in a disadvantaged group, it is often best to use the word privilege, so they can see heterosexuals as an outside enemy in a subliminal way. The words are meant to evoke feeling so a call of action can be made to a disadvantaged group. This is just smart rhetoric. The problem is using this same rhetoric to talk to the rest of society. It serves it's purpose with the disadvantaged but with the advantaged (or more accurately, not disadvantaged) group, it is much smarter to use a form of rhetoric that doesn't imply they are the enemy, or heads will obviously butt.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:17:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:59:19 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
As expected, straight people oblivious to their own privilege falsely accusing the person without the privilege of attacking them without evidence or justification. Why am I not surprised?

I think Wylted's point was that whatever the dictionary definition of the word, the term privilege comes across as something unearned. I don't think you will find many people who will dispute that heterosexuals have an easier time in society, and no one is trying to discount the suffering of gay people. But a lot of people, including myself, think these debates over who has what "privilege" and to what extent often cause us to forget the real issue. Wylted articulated it really well imo--the problem isn't that straight people aren't discriminated against, it's that gay people aren't. A privilege is, by definition, something that isn't a right...wouldn't you agree that we all have the right not to be discriminated against? If this is the case, it isn't that straights have privilege, but rather that people who aren't heteronormative are losing *their* rights.

The distinction may not seem important, but you'd be surprised how little changes in connotation change how people view things--and considering all of the fights over who does or doesn't have privilege, I don't think privilege is *really* just a way to conceptualize how society treats certain groups, but rather as a weapon social justice type people use against their enemies. It's sad, but people often feel attacked by social justice warriors for a reason, even if on the surface what they're saying looks really reasonable. You should check out this article: http://slatestarcodex.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:18:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:17:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:59:19 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
As expected, straight people oblivious to their own privilege falsely accusing the person without the privilege of attacking them without evidence or justification. Why am I not surprised?

I think Wylted's point was that whatever the dictionary definition of the word, the term privilege comes across as something unearned. I don't think you will find many people who will dispute that heterosexuals have an easier time in society, and no one is trying to discount the suffering of gay people. But a lot of people, including myself, think these debates over who has what "privilege" and to what extent often cause us to forget the real issue. Wylted articulated it really well imo--the problem isn't that straight people aren't discriminated against, it's that gay people are. A privilege is, by definition, something that isn't a right...wouldn't you agree that we all have the right not to be discriminated against? If this is the case, it isn't that straights have privilege, but rather that people who aren't heteronormative are losing *their* rights.

The distinction may not seem important, but you'd be surprised how little changes in connotation change how people view things--and considering all of the fights over who does or doesn't have privilege, I don't think privilege is *really* just a way to conceptualize how society treats certain groups, but rather as a weapon social justice type people use against their enemies. It's sad, but people often feel attacked by social justice warriors for a reason, even if on the surface what they're saying looks really reasonable. You should check out this article: http://slatestarcodex.com...

fixed
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:18:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:08:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:51:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:27:33 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is probably because the word privilege implies that somebody is getting something extra and undeserved. Respecting another as a human being isn't bestowing privilege on somebody, it is just what people should do.

Definition of Privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Straight have an advantage in regards to their sexual orientation in society, therefore they are privileged. It doesn't automatically imply that they have something they don't deserve, they simply have an advantage over their non-heterosexual counterparts. Heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals should all be entitled to the same equal treatment, but that isn't the case as one group generally has it better than the other.

I can't imagine a context where attacking heterosexuals (that is what it comes across as), is beneficial in any way, so instead of attacking people by saying they have something unearned, and putting them on the defensive, it may be best to attack the problems of society by finding a new term to explain how homosexuals are being persecuted.

See above. Calling heterosexuals "privileged" is not an insult or an attack. If you are defensive over the fact that someone pointed out the fact that you have an advantage in society because of who you are, you chose to interpret it that way. Being privileged doesn't make you a bad person. You didn't choose to be straight, you just benefit from it in ways that non-heterosexuals do not.

Again, privilege is a rich kid getting a job he is not qualified for, because of who his daddy is, not being persecuted isn't a privilege. It is just the baseline amount of respect, everyone should have.

It is a privilege, both the examples you mentioned are in some way a privilege by definition. For example, I am not transgender, therefore I experience the benefits in society that transgender people do not. That is privilege. Does it make me a bad person? Of course not. What would make me a bad person is if I were to ignore my privilege while simultaneously benefiting from it and using it to further the persecution of trans people.

Words are important, so I'd advise people not to use words that seem like an attack, and instead get people on your side, by explaining how society treats you in a negative way.

Again, not an attack. You chose to interpret it that way.

The word privilege is slang for precisely what I said. It is an attack meant to get people on the defensive, if it wasn't meant as an attack the word advantage would be used. The word privilege and advantage are not and never have been synonyms.

Wrong. Below is a list of words synonymous with the word 'privilege' and would you look at that... The word 'advantage' was the FIRST WORD listed.

http://www.thesaurus.com...

So once again, you're looking to be attacked and offended by something that was not malicious, as you always do because for some reason admitting I have a point on any particular subject is apparently too difficult for you so you constantly grasp at every straw you can to slander me without justification.

I look at a group of rich kids attending an exclusive private school, I think privileged.

Funny, I look at a group of heterosexuals holding hands in public without worrying about being discriminated against, called anti-straight slurs and being subjected to violence and think the same thing.

Privilege is typically used as a synonym for the old phrase "born with a silver spoon".

You choose to narrow your definition to that extent. The concept of privilege is a lot more broad that being a rich kid.

It is not hard, just substitute the word advantage for privilege if it is meant as a statement of fact and not an attack or crybaby excuse.

Again, see above. They are synonymous words so I do not see the point in changing it to the same exact thing.

The word privilege and advantage have different connotations, and the word privilege was chosen for a very specific reason.

Wrong. See above.

There are 2 different forms of rhetoric that needs to be addressed. When speaking to people in a disadvantaged group, it is often best to use the word privilege, so they can see heterosexuals as an outside enemy in a subliminal way. The words are meant to evoke feeling so a call of action can be made to a disadvantaged group. This is just smart rhetoric. The problem is using this same rhetoric to talk to the rest of society. It serves it's purpose with the disadvantaged but with the advantaged (or more accurately, not disadvantaged) group, it is much smarter to use a form of rhetoric that doesn't imply they are the enemy, or heads will obviously butt.

Again, your own interpretation.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:24:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:17:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:59:19 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
As expected, straight people oblivious to their own privilege falsely accusing the person without the privilege of attacking them without evidence or justification. Why am I not surprised?

I think Wylted's point was that whatever the dictionary definition of the word, the term privilege comes across as something unearned. I don't think you will find many people who will dispute that heterosexuals have an easier time in society, and no one is trying to discount the suffering of gay people. But a lot of people, including myself, think these debates over who has what "privilege" and to what extent often cause us to forget the real issue. Wylted articulated it really well imo--the problem isn't that straight people aren't discriminated against, it's that gay people aren't. A privilege is, by definition, something that isn't a right...wouldn't you agree that we all have the right not to be discriminated against? If this is the case, it isn't that straights have privilege, but rather that people who aren't heteronormative are losing *their* rights.

I don't completely disagree with his point, but it's irrelevant and is clearly his way of finding every little thing to attack me for even though he has no real argument against me.

http://www.thesaurus.com...

The distinction may not seem important, but you'd be surprised how little changes in connotation change how people view things--and considering all of the fights over who does or doesn't have privilege, I don't think privilege is *really* just a way to conceptualize how society treats certain groups, but rather as a weapon social justice type people use against their enemies. It's sad, but people often feel attacked by social justice warriors for a reason, even if on the surface what they're saying looks really reasonable. You should check out this article: http://slatestarcodex.com...

Okay I see where you are coming from, but my intention was not to attack anyone regardless. I used privilege because it's really what I am used to hearing when discussing this topic. But yes, if it makes everyone else feel better, I will change it to something else.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:43:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't deny that homosexuals are often treated poorly, and I would not want this to continue to happen without good reason (if such exists).

Nonetheless, I don't like how those are homosexual are lumped into a 'homosexual' demographic and consequently regarded as a division of society in a similar way to an ethnic group. Homosexuals, at the end of the day, are just normal people who have divergent sexual preferences. This isn't really enough to warrant consideration of them as a separate social group, much in the same way as ginger-haired people aren't regarded as a separate social group.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:45:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

It really confirms what I said about privileged or should I say "advantaged" people getting offended over the most frivolous of things instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. That's all people do on this site, and it's a waste of time honestly.

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Another example of misinterpretation. The issue is not the PDA itself, it's the bias shown towards certain people based on their sexual orientation. When straight people who are "lovey dovey" in public, the negative reactions they receive are not direct toward the fact that they are both of the opposite sex, it's because they are being overly affectionate in public. Gay couples can't even hold hands or be close to their partner without risking being called anti-gay slurs, being discriminated against, or being attacked BECAUSE they are gay. That is the difference.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.

Okay understandable, but privilege and advantage literally mean the same thing. However, based on how most people perceive the word 'privilege" I suppose I can use an alternative.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:48:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Brian, you do realize everyone has their own interpretations, right? You can't say someone else's interpretation is "wrong" and that yours is the only one that is "right".
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:52:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:45:20 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

It really confirms what I said about privileged or should I say "advantaged" people getting offended over the most frivolous of things instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. That's all people do on this site, and it's a waste of time honestly.

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Another example of misinterpretation. The issue is not the PDA itself, it's the bias shown towards certain people based on their sexual orientation. When straight people who are "lovey dovey" in public, the negative reactions they receive are not direct toward the fact that they are both of the opposite sex, it's because they are being overly affectionate in public. Gay couples can't even hold hands or be close to their partner without risking being called anti-gay slurs, being discriminated against, or being attacked BECAUSE they are gay. That is the difference.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.

Okay understandable, but privilege and advantage literally mean the same thing. However, based on how most people perceive the word 'privilege" I suppose I can use an alternative.

Does anybody actually say anything to 2 dudes holding hands? Even if I was disgusted and wanted to say something, I never would. I'd like to think I wouldn't lose to a couple of gay dudes in a fight, but if I did the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with.

Why would anyone risk that type of embarrassment, by being openly critical of gay dudes holding hands?
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:53:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:43:37 PM, Philocat wrote:
I don't deny that homosexuals are often treated poorly, and I would not want this to continue to happen without good reason (if such exists).

Nonetheless, I don't like how those are homosexual are lumped into a 'homosexual' demographic and consequently regarded as a division of society in a similar way to an ethnic group. Homosexuals, at the end of the day, are just normal people who have divergent sexual preferences. This isn't really enough to warrant consideration of them as a separate social group, much in the same way as ginger-haired people aren't regarded as a separate social group.

You are correct, but only to a certain extent. Obviously, all gay people have something in common that differentiates them from the rest of society, their attraction to the same sex. The same could be said about everyone, gays, trans people, blondes, tall people, skinny people. We all possess characteristics that someone else may or may not share. Unfortunately, some of these characteristics cause certain people who possess them to be treated differently from others which is why I made this poll. You and I may see gay people as just people, but not everyone else in society feels this way as noted by the privileges that heterosexuals are entitled to based on their sexual orientation that non-heterosexuals are not.

This is why I made this post. To talk about the issue and have a rational discussion with those who may or may not agree. Unfortunately, no one has said anything relevant to the topic so far but you. So thanks for sharing your opinion on the subject.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:48:23 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
Brian, you do realize everyone has their own interpretations, right? You can't say someone else's interpretation is "wrong" and that yours is the only one that is "right".

Interpretations of what exactly? Because I don't remember telling anyone that their interpretations are wrong, just that they do not coincide with my own thus assuming my intentions based on their own interpretation is incorrect, not the interpretations themselves. I made this clear already.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:01:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:52:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:45:20 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

It really confirms what I said about privileged or should I say "advantaged" people getting offended over the most frivolous of things instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. That's all people do on this site, and it's a waste of time honestly.

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Another example of misinterpretation. The issue is not the PDA itself, it's the bias shown towards certain people based on their sexual orientation. When straight people who are "lovey dovey" in public, the negative reactions they receive are not direct toward the fact that they are both of the opposite sex, it's because they are being overly affectionate in public. Gay couples can't even hold hands or be close to their partner without risking being called anti-gay slurs, being discriminated against, or being attacked BECAUSE they are gay. That is the difference.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.

Okay understandable, but privilege and advantage literally mean the same thing. However, based on how most people perceive the word 'privilege" I suppose I can use an alternative.

Does anybody actually say anything to 2 dudes holding hands? Even if I was disgusted and wanted to say something, I never would. I'd like to think I wouldn't lose to a couple of gay dudes in a fight, but if I did the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with.

Yes. Gay couples are beaten to the point where they are hospitalized or dead just for holding hands or showing any form of affection in public. It does happen more often than you think.

Why would anyone risk that type of embarrassment, by being openly critical of gay dudes holding hands?

It's not the embarrassment you should be paying attention to, it's the bigotry and harassment to begin with. But to say losing to a gay couple in a fight is "the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with." also comes across as stereotyping. Losing to a gay couple in a fight is essentially no different than losing to two straight men in a fight.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:04:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:01:50 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:52:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:45:20 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

It really confirms what I said about privileged or should I say "advantaged" people getting offended over the most frivolous of things instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. That's all people do on this site, and it's a waste of time honestly.

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Another example of misinterpretation. The issue is not the PDA itself, it's the bias shown towards certain people based on their sexual orientation. When straight people who are "lovey dovey" in public, the negative reactions they receive are not direct toward the fact that they are both of the opposite sex, it's because they are being overly affectionate in public. Gay couples can't even hold hands or be close to their partner without risking being called anti-gay slurs, being discriminated against, or being attacked BECAUSE they are gay. That is the difference.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.

Okay understandable, but privilege and advantage literally mean the same thing. However, based on how most people perceive the word 'privilege" I suppose I can use an alternative.

Does anybody actually say anything to 2 dudes holding hands? Even if I was disgusted and wanted to say something, I never would. I'd like to think I wouldn't lose to a couple of gay dudes in a fight, but if I did the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with.

Yes. Gay couples are beaten to the point where they are hospitalized or dead just for holding hands or showing any form of affection in public. It does happen more often than you think.

Why would anyone risk that type of embarrassment, by being openly critical of gay dudes holding hands?

It's not the embarrassment you should be paying attention to, it's the bigotry and harassment to begin with. But to say losing to a gay couple in a fight is "the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with." also comes across as stereotyping. Losing to a gay couple in a fight is essentially no different than losing to two straight men in a fight.

I don't disagree, but my homophobic friends do, and I'll never live it down.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:08:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, how am I as an average person supposed to feel guilty when someone attacks another person instead of me?

For example: I guess it is a "privilege" for me that black gang thugs attack other thugs instead of me. Am I supposed to feel guilty for that "privilege?" You assume just because the average Joe is not getting attacked that he is secretly supporting the attacker that is not targeting him. That's not the case at all. I can choose to condemn the attacker while not being a target of said attacker at the same time. Would you rather everyone get attacked equally?

If your point is that homosexuals should have reparations specifically from the group that is not the target of such attackers, well, this is already being done, unless you really think that issues such as gay marriage and civil rights have zero support from unaffected groups. That also was and is not the case by the way.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:04:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:01:50 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:52:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:45:20 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

It really confirms what I said about privileged or should I say "advantaged" people getting offended over the most frivolous of things instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. That's all people do on this site, and it's a waste of time honestly.

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Another example of misinterpretation. The issue is not the PDA itself, it's the bias shown towards certain people based on their sexual orientation. When straight people who are "lovey dovey" in public, the negative reactions they receive are not direct toward the fact that they are both of the opposite sex, it's because they are being overly affectionate in public. Gay couples can't even hold hands or be close to their partner without risking being called anti-gay slurs, being discriminated against, or being attacked BECAUSE they are gay. That is the difference.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.

Okay understandable, but privilege and advantage literally mean the same thing. However, based on how most people perceive the word 'privilege" I suppose I can use an alternative.

Does anybody actually say anything to 2 dudes holding hands? Even if I was disgusted and wanted to say something, I never would. I'd like to think I wouldn't lose to a couple of gay dudes in a fight, but if I did the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with.

Yes. Gay couples are beaten to the point where they are hospitalized or dead just for holding hands or showing any form of affection in public. It does happen more often than you think.

Why would anyone risk that type of embarrassment, by being openly critical of gay dudes holding hands?

It's not the embarrassment you should be paying attention to, it's the bigotry and harassment to begin with. But to say losing to a gay couple in a fight is "the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with." also comes across as stereotyping. Losing to a gay couple in a fight is essentially no different than losing to two straight men in a fight.

I don't disagree, but my homophobic friends do, and I'll never live it down.

Well it doesn't surprise me, part of being prejudice is using ignorant stereotypes to demean a group you don't like. This is why homophobes think all gay men are girly and weak, which isn't really an insult necessarily, but they are surely in for it if they ever actually meet an openly gay person who doesn't fit in their narrow-minded view. Who knows maybe one or more of them are gay and are ashamed to admit it.

But I must ask, are you content with having friends like this?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:15:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:12:38 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:04:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:01:50 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:52:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:45:20 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

It really confirms what I said about privileged or should I say "advantaged" people getting offended over the most frivolous of things instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. That's all people do on this site, and it's a waste of time honestly.

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Another example of misinterpretation. The issue is not the PDA itself, it's the bias shown towards certain people based on their sexual orientation. When straight people who are "lovey dovey" in public, the negative reactions they receive are not direct toward the fact that they are both of the opposite sex, it's because they are being overly affectionate in public. Gay couples can't even hold hands or be close to their partner without risking being called anti-gay slurs, being discriminated against, or being attacked BECAUSE they are gay. That is the difference.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.

Okay understandable, but privilege and advantage literally mean the same thing. However, based on how most people perceive the word 'privilege" I suppose I can use an alternative.

Does anybody actually say anything to 2 dudes holding hands? Even if I was disgusted and wanted to say something, I never would. I'd like to think I wouldn't lose to a couple of gay dudes in a fight, but if I did the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with.

Yes. Gay couples are beaten to the point where they are hospitalized or dead just for holding hands or showing any form of affection in public. It does happen more often than you think.

Why would anyone risk that type of embarrassment, by being openly critical of gay dudes holding hands?

It's not the embarrassment you should be paying attention to, it's the bigotry and harassment to begin with. But to say losing to a gay couple in a fight is "the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with." also comes across as stereotyping. Losing to a gay couple in a fight is essentially no different than losing to two straight men in a fight.

I don't disagree, but my homophobic friends do, and I'll never live it down.

Well it doesn't surprise me, part of being prejudice is using ignorant stereotypes to demean a group you don't like. This is why homophobes think all gay men are girly and weak, which isn't really an insult necessarily, but they are surely in for it if they ever actually meet an openly gay person who doesn't fit in their narrow-minded view. Who knows maybe one or more of them are gay and are ashamed to admit it.

But I must ask, are you content with having friends like this?

I was lying. I only have one friend. He is not a homophobe. As a matter of fact he sometimes acts like a fruit to try and get under people's skins.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:15:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:08:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, how am I as an average person supposed to feel guilty when someone attacks another person instead of me?

Nobody is asking you to feel guilty about anything.

For example: I guess it is a "privilege" for me that black gang thugs attack other thugs instead of me. Am I supposed to feel guilty for that "privilege?" You assume just because the average Joe is not getting attacked that he is secretly supporting the attacker that is not targeting him. That's not the case at all. I can choose to condemn the attacker while not being a target of said attacker at the same time. Would you rather everyone get attacked equally?

Wrong, read the post again.

If your point is that homosexuals should have reparations specifically from the group that is not the target of such attackers, well, this is already being done, unless you really think that issues such as gay marriage and civil rights have zero support from unaffected groups. That also was and is not the case by the way.

Wrong again. I never said anything about reparations. Please refer back to the OP one more time, at least try to understand exactly what I said before responding. Thanks.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:17:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:15:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:12:38 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:04:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:01:50 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:52:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:45:20 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:27:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
It is a rhetoric thing and the intention was clear. I don't blame anybody for that use of rhetoric, but it should never escape the in group.

With that being said, Brian. You seem to admit that people respond as if attacked when you say they have privilege, don't them feeling attacked kinda confirm what I say?

It really confirms what I said about privileged or should I say "advantaged" people getting offended over the most frivolous of things instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. That's all people do on this site, and it's a waste of time honestly.

I am not even saying that anything you said is wrong, though some of it is. I get disgusted when I see heterosexuals getting to lovey in public for example. All I am saying is that if you want to actually change people's views or get them to notice some of the things that homosexuals face, you may want to drop the rhetoric meant for the in crowd and use a superior form of rhetoric.

Another example of misinterpretation. The issue is not the PDA itself, it's the bias shown towards certain people based on their sexual orientation. When straight people who are "lovey dovey" in public, the negative reactions they receive are not direct toward the fact that they are both of the opposite sex, it's because they are being overly affectionate in public. Gay couples can't even hold hands or be close to their partner without risking being called anti-gay slurs, being discriminated against, or being attacked BECAUSE they are gay. That is the difference.

Different words have different connotations, and understanding the connotations is important to learning how to employ good rhetoric. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking rhetoric is a dirty word, just breath, step back and think about, how you could present this ideal in a better way to the out group. I suggest you stick with the word privilege when talking amongst other homosexuals, because it is honestly great rhetoric, I applaud the person who came up with it, but when talking to heterosexuals, you'll just make people defensive, and no I am not being defensive right now. I am skilled at spotting rhetoric because of how often I debate and use it myself.

Okay understandable, but privilege and advantage literally mean the same thing. However, based on how most people perceive the word 'privilege" I suppose I can use an alternative.

Does anybody actually say anything to 2 dudes holding hands? Even if I was disgusted and wanted to say something, I never would. I'd like to think I wouldn't lose to a couple of gay dudes in a fight, but if I did the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with.

Yes. Gay couples are beaten to the point where they are hospitalized or dead just for holding hands or showing any form of affection in public. It does happen more often than you think.

Why would anyone risk that type of embarrassment, by being openly critical of gay dudes holding hands?

It's not the embarrassment you should be paying attention to, it's the bigotry and harassment to begin with. But to say losing to a gay couple in a fight is "the embarrassment would just be too much for me to live with." also comes across as stereotyping. Losing to a gay couple in a fight is essentially no different than losing to two straight men in a fight.

I don't disagree, but my homophobic friends do, and I'll never live it down.

Well it doesn't surprise me, part of being prejudice is using ignorant stereotypes to demean a group you don't like. This is why homophobes think all gay men are girly and weak, which isn't really an insult necessarily, but they are surely in for it if they ever actually meet an openly gay person who doesn't fit in their narrow-minded view. Who knows maybe one or more of them are gay and are ashamed to admit it.

But I must ask, are you content with having friends like this?

I was lying. I only have one friend. He is not a homophobe. As a matter of fact he sometimes acts like a fruit to try and get under people's skins.

LOL okay.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:19:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:15:40 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:08:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, how am I as an average person supposed to feel guilty when someone attacks another person instead of me?

Nobody is asking you to feel guilty about anything.

Fine then I guess it really is not an issue for me despite your claim that it should be an issue.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:30:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:19:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:15:40 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:08:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, how am I as an average person supposed to feel guilty when someone attacks another person instead of me?

Nobody is asking you to feel guilty about anything.

Fine then I guess it really is not an issue for me despite your claim that it should be an issue.

You don't have to feel guilty to have compassion for your fellow human beings by recognizing the advantages you have in society and helping to end prejudice and discrimination against people who do not benefit from the same privilege that you have.