My point had little to do with that. A city with millions of people and a large migrant population offer an opportunity to escape the communal memory that smaller populations can sustain. Unlike race, caste isn't an obviously visible feature, and even someone bent on discrimination will have a harder time discerning the relevant signifiers.
People's last names often give away their caste, sometimes where they come from. I have seen people being treated poorly because of the way they dressed - that is the rich/poor divide. Also, a lot of Indians, even in cities, do still dress according to their religion or caste.
From personal experience, I know that the people that may be described as the oppressors in Indian "urban" societies are often the ones that take on servile qualities when they try to assimilate in Western societies. Western society is often seen as the superior kind and the so-called oppressors of Indian society recognize a hierarchy in it, in which they are at a lower rung. It is hard to break out of that mindset.
Of course, this is all based on personal experience. I wouldn't say this is the general rule.
It's called hate here, when for example a person regards homosexuality as immoral and opposes gay marriage. I've rarely heard anyone publicly claim that such people just have different social standards, or if they do, they are vilified for defending hate.
Any time in history when one group has been oppressed by another, it's been considered normal by majority social standards of the time. When those standards change, discord and sometimes even war is the result.
But that's the issue. If someone simply sees homosexuality as a something that isn't "approved by God" or something of that nature, and they in their minds are just going along with God's law, are they really hating something? I've heard many anti-gay marriage people say that they have no problem with gay people but that they just oppose gay marriage.
Is that cognitive dissonance? Almost certainly, but is it hate? I don't think so.
We throw around the word "hate" too much and doing so loses a lot of the nuance bound up in human attitudes.
Hate is one of those blinding emotions/states of mind that causes people to deliberately sabotage the thing-hated. Simply opposing a practice cannot be said to be hate unless the hate is what is driving the opposition. Opposition is not sabotage, even though it may seem so to the one opposed.
You had just said it: they oppose the institute of marriage, which is not only a traditional way of announcing the union of two people (let's for a moment accept the fact that maybe marriage is only a Christian creation), but is also a legal way of exposing it.
Now please tell me how opposing the gay marriage is not in any way a sign of hate towards gay people that bars them from certain legal liberties? You could try to sell this point of view as a "kind" point of view, but your conginitively dissonant ignorance still makes you hate people as a result; even if you are not conscious about it.
Some believe that people who get abortions oppose the "institute" of life (since we don't know when life starts, we can't say it doesn't start before 9 months). Is it possible to oppose a practice one believes is barbaric without hating the person who is practicing it? Of course it is-- if you understand human nature. No one is their behavior-- so, the most logical thing is not to hate a person for a single element of their being. Since we can say that most people are logical, we can say that most people don't hate others on the basis of one element.
You're playing the redefinition card rather than accepting that abortions of one human being are never your own business, and the set of values you have accepted when you had accepted "God" in your life have been created centuries ago when we knew close-to-nothing about medicine.
Engaging in discriminatory, derogatory and demeaning behaviour actively. That comes from hate. The experiences of the person featured in the linked article, that could only come from hate.
I think people that oppose gay marriage do so because of hate. But found a neat little loophole out of being called hateful by claiming that they have no problem with gay people.
My reasoning is this: taking any kind of stance on any subject requires some kind of motivation. If you are moved to spend energy on something, you are motivated by some need to do so. If you oppose something that does not directly affect you, the reason is most probably hate.
As someone raised Southern Baptist but not currently identifying as so, I can attest that when I once peacefully opposed homosexuality, it was 100% out of a trust that God knew what he was doing and that I should trust him, despite my own personal ignorance.
The belief that others can only oppose groups of people out of "hate" stems from a strong lack of empathy and understanding for people on the other side of the issue.
> If you oppose something that does not directly affect you, the reason is most probably hate.
Either that, or you are serving something percieved as greater than yourself.
Yes and no. Sure, 'hate' is probably the wrong word, and may be counter productive in many cases. And you're right about the empathy; everyone likes to apply labels that mean they don't have to feel.
On the other hand, accusing the people you oppose of being demonic Satan-spawn looking to corrupt our youth and destroy our lives and country, of being the baby-molesting other that causes nightmares, well, that probably isn't caused by an excess of good feeling.
I am wondering now if you read the linked article. There is logic in not wanting a giraffe in your field of vision at a movie hall. Actively discriminating against people because of arbitrary conditions of their birth is not that logical. Active discrimination in the life of "untouchables" means that they are viewed as dirty or lowly. I think it is a bit simplistic to think that it is ok to actively stick to demeaning and derogatory practices because it is societally accepted or because that's "just how things are".
Ok if we're using this bizarre analogy, it's as if you never even could tell if there was a giraffe in the movie theater or not, but if there was, you want it gone.
When a gay couple gets married on the other side of the country, do you notice? Does your life change? If it's the mere idea of it you're opposed to, then that's bigotry, not some practical concern like a giraffe blocking your view of the screen.
> When a gay couple gets married on the other side of the country, do you notice? Does your life change?
The word 'marriage' doesn't mean in 2018 what in meant in 1918, or even in 1968, or 1993. In large part, that's a good thing (domestic violence is no longer legal spousal rape is no longer legal, married women don't have a kind of legal-child status), but it's also a bad thing (due to no-fault divorce laws, marriage can be terminated by one party at any time; marriage is no longer the cornerstone of a couple's life, but the capstone to their lives; there's no longer social support for a reliable, lifelong marriage).
Many people who oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions as marriages don't have animus against homosexuals, but rather nostalgia for the previous meanings of marriage. They believe that a stronger concept of marriage makes for a stronger society.
Personally, I think we ought to go all the way and abolish the legal concept of marriage entirely: it's a religious state, not a civil one, and thus not the business of the State. But I understand the concerns of those who worry about how a diverse society which has lost all respect for marriage will survive — I just think we're already there, so we might as well be honest about it.
If you believe God's law is paramount and have convinced yourself that God's law does not allow for gay marriage, then your opposition is not based on hate, but rather based on your conception of what's proper and what's not.
This urge to thrust "hate" on people is dangerous because is dehumanizes them. If someone is hateful, then they are evil, and evil people deserve punishment.
So the thinking goes, but it is regressive thinking.
The disagreement about gay marriage stems for many from religious doctrine and what is traditional social practice, not hate.
I see no reason to not use the word "hate" in this context. Someone can hate broccoli without implying that broccoli is evil. Someone can say "I hate royalty" without implying that any member of royalty is evil, or that there should be any sort of "punishment" beyond a switch to a republican form of government.
Hatred - a "strong dislike" - does not need to be expressed through fiery emotion. A checklist which says "I will not provide service to someone who is {insert protected class}, followed robotically, is still an expression of hatred.
A computer vision system could be used to implement some sorts of racism, so of course the CV system itself could not be said to "hate" the person. Instead, it's an expression of the hatred embedded in the system.
Someone choosing to follow God's law is expressing the hatred embedded in that belief system. That they might "only" be an instrument of that hatred rather than an instigator does not absolve them.
You wrote "Is it really hate though? Or just people accepting certain social standards and living their lives in accordance."
If those social standard are based in hate, then why shouldn't we say those people are being hateful?
Moreover, if many others from the same society hold different beliefs (e.g., there are Christians for and against gay marriage, and for and against slavery, and for and against tattoos, and for and against women speaking in the church, etc.) then why should we excuse those people who choose a specific interpretation which condones and encourages discrimination?
I disagree. If anything, hate is a very human action. And the truly opressed know this. By not calling it out, you are actively complicit, giving more power to the oppressor.
How many times does the story need to play out? Didn't we just see the #metoo thing play out? These women are victims of hate. Same story with LGBT and black.
No one is dehumanizing anyone. The word is about human autonomy and dignity.