It's just another tactic with the aim of weakening movements. Minorities are just that, minorities, in a democracy they need allies in the majority to make a difference. So what you do when you want to obstruct the goals of minorities is you find ways to separate them from their majority allies. Usually the easier way to do this is to target the majority supporters and put them in a situation where it's harder to be an activist than it is to remain a complacent non-participant.

So you accuse those who stand up and be activists of doing so out of bad faith (accuse them of being a white-knight, virtue signaller) and/or you try to convince them that by standing up and being an activist they are in fact hurting minorities.

It's entirely possible for an ally to do either of those things, and those things happening can be a legitimate problem for activist movements and minorities, but where some people try to solve the issue and produce better allies, others wish to silence allies and stop the movement as a whole.

The Left pretty consistently believes that white peoples' opinions on racial issues are worthless and male opinions on gender issues are worthless, etc. Doesn't really surprise me to see the Right throwing that logic back at them.

To go along with it however, I've even seen white people on social media go as far as trying to explain to some black people why they should be offended by something when they're not which seems pretty hilariously hypocritical to me. I think their point might be that white liberals really have no authority on what another race should or shouldn't be offended by if it's not already obvious.

It comes off as condescending personally.

"The poor [black/asian/jewish/disabled/LGBT] people, they haven't come to defend themselves against this horrid comment on Twitter/Facebook/[social media site that exposes everyone to everything anyone said on it], don't worry, completely unknown faceless and masses of assumed offended [minority], I'll tell them off".

It assumes that i) There is an actual offence caused to someone or some group, which may not always be the case (more not than often, because generalising the offence of one person to an entire group is bad), and ii) That said assumed offended group can't defend themselves against it, when the wonders of social media and the internet means everyone will see it, can promptly ignore it, or tut-tut the thing.

And just like white-knighting, it's about as effective. People don't exactly respond well to being told off and most rational non-racist/homophobic/ableist/whatevers are just gonna read it and think "Come the fuck on" like it's preaching to the choir.

But this kinda skirts your question and deals with the latter part;
At what point does having empathy for other human beings become a case of being offended "for" said target.

I dunno if there is "a point". You could say nothing to the post or statement and instead protest for equality and legal rights, donate to a charity for said minority, do some volunteering work for the said group that were targetted, something a bit more valuable than acting holier-than-thou and getting offended on behalf of someone else who may or may not exist. Let them say they're offended by it, because there's always the off chance the target doesn't give a flying fuck, or thinks it's hilarious.

Then finally, there's the whole uselessness of being offended - great. So what? I'll let Steve Hughes explain that.

He's a comedian, granted, but it feeds back. Offence is subjective, what I'm being offended for on behalf of an assumed group may not be offensive at all to others, maybe even that assumed group I'm "defending".

It's nearly 6am so I'll likely have to go back through this to make it more coherent, but eh.

It seems like a natural response to activist movements, such as BLM and feminism, asking that those in a position of privilege relative to the minority being advocated for ought to step aside and act more as supporters rather than outspoken leaders of said movements. Ultimately both sides are effectively asking for the disenfranchised party to possess their own agency, that absence of which is often exactly the problem. The Right's version is almost always flippant, rather than earnest.

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 09:59:31 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 18, 2018, 06:27:33 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 05:23:38 PM

It's just another tactic with the aim of weakening movements. Minorities are just that, minorities, in a democracy they need allies in the majority to make a difference. So what you do when you want to obstruct the goals of minorities is you find ways to separate them from their majority allies. Usually the easier way to do this is to target the majority supporters and put them in a situation where it's harder to be an activist than it is to remain a complacent non-participant.

So you accuse those who stand up and be activists of doing so out of bad faith (accuse them of being a white-knight, virtue signaller) and/or you try to convince them that by standing up and being an activist they are in fact hurting minorities.

It's entirely possible for an ally to do either of those things, and those things happening can be a legitimate problem for activist movements and minorities, but where some people try to solve the issue and produce better allies, others wish to silence allies and stop the movement as a whole.

allies and enemies lmao oh man what happened to America

I never said enemy.

You didn't need to.

Do you think all reality works in binaries?

Quote from: eggsalad on January 19, 2018, 01:31:46 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 19, 2018, 05:08:41 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 09:59:31 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 18, 2018, 06:27:33 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 05:23:38 PM

It's just another tactic with the aim of weakening movements. Minorities are just that, minorities, in a democracy they need allies in the majority to make a difference. So what you do when you want to obstruct the goals of minorities is you find ways to separate them from their majority allies. Usually the easier way to do this is to target the majority supporters and put them in a situation where it's harder to be an activist than it is to remain a complacent non-participant.

So you accuse those who stand up and be activists of doing so out of bad faith (accuse them of being a white-knight, virtue signaller) and/or you try to convince them that by standing up and being an activist they are in fact hurting minorities.

It's entirely possible for an ally to do either of those things, and those things happening can be a legitimate problem for activist movements and minorities, but where some people try to solve the issue and produce better allies, others wish to silence allies and stop the movement as a whole.

allies and enemies lmao oh man what happened to America

I never said enemy.

You didn't need to.

Do you think all reality works in binaries?

Why do you need allies if you don't have enemies?

Because we live in a democracy where things don't get done if the majority is completely indifferent???

Quote from: eggsalad on January 19, 2018, 06:35:40 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 19, 2018, 03:44:08 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 19, 2018, 01:31:46 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 19, 2018, 05:08:41 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 09:59:31 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 18, 2018, 06:27:33 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 05:23:38 PM

It's just another tactic with the aim of weakening movements. Minorities are just that, minorities, in a democracy they need allies in the majority to make a difference. So what you do when you want to obstruct the goals of minorities is you find ways to separate them from their majority allies. Usually the easier way to do this is to target the majority supporters and put them in a situation where it's harder to be an activist than it is to remain a complacent non-participant.

So you accuse those who stand up and be activists of doing so out of bad faith (accuse them of being a white-knight, virtue signaller) and/or you try to convince them that by standing up and being an activist they are in fact hurting minorities.

It's entirely possible for an ally to do either of those things, and those things happening can be a legitimate problem for activist movements and minorities, but where some people try to solve the issue and produce better allies, others wish to silence allies and stop the movement as a whole.

allies and enemies lmao oh man what happened to America

I never said enemy.

You didn't need to.

Do you think all reality works in binaries?

Why do you need allies if you don't have enemies?

Because we live in a democracy where things don't get done if the majority is completely indifferent???

You're not wrong, but it's just the way you go about discussing it that rubs me the wrong way. Everything is right and left, there's no people just discussing an issue. You're either this or that.

But this isn't what this thread is really about. This is about people getting offended for other people. It's dumb and useless.

i never said right or left either

Quote from: eggsalad on January 19, 2018, 11:01:29 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 19, 2018, 06:40:25 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 19, 2018, 06:35:40 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 19, 2018, 03:44:08 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 19, 2018, 01:31:46 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 19, 2018, 05:08:41 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 09:59:31 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 18, 2018, 06:27:33 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 18, 2018, 05:23:38 PM

It's just another tactic with the aim of weakening movements. Minorities are just that, minorities, in a democracy they need allies in the majority to make a difference. So what you do when you want to obstruct the goals of minorities is you find ways to separate them from their majority allies. Usually the easier way to do this is to target the majority supporters and put them in a situation where it's harder to be an activist than it is to remain a complacent non-participant.

So you accuse those who stand up and be activists of doing so out of bad faith (accuse them of being a white-knight, virtue signaller) and/or you try to convince them that by standing up and being an activist they are in fact hurting minorities.

It's entirely possible for an ally to do either of those things, and those things happening can be a legitimate problem for activist movements and minorities, but where some people try to solve the issue and produce better allies, others wish to silence allies and stop the movement as a whole.

allies and enemies lmao oh man what happened to America

I never said enemy.

You didn't need to.

Do you think all reality works in binaries?

Why do you need allies if you don't have enemies?

Because we live in a democracy where things don't get done if the majority is completely indifferent???

You're not wrong, but it's just the way you go about discussing it that rubs me the wrong way. Everything is right and left, there's no people just discussing an issue. You're either this or that.

But this isn't what this thread is really about. This is about people getting offended for other people. It's dumb and useless.

i never said right or left either

Again, you didn't have to. Don't play coy with me.

if you assume that allyship is a left/right divide then you clearly don't have much experience with people on the left lmao

I don't really feel offended for people exactly, I just feel uncomfortable around people who throw around those words anyway regardless of who's present. Some people I was near the other day were joking around about black people and dropped the n-word so I just left, don't want to associate with those types of people.  Just doesn't seem right to me.

Quote from: Big Boss™ Remastered on January 23, 2018, 08:18:24 PM

I don't really feel offended for people exactly, I just feel uncomfortable around people who throw around those words anyway regardless of who's present. Some people I was near the other day were joking around about black people and dropped the n-word so I just left, don't want to associate with those types of people.  Just doesn't seem right to me.

lol, I heard 'nigger' probably last time in the 90s as no one cares about people from different backgrounds.

What the fuck is this sentence?