Mutant-phobia: a Savage Hypocrisy

[Herr Logan]

Their(mutants) social status had nothing to do with them being used for advances in medicine.

Would this be voluntary with compensation, or compulsory?

 

[Abaddon]

Would this be voluntary with compensation, or compulsory?

Either way,I guess.

 

[Cyclops]

Let's see... old topic bumped, can't remember if I responded long ago, feeling too lazy to read the whole thread to see if I did...

There is one main difference as to why mutants are feared and hated and superheroes are not.

Superheroes, for the most part, are utterly and completely freak accidents. Accidental exposure to cosmic radiation. Accidental stumbling upon Thor's hammer. Accidental radiated spider-bite. Not only are they accidents, but they are isolated accidents at that.

Mutants, however, seem to be to the uninitiated, like the product of evolutionary design. A single accident isn't going to supplant humanity. But the supposed next stage of evolution? Scary as hell.

 

[Abaddon]

Well its not as if superhumans allow their origins to be known to the world.

 

[Cyclops]

Not all of them. But people like the Fantastic Four and Captain America have their origins on public display more or less.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Edit

 

[Chris Wallace]

Their(mutants) social status had nothing to do with them being used for advances in medicine.

No-just the genetic differences between them & the "ruling class". If they volunteered, WERE NOT PURPOSELY HARMED, & got paid, that's one thing. That's done all the time. Anything else is just sick, & means that you're regarding mutants as no better than animals.

 

[Chris Wallace]

This is a difficult issue, because while it's true that nobody alive today was in any way involved with or responsible for slavery in America, a large number of the people alive today who had ancestors living here either benefited or suffered because of the decisions of the guilty parties.

The only way I can see things changing enough to deal with this issue as well as countless others at the same time is to overthrow the government, institute a wise and kind dictator (i.e., me), and subject the entire country to an age of radical sociological reconstruction. Taking people's money and redistributing it evenly (which is not the same as reparations, since this would be focused on the future, not the past) has failed before, and I'm not saying it would ever work, but if entire generations of people were socialized in such a way that they would understand the reasons why we should be civil to each other and how cooperation is the only way to keep people safe, there could be less inequality, moneywise. That could only happen if there was a way to force everyone above the age of 5 to follow the new government's instructions to the letter and raise young children a certain way, which is impossible, I know. The other major component is to make more basic human needs accessable to all people. Several countries in Europe have socialized medicine; I'd sure like a piece of that action, and millions of people need it. If the government were to not only restructure the criminal justice system so that the citizenry was protected but provide basic resources like medical care, food and housing (until those who need it get jobs, which the new government would help them find), then there would be no excuse for need-based crime, and greed might be less of a motivating factor if the quality of life was higher across the board. Again, this is all theoretical.

Skin color and place of birth don't mean anything in and of themselves. People take sides and argue viciously over any perceivable difference, and people's appearances, language, accents, etc. are just the easiest excuses for taking sides against. If people could be effectively taught to live in a utilitarian lifestyle (that is, acting in such a way to achieve maximum pleasure and minimum displeasure, for the greatest amount of people, in the long term) right from birth, they could be shown how to sublimate (find a constructive use for) their baser instincts and leave the fighting and hostility where it belongs: in video games, board games and team sports. If we could start over with a clean slate, socio-economically, and keep on task, with a huge amount of supervision and intervention (that's why it's a dictatorship, benevolent though it may be), life might be better for everyone.

As it is in reality, the one thing I do think might help (slowly, long-term) is for people to go ahead and stop pretending there is such a thing as "races" within the human species. There just aren't any such thing in real life. The first time a person from a group with a distinct set of similar physical characteristics (which basically defines what a "race" is supposed to be) had a child with someone from another such group, that determined once and for all that there are no races. If it is possible for a human being to be born with a "mixed racial identity," then there simply are no more races, at all. A race is either a discrete, separate category, or it's not a race, and we all know it isn't discrete. I learned in a class on psychology of interpersonal relationships and a class on general social psychology that there is computer technology that can take the imaged of several faces and "average" them into one face, and it turns out the more faces used, the more attractive the average face gets. I've heard various people say that people of "mixed race" are often the most attractive people. I bet it's the same dynamic with both of those scenarios. We're all people, and we are, as a species in general, genetically programmed to consider certain kinds of features on people more attractive than others. This would seem to indicate that we "should" interbreed with people of different features, since the more "mixing" there is, the more attractive you are, and the more attractive you are, the more Charles Darwin wants you to have babies and pass your genes on. That's the biological explanation why we should stop all this "race" nonsense.

The intellectual/conceptual reason, which is only my own estimation as far as I know and not based on anything I've read or heard, is that removing the language of "race" takes power away from the people who believe in it. Things only exist if there are words to describe them, or else it's just individuals perceiving phenomena separately, and what is "real" for society has to be acknowledged by a decent proportion of people who have the ability to perceive it, or else it's a UFO or Elvis sighting and is only valid to people who want to see it. If all people who could be considered by the majority to not racist stopped using inaccurate words such as "white," "black," "race," "mixed," etc. in our everyday speech and writing, then that just leaves racists using terms that don't mean anything. If you could condition the majority of the population to stop acknowledging the very idea of race and force them to use accurate names of colors to describe people's skin tones (which is important, but only for describing suspects to the police-- "He was 5' 8" and tan, like Crayola crayon tan, and he stole my car!"-- and blind dates to your friends-- "He's a dreamy shade of burnt sienna, you'll just love him!"), then what does that make racists? It makes them seem crazy, and I don't just mean KKK types, I mean just crazy for thinking that a brown-skinned man is "black" ("Awesome, I didn't know Darth Maul was in town!"), that a person who looks me could be called "white" ("Um... you might want to give your glasses a really good cleaning, or have those cataracts removed... that guy is burlywood, not white"), and that a human being can be judged just by looking at their skin tone in the first place. Okay, I know we wouldn't actually be using the names of each individual color and each walk around with a wallpaper sample-fan, but you get the idea, right? I know this is completely improbably, but I don't think it's impossible. If it didn't result in confusion, long explanations and stupid arguments, I would never use any inaccurate words to describe anybody. I'm a literal-minded guy, and that's why "race" means nothing to me. I get my first impressions of strangers I see in the subway and so forth based on their body language, facial expression, and sometimes what they're wearing to some degree. "Race" is crazy talk, pure and simple, and I really wish people would stop talking about it like it was real, since that just gives power to the bastards who exploit people's belief in it.

Also, nobody should be taking "pride" in anything they didn't earn. Skin color and place of origin are not chosen by the individual (well, unless you have a full-body tattoo), and are not even acheivements. I'm not proud to be an American, I'm glad to be an American, or at least I was a few years ago. Nothing anybody's ancestors did can be attributed to us right now. If someone earned a *****-load of money, they can feel proud about that (if they're so inclined), but being born into a wealthy family is nothing to be proud of or ashamed of. Nothing that happened without our direct involvement is our fault or honor, and nobody should ever be blamed or praised for what they didn't do. I'm not saying people today shouldn't be cleaning up our ancestor's messes, but I am saying that no innocent parties should stand accused and many people's priorities need a complete reworking.

Many points I agree with; some I do not. There is nothing wrong with having pride in one's heritage. Every culture has history & traditions from which we can all benefit. Those cultures should be honored & celebrated. It ends there. I like the way James Earl Jones phrased it best; "Consciousness without conceit". I am very proud of my African heritage. But it's no better or worse than your European (?) heritage. There are many things we can learn from each other. At the same time, you're right. I have nothing to do with the accomplishments of Benjamin Banneker nor the misdeeds of Flukie Stokes. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Redistribution of wealth would never work because people by nature are greedy; it would never be enough & crime would once again run rampant. For this same reason we could never trust the governing of ANY nation to one person, as power corrupts, & gain leads to greed, which is one of the key arguments of this thread. You must remember "V For Vendetta" is one of my favorite movies, and I don't think its basic premise is too far removed from reality.
The color lines that separate us have always existed & always will. As long as there are radio stations that play Panic At The Disco & Fallout Boy but not Syleena Johnson & Heather Headley. As long as there are all-Spanish TV stations. As long as I can't get a burger. a pizza, a burrito & egg foo young at the same restaurant (I could, but only one of the 4 would be any good.) As long as we see paintings of a skinny blue-eyed Jesus while the Bible tells us he was a carpenter living in the Middle East. As long as phrases like "credit to his race" exist, or I hear about some heinous crime on the news & secretly pray the perpetrator isn't black. As long as you & I speak in different slang, buy our clothes at different stores & shop for CD's in different sections. As long as people like Eminem are referred to as wanna-be's & Michael Jackson is referred to as a sell-out. The color lines will always be there. And frankly I wouldn't erase them if I could. But that does not mean we can't live & love and all that wonderful stuff. Learn to embrace each other, partly despite our differences, & partly because of them.

 

[GhostPoet]

People are quick to forget the good things another person (or hero) does and long remember the bad things a person (or villain/hero) does.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The bad gets more attention.

 

[Herr Logan]

Many points I agree with; some I do not. There is nothing wrong with having pride in one's heritage. Every culture has history & traditions from which we can all benefit. Those cultures should be honored & celebrated. It ends there. I like the way James Earl Jones phrased it best; "Consciousness without conceit". I am very proud of my African heritage. But it's no better or worse than your European (?) heritage. There are many things we can learn from each other. At the same time, you're right. I have nothing to do with the accomplishments of Benjamin Banneker nor the misdeeds of Flukie Stokes. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Redistribution of wealth would never work because people by nature are greedy; it would never be enough & crime would once again run rampant. For this same reason we could never trust the governing of ANY nation to one person, as power corrupts, & gain leads to greed, which is one of the key arguments of this thread. You must remember "V For Vendetta" is one of my favorite movies, and I don't think its basic premise is too far removed from reality.
The color lines that separate us have always existed & always will. As long as there are radio stations that play Panic At The Disco & Fallout Boy but not Syleena Johnson & Heather Headley. As long as there are all-Spanish TV stations. As long as I can't get a burger. a pizza, a burrito & egg foo young at the same restaurant (I could, but only one of the 4 would be any good.) As long as we see paintings of a skinny blue-eyed Jesus while the Bible tells us he was a carpenter living in the Middle East. As long as phrases like "credit to his race" exist, or I hear about some heinous crime on the news & secretly pray the perpetrator isn't black. As long as you & I speak in different slang, buy our clothes at different stores & shop for CD's in different sections. As long as people like Eminem are referred to as wanna-be's & Michael Jackson is referred to as a sell-out. The color lines will always be there. And frankly I wouldn't erase them if I could. But that does not mean we can't live & love and all that wonderful stuff. Learn to embrace each other, partly despite our differences, & partly because of them.

Great speech. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

You make some very good points. I know that implementing measures to remove "race" from our societal vocabulary is a very implausible prospect, and also that one person-- or one committee-- probably couldn't keep a society under complete control. Those were just theoretical scenarios, although I really wish it could be done. Unfortunately, people just can't be trusted to do the right, even if their quality of life is very high.

Out of curiousity, why wouldn't you erase the color lines if you could?

I'm sorry I don't have more to say at the moment; I think I tired myself out yesterday. Anyway, again, great post.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Out of curiousity, why wouldn't you erase the color lines if you could?

Those little differences in our clothing, food, slang & music-are part of what makes each of us who we are individually. And they're beautiful differences. Do people get stupid with them? Yes. But so be it. 70% of what they show on BET or UPN is crap. But I gladly tolerate it because of the other 30%. I may not like the movies John Singleton makes but I appreciate the fact that he once couldn't make them. I love "Boondocks" despite the fact that it's based on shameful circumstances. Sometimes it's more than taking the good with the bad; it's embracing the bad without which we can't appreciate the good. Now at the same time, I would love if we could have those differences & not be divided by them. But the concept of "race" itself isn't the problem. Not by itself. No more than religion itself is to blame for the atrocities carried out in its name. I would no sooner get rid of all the posters on these boards who defend "Catwoman", trash "Spider-Man 2", or insult me for no apparent reason. Remember, not too long ago I dismissed you as the latter. And look at us now.

 

[Abaddon]

No-just the genetic differences between them & the "ruling class". If they volunteered, WERE NOT PURPOSELY HARMED, & got paid, that's one thing. That's done all the time. Anything else is just sick, & means that you're regarding mutants as no better than animals.

I'm operating under the assumption that they won't be harmed purposely or otherwise. I still don't see whats so sick about it.

 

[Herr Logan]

Those little differences in our clothing, food, slang & music-are part of what makes each of us who we are individually. And they're beautiful differences. Do people get stupid with them? Yes. But so be it. 70% of what they show on BET or UPN is crap. But I gladly tolerate it because of the other 30%. I may not like the movies John Singleton makes but I appreciate the fact that he once couldn't make them. I love "Boondocks" despite the fact that it's based on shameful circumstances. Sometimes it's more than taking the good with the bad; it's embracing the bad without which we can't appreciate the good. Now at the same time, I would love if we could have those differences & not be divided by them. But the concept of "race" itself isn't the problem. Not by itself. No more than religion itself is to blame for the atrocities carried out in its name. I would no sooner get rid of all the posters on these boards who defend "Catwoman", trash "Spider-Man 2", or insult me for no apparent reason.

Fair enough. It's very true that without the bad, you can't appreciate the good, or at least as much as you would with the bad. What allows us to sense or feel anything to its fullest is contrast. That's why if you drink soda after eating something substantial and sweet, the soda doesn't taste very sweet at all. That's why people acclimate to each other in interpersonal relationships and lose appreciation for the good qualities and actions in their partners. Okay, I've just severely depressed myself by remembering that last one... stupid psychology classes. But if something very good happens for me today, I'll feel it more strongly than if I wasn't as aware of reasons to be miserable.

One thing that occurred to me as I imagined a benevolent, totalitarian utopia where everyone was taught to be civil and channel the capacity for negative behavior into relatively safe or useful activities was that it would probably be the death knell of any future good literature, TV and movies. Stories require significant conflict to be truly enjoyable. That's why adults in general don't enjoy watching children's television programming that much, since the conflicts there, in general, are relatively innocuous.

Remember, not too long ago I dismissed you as the latter. And look at us now.

I try to make it a habit to be hostile to most people at first, because that way when there are people that do make a connection with me, it's usual more meaningful than it might otherwise be.

Okay, that's not actually true, at least the part where I deliberately act hostile to everyone, but the other thing is definitely true for me. My financee and I practically hated each other when we first new each other in high school, so that automatically made our friendship and then romance more "real," since there were no immediate illusions about each other's propensity for negative behavior. In general, I think if you know at least a significant part about a person's dark/unpleasant side before you get close to them, it allows you to appreciate it much more when you start to see the positive aspects. Also, it's infinitely more desirable for me to make a friend or lover out of an enemy than the other way around, although there is the capacity for things to come full circle anyway.

I definitely do not try to insult people for no reason. People may think my reasons aren't valid, but I would actually much rather be civil and decent to people, since that's what I want from others most of the time. But then there's the fact that I'm a tempermental, highly opinionated, resentful, arrogance son of a b!tch, and that's where the vicious arguments and hostility surface very quickly. That's definitely fun, too, sometimes.
I usually reserve the worst of my behavior for people I perceive are mistreating others without just cause. As long as a person has mostly accurate perception in those cases, I don't find it hypocritial to direct ones negative energy toward others acting who are acting aversively; that's sublimation as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, that doesn't serve as an effect means of positive change in the long run.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm operating under the assumption that they won't be harmed purposely or otherwise. I still don't see whats so sick about it.

YOU DON'T PERFORM EXPERIMENTS ON PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Herr Logan]

YOU DON'T PERFORM EXPERIMENTS ON PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!!!!!!!!!

He's trying to rile you, you know. He's like that.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I was starting to hope so.

 

[Herr Logan]

I could be wrong, though (something that rarely ever happens). Abaddon's a bit sketchy. He may actually be the Machiavellian, soulless monster that he appears to be.

 

[Abaddon]

YOU DON'T PERFORM EXPERIMENTS ON PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!!!!!!!!!

You're imagining mutants being strapped to a table,poked,prodded,and experimented on. I'm imagining doctors taking blood and tissue samples and using them as a basis for conducting scientific research that will lead to the curing of ailments.

Honestly the mutant rights problem I have mixed feelings about. There's a moral gray area there. But it's still a wonder that in the comics its never been brought up. Every covert government authority wants to use mutants as weapons,but not one of them has considered using them for a purpose that actually has meaning. It's not all that different from the stem cell issue,except that the subjects are actually living,breathing human beings. Whether theyre willing to help by their own accord shouldn't be an issue. You have the power to save millions of people who are sufferring needlessly. as a human,if I had to choose between them and me of course I'd choose myself and my kind. Besides,it's not like they'll all die horribly as a result.

He's trying to rile you, you know. He's like that.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I did stray a bit earlier in the convo just to gauge his reaction and maybe gain a better persepective on the issue itself,but that's not to say I don't believe a word of what I'm saying. It's all valid.

I could be wrong, though (something that rarely ever happens). Abaddon's a bit sketchy. He may actually be the Machiavellian, soulless monster that he appears to be.

I usually think of terms of the objective and the personal. It's just a matter reconciling the two. That's all there is to it.

 

[Chris Wallace]

My problem is that you don't care whether these living, breathing human beings consent to being poked & prodded. Like they don't have the same right to refuse participation simply due to the circumstances of their birth. That invalidates everything else you're saying. Suppose, just because I'm black, the government says I have to submit to sickle cell research? Or they just decide to test whatever drug they feel like on me? There was a time when it was widely believed that HIV & AIDS only targeted gay people. Would it have been okay if all gays had been forced into testing experimental vaccines? A human being is not a guinea pig & shouldn't be treated like one.

 

[Chris Wallace]

And w/regard to the "evolution" argument that keeps coming up; what about William Stryker & all his followers? What's their excuse? As a minister, Stryker shouldn't even BELIEVE in evolution. He calls mutants an "abomination of Satan"; last time I checked Satan couldn't create anything.

 

[Abaddon]

My problem is that you don't care whether these living, breathing human beings consent to being poked & prodded. Like they don't have the same right to refuse participation simply due to the circumstances of their birth. That invalidates everything else you're saying.

It's difficult to care about the rights of fictional people who have the ability to stop the suffering of millions. My problem is that you don't want to acknowledge that the benefits far outweigh any those issues. Mutants are an untapped resource that have a great deal to offer society in general. You act as if nothing productive could come of it.

Suppose, just because I'm black, the government says I have to submit to sickle cell research?

Having the sickle cell gene and being able to heal oneself by way of mutation are two different things. Even so,if you have sickle cell then there really isn't a problem with that anyway. It's not as if you'd be sequestered for months and administered drugs for the rest of your existence.

Or they just decide to test whatever drug they feel like on me?

And here's where I would have a problem with it not being voluntary. However,you're not a mutant.

There was a time when it was widely believed that HIV & AIDS only targeted gay people. Would it have been okay if all gays had been forced into testing experimental vaccines? A human being is not a guinea pig & shouldn't be treated like one.

You're looking at the wrong side of the issue. Try to suspend your personal scruples for a moment and look at my argument objectively,instead of you know,declaring it invalid because of an ethical issue.

 

[Chris Wallace]

My point is that my "personal scruples" outweigh any potential benefits. Throughout history there have been people who use "good intentions" as justification for doing the wrong thing. I'm reminded of "Swordfish", in which Travolta posed the question to Jackman about killing a single innocent child in exchange for curing all the world's ills. I couldn't do that. I cannot determine that ANYONE'S life is worth more than another's. I guess in your eyes that makes me weak.

 

[Abaddon]

My point is that my "personal scruples" outweigh any potential benefits. Throughout history there have been people who use "good intentions" as justification for doing the wrong thing. I'm reminded of "Swordfish", in which Travolta posed the question to Jackman about killing a single innocent child in exchange for curing all the world's ills. I couldn't do that. I cannot determine that ANYONE'S life is worth more than another's. I guess in your eyes that makes me weak.

I understand your position because believe it or not,I too have strong moral convictions. But you would honestly put the lives of billions at risk just to save one person? The value of a person's life isn't even a part of the issue. It's about trying to find a middle ground between what's right and what's best. If you can't find one then you should always do what's best.

 

[Tropico]

Best for whom?