Where the line got crossed.

[GymGeekAus]

A poster put this little gem out there. And it illustrated something so well that I wanted to comment upon it in its own thread, despite the fact that the thread I lifted it from was currently locked. I think that's fair game, but if I'm wrong I'm sure a mod will be along quickly to correct me.
Patricia Todd is the one to keep an eye on.

IMHO the future of Homosexuals in the deep south depends on how good she is in office. I think we should explain why this is latent prejudice.

You see, it presumes to make a characterization of an entire group of people based upon the fact that a particular individual is gay, using their performance as a metric for all the rest despite all the other individuals whose records could be examined. And it goes a step further, to claim that an entire geographical region is going to do the same. So it's latent prejudice twice.

Generalizations can be useful, to be fair. But there is no reasonable basis to connect sexuality to performance here, nor was one even attempted. And while there might very well be a large bias against homosexuals in the deep south, there is still the reality that individuals of that orientation are getting elected there--the cause of that which is being completely ignored by the poster.

I don't think the post was malicious, though.

[KyndCulture]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Gym.

It's apples and oranges, just like any heterosexual person in office...basing your opinion on their performance, qualifications and merit is how it should be.

And certainly no one group of people should be judged by the action of one person.

[Mod5]

I see your point Gym even though it is against the rules. I'm going to allow it for the time being, but is this post turns into a flame thread, it gets deleted.

[CD3]

A poster put this little gem out there. And it illustrated something so well that I wanted to comment upon it in its own thread, despite the fact that the thread I lifted it from was currently locked. I think that's fair game, but if I'm wrong I'm sure a mod will be along quickly to correct me. I think we should explain why this is latent prejudice.

You see, it presumes to make a characterization of an entire group of people based upon the fact that a particular individual is gay, using their performance as a metric for all the rest despite all the other individuals whose records could be examined. And it goes a step further, to claim that an entire geographical region is going to do the same. So it's latent prejudice twice.

Generalizations can be useful, to be fair. But there is no reasonable basis to connect sexuality to performance here, nor was one even attempted. And while there might very well be a large bias against homosexuals in the deep south, there is still the reality that individuals of that orientation are getting elected there--the cause of that which is being completely ignored by the poster.

I don't think the post was malicious, though.


Do you not know the thread was locked?

[CD3]

I see your point Gym even though it is against the rules. I'm going to allow it for the time being, but is this post turns into a flame thread, it gets deleted.

:icon_mad:

[dr.strangelove]

A poster put this little gem out there. And it illustrated something so well that I wanted to comment upon it in its own thread, despite the fact that the thread I lifted it from was currently locked. I think that's fair game, but if I'm wrong I'm sure a mod will be along quickly to correct me. I think we should explain why this is latent prejudice.

You see, it presumes to make a characterization of an entire group of people based upon the fact that a particular individual is gay, using their performance as a metric for all the rest despite all the other individuals whose records could be examined. And it goes a step further, to claim that an entire geographical region is going to do the same. So it's latent prejudice twice.

Generalizations can be useful, to be fair. But there is no reasonable basis to connect sexuality to performance here, nor was one even attempted. And while there might very well be a large bias against homosexuals in the deep south, there is still the reality that individuals of that orientation are getting elected there--the cause of that which is being completely ignored by the poster.

I don't think the post was malicious, though.

Gym, you and I often disagree, but here I agree with you. I think the poster was talking about the success of out public officials, but I could have missed that (the post was not very well written, sorry CD, but that post can be read in a number of ways).
Generalizations are useful in discussing political success since many people vote and respond to issues based on generalizations. The difference is when you are thought to agree with generalizing, rather than assuming discussing generalization exists and discussing how it will effect the issue you are talking about.

[CD3]

sEFKndr/lg

[teech]

I was upset about the comment cd--originally I thought the post was fine until the last comment that gym quoted--thats when it went over the top a bit

[CD3]

I was upset about the comment cd--originally I thought the post was fine until the last comment that gym quoted--thats when it went over the top a bit

I WAS GLAD SHE WAS ELECTED!

IT HAPPEND IN A STATE WHERE TWO YEARS AGO THEY TRIED TO BAN BOOKS WRITTEN BY HOMOSEXUALS!

[teech]

but do you understand after reading gym's post how it could be taken? i do hope you do

[CD3]

but do you understand after reading gym's post how it could be taken? i do hope you do

IT'S NOT MY FUCKING FAULT YOU FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID!

[teech]

IT'S NOT MY FUCKING FAULT YOU FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID!

whoa--step back man-damn

[BigJerr]

:door: