this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
771 points (98.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

6027 readers
1432 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The easiest way to see if it's OK is to swap out "men" with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should've known better.

I think youre right not to engage them though. For all their talk of equality, anyone who talks like that just wants to be at the top of a new hierarchy. Remove or subjugate the men and most women (who haven't decolonisated their minds) will just replicate the same power structures, adopting the position of patriarch without a hint of self awareness. The way forward is to help other men see the pain caused to them by the patriarchy, as its only then that we can see the pain we cause through the patriarchy, due to the rituals of disregard and empathy killing we go through as boys.

I'll finish by saying the same thing I said to my dad, shortly after he lost his job" "yes dad, of course I've heard of the phrase 'sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.' However, you can't always do that, especially when you're meant to be firefighter, you doughnut.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You should reference my other comment in this thread. You're correct that statements like "all men are trash" are unjustly prejudiced, but you're making a false equivalence.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

My point is that is that both are wrong, not that they are or are not both equally wrong. So, would you mind explaining where the equivalence is please?

I mean, I know its more of a case that some people don't like that both of those things are wrong to do but I'm gonna need a little more than that and a misunderstanding of an informal fallacy, sorry.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

In your comment, whether intended or not. It's not a long comment. By "whatabouting" the idea of replacing men with any marginalized group, you are making a false equivalence via equivocation. By leaving out the crucial aspect of power imbalance, you minimize its role by implication. See: all lives matter in response to BLM.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

The easiest way to see if it's OK is to swap out "men" with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should've known better.

No. You are making an equivalence argument that misses the reality of power dynamics and the context of like centuries of documented social oppression.

Edit: Fuck I didn’t see erin beat me to it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, it's not an equivalence argument. I didn't say they were equally wrong or the same thing. Also, nether power dynamics nor oppression make those things right.

You're telling me that you see no problem with black people saying the same about all white people then?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, I see no problem with black people saying the same about white people; because white people have a manufactured generational power gap supporting them which is designed around keeping black people poor, underrepresented, and under served in their communities.

Much the same way as how men have manufactured a generational power gap supporting them which is designed around keeping women underrepresented.

Just because it sucks for me personally doesn’t mean it’s an invalid sentiment.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But I didn't manufacture that and neither did you. It also, intentionally, ignores every single other intersection a white person could have.

Don't worry, the sentiment invalidates itself. That kind of backwards bougouise feminism died in the 80s and should've stayed that way.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you’re a white male, and I think I can safely assume that you are from your comments in this thread, you are the direct beneficiary of a system that has propped you up over literally everyone else. Understanding that system, and your role in it, is critical to trying to finally tear it down to make room for a fair and equitable one.

I didn’t manufacture the system, but I acknowledge it and all I can do now is continue to undermine it by pointing it out constantly.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's absolutely right to criticise the system that provides dividends for white people; for men; for straight, cis, able, neurotypical, tall, pretty people; and so on and so on... But even though I don't fit into all those boxes, I don't think that gives me the right to attack people that do.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The only person in this entire topic who could remotely be conceived as being attacked is the original poster of that twitter comment… who, if you look at his actual post history, absolutely deserves to be mocked for it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm thinking really about your original comment, you mentioned people saying shit like "men are scum". I just don't think it's helpful and I'm sad that it's been normalised. I used to say stuff like that, but I just don't see the difference anymore. I know the power imbalance argument, but even as an impressed minority it just seems like a stupid thing to do... I've known and loved many men who are not responsible for the patriarchy, even if they benefit from it.

As the other commenter pointed out - even white men can suffer due to other intersections of identity. Just as women or other less privileged groups can benefit from other aspects...

Anyway, ramble over. I just find it saddening to see men accepting being called "scum" or whatever. Like, no, you aren't, at least I'd guess if you've taken the time to think about this. It's taking a statistic and trying to extrapolate an individual.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, I fundamentally agree that it sucks to call all men scum or trash or whatever. Generalizing tends towards sucking as a whole, and as the target demographic being called scum it doesn’t feel great.

I just try to step back and understand the why. I genuinely do not think most people saying “all men are trash” actually believe that, but they’ve been radicalized by pretty understandable circumstances to feel the need to lash out. It really, really sucks that we have prime examples like the original twitter poster demonstrating exactly where that emotion comes from.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Do you try to understand “why” racists make racist comments? Do they get the same benefit of the doubt you give misandry?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Yes. Understanding why is an important part of avoiding bigotry.

You seem to be implying that I would never come to the conclusion that the why is unjustified, which is a silly conclusion to draw.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

No, really that doesn't make it ok. You're generalizing half the population. It's not my fault that other people are and have been trash, it's not my fault that I was born male, and it sure feels great to be generalized with the assholes when I wish every night to just magically wake up with a cis woman's body (for various reasons am not transitioning and run around as male presenting).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Thank you.

All landlords are parasites. All women are parasites.

One is rather true, in a metaphorical way. The other is a sexist, misogynistic slur.

I'm never quite convinced by this equivalence argument.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Those statements are very much equivalent in this context, the confusion you have is rooted in a false conclusion. You assert one statement is true, and the other is false. The reality is that both statements are false.

If you have a history of dealing with shitty landlords you may draw a conclusion that every landlord must be shitty. That is objectively false—there are many many landlords from all backgrounds and cultures who will behave differently from each other in virtually every way—but it’s an understandable emotional reaction to your personal experiences.

If you have a history of dealing with shitty women you may draw a conclusion that every woman must be shitty. That is objectively false—there are many many women from all backgrounds and cultures who will behave differently from each other in virtually every way—but it’s an understandable emotional reaction to your personal experiences.

Calling all women parasites is indeed sexist bullshit, but calling all landlords parasites isn’t fundamentally better. Generalizing people trends towards nonsense in most cases.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Three objections :

  1. I like my current landlord, he's my friend and we live together. When I say Landlords are parasites, I'm just saying something that, according to me, is a relatively descriptive statement. From a functional point of view, they could very well be described as functioning like parasites do.

  2. But that's not all. Generalization may have different semantic meanings. That's something political movements have elaborated a lot in the last 60 years. If you read about ACAB, you'll see quite soon that it's nowhere near a judgment of all individuals.

  3. But the most important argument follows. I'll gladly say landlords are parasites or ACAB. There are many other variants I'll never say. One could say it's arbitrary but it's far from it, imo. Generalizing on people who are subjects of systematic violence is furthering said violence. Generalizing about powerful interest who are in position to use individualisation and scapegoating of one or their members to ensure the continuation of their power cannot, and it's not an ideological point, it's a matter of social science for me, be said to be identical.

I recommend reading Howard Becker's Whose side are we one, a different, but close and related, demonstration.