It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Questions of Representativity and ATS.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM
I've generally become aware over some time that some members are resorting to ultra-politically correct arguments to make their point. Or, at least they attach their short point to a long political rider concerning representativity

From the beginning I've had some replies which said I couldn't speak about "Native Americans", because white Americans are also native if they were born in the US. Then, when I used "Indian" some also took exception, even claiming to knock out people's teeth! Now it appears even discussing Native American representation in film is considered as patronizing and wrong.

Do I have to be American or a member of a Native American nation to talk on certain issues?
I mean I really wouldn't mind if people discussed South Africans.
On the other hand I've also had one SA member who accused me of not being from here, because her experience didn't tally with mine.
I've never claimed to a spokes-man for SA, or that my personal experience speaks for an entire nation.
However, some people do have that delusion of grandeur.
They see themselves as representatives of entire groups!

And then one is accused of being a "liberal".
OK, so only racist "Nazis" and self-appointed spokespeople may speak about certain groups?
Having an interest, or an empathy, or some points from history is just being a liberal dunce?
That is ultimately what makes people not bother, and become racist.
It's beginning to cramp my style.

OK, from now on only I may speak on:
- SA
- being gay

Joke - but that's the implication.
It's ridiculous in any case, because nobody knows what you really are on the web.
But I've never been false, or pretended to be something I'm not.
Academically, as long as my position is clear, I have the right to my opinion.
People should then question the content of my posts, and not my right to speak.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

It's actually really difficult, because I've done it too, I suppose.
For example, on threads concerning AIDS denialism I questioned that the denialists are neither HIV-positive, or working with people who have AIDS.
So it's easy for people to come and question AIDS in Africa when they are sitting with degrees in Nuclear Physics in Australia (for example).
I'm not saying there should be new rules or draconian enforcements.
I'm just urging members to be aware that sauce goes for the goose and gander.
Perhaps the very features that have made groups so "holy" and "precious" that they may only discuss themselves are also capitalizing on their "special" position - often in the very same argument!


log in