serious question for activists

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

traillius

Guest
Why do liberal activists, feminists, etc, seem to largely ignore violations of civil rights that are committed by non-christians, non westerners, females, homosexuals, foreigners, and those not aligned with the US and/.or Israel? YOu would think they would speak against any and all violations regardless of the nature of the victim or perpetrator. It makes me question their motivation.
 
traillius said:
Why do liberal activists, feminists, etc, seem to largely ignore violations of civil rights that are committed by non-christians, non westerners, females, homosexuals, foreigners, and those not aligned with the US and/.or Israel? YOu would think they would speak against any and all violations regardless of the nature of the victim or perpetrator. It makes me question their motivation.
Click to expand...
To rephrase your question somewhat:Why do conservative news media and commentators etc, seem to grossly overemphasize violations of civil rights that are committed by non-christians, non westerners, females, homosexuals, foreigners, and those not aligned with the US and/or Israel? You would think they would speak against any and all violations regardless of the nature of the victim or perpetrator. It makes me question their motivation.

Is the bias among liberals, or is the bias in the news and comment sources you are using? Is it perhaps a bit of both? Both conservative and liberal news media and commentators have a political agenda to pursue. Just because you support one side over the other does not mean that the side you support is free from bias.

rossum
 
traillius said:
Why do liberal activists, feminists, etc, seem to largely ignore violations of civil rights that are committed by non-christians, non westerners, females, homosexuals, foreigners, and those not aligned with the US and/.or Israel? YOu would think they would speak against any and all violations regardless of the nature of the victim or perpetrator. It makes me question their motivation.
Click to expand...
Human nature. It all depends upon whose ox is being gored.
 
traillius said:
Why do liberal activists, feminists, etc, seem to largely ignore violations of civil rights that are committed by non-christians, non westerners, females, homosexuals, foreigners, and those not aligned with the US and/.or Israel? YOu would think they would speak against any and all violations regardless of the nature of the victim or perpetrator. It makes me question their motivation.
Click to expand...
So are eastern, non-christian, male, homosexuals committing a large number of crimes? I would not have realized that was a large population, how big a group is it?
 
This is not a news forum. So I chose not to cite a specific source. However I will shortly have at least one example. this will probably be about how the plight of muslim females, presumably caused by muslim (non white non christian foreign ) males, is being ignored by many feminists as well as both sides of the mainstream media ( Yes Foxnews ignores it too.) . I am sure I can come up with others. I will work on it.
 
Both sides of the spectrum tend to ignore or downplay the abuses and rights violations by those they tend to support or favor. Our perception of who is doing the most abusing and who is not complaining enough is affected by our own biases and points of view.

But one shouldn’t condemn every “activist” for that tendency. Women’s rights and civil rights advocates have often put the spotlight on the severe practices of certain countries, including those occurring in China.

In some cases it seems it is our own government which professes to be in support of human and civil rights and then ignores violations by our supposed “allies” or trading partners. That also is a situation that has occurred whether Republicans or Democrats have been in office. Again, abuse and discrimination will be overlooked if the “price” is right.

It is the nature of the world we live in.
 
HAHAHAHAHA! :rotfl:

*“what if community, as much as if not more than the notion of individual rights, is a route to living meaningfully? Perhaps we ought to rethink the idea that women’s agency and personhood spring from resistance to subjectation, and attend to the ways that in conservative religious communities, the cultivation of virtue and of closeness to God, of certain emotions and of forms of embodiment, are challenging but hardly one-dimensional ways of producing the self.” *

Yeah, so long as it’s not conservative Christian religious communities!

Um, Dr. Briggs does know that these “conservative (Muslim) religious communities” don’t believe in “The Right to Choose”, right?

Yes, the hypocrisy is deafening!

In Christ,

Ellen
 
traillius said:
Why do liberal activists, feminists, etc, seem to largely ignore violations of civil rights that are committed by non-christians, non westerners, females, homosexuals, foreigners, and those not aligned with the US and/.or Israel? YOu would think they would speak against any and all violations regardless of the nature of the victim or perpetrator. It makes me question their motivation.
Click to expand...
That isn’t a universally true observation, but I do know what you mean. I personally think it springs from two things. One, many liberal activists get so caught up in being tolerant that they lose track of the fact that its OK to recognize that some things are just wrong. There are times when there is nothing wrong with just calling it like you see it.

Second, I think that some have become so preoccupied with the problems and wrongs in the West, that they end up becoming anti-Western. So everything that non-Westerners do seems OK, while that everything that emerges from the West is corrupt.

Now that I think about it though, I guess the problem all boils down to myopia. Whenever anyone conservative or liberal becomes so obsessed with their philosophy that they become blind to everything else around them, those people will inevitably begin to take on contradictory, and hypocritical views.
 
rtconstant said:
That isn’t a universally true observation, but I do know what you mean. I personally think it springs from two things. One, many liberal activists get so caught up in being tolerant that they lose track of the fact that its OK to recognize that some things are just wrong. There are times when there is nothing wrong with just calling it like you see it.

Second, I think that some have become so preoccupied with the problems and wrongs in the West, that they end up becoming anti-Western. So everything that non-Westerners do seems OK, while that everything that emerges from the West is corrupt.

Now that I think about it though, I guess the problem all boils down to myopia. Whenever anyone conservative or liberal becomes so obsessed with their philosophy that they become blind to everything else around them, those people will inevitably begin to take on contradictory, and hypocritical views.
Click to expand...
That’s how I feel. The G-20 and its policing went a little bit too far on the police force end of it over the past 2 days. The protesters were trying to get permits to march, and were denied their rights as Americans, to talk about Anti-abortion, healthcare reform, availability of insurance, joblessness, and homelessness during the summit. All the news reporters showed were seas of riot polce gassing and beating on people that wanted to share their problems with our President. Instead, the police shoved and beat the Anti-abortion and greenpeace protesters with batons and used tear gas on the college students who were trying to go about their business on campus without any problems. And we think we have the right to free speech. The police on a good day are p.o’d as it is. Give them a Summit to guard, and they become rabid dogs on the hunt for problems. This is why most Pittsburghers STAYED HOME and AWAY from the city during the Summit. Pray that Pittsburgh doesn’t become a policed city and Pennsylvania a poiced state.
 
Actually they tend to ignore it closer to home if it is politically expedient. Rmember that the feminists supported Bill Clinton even after massive anounts of evidence was produced hat he engaed in (legal or not) sexual harrassment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top