so can we get a community for whites only?
-
The whole critique is based on a malicious reading leading to inferring meaning that isn't there instead of taking the words literally.
Absolutely not true. The critique is based on adding a racial connotation to gender oppression, which is completely orthogonal to it.
To be even more frank, saying that women and minorities need safe spaces because white men historically oppressed them is complete bonkers. Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
I literally took your words literally, as I quoted and addressed the very sentence you wrote. You decided to add white to a sentence that didn't need it. It's already the second comment where you refuse to elaborate and instead you indulge in meta-conversation. So for the sake of clarity, discard everything I have said so far, and allow me to simply ask what did you mean with that sentence?
-
Absolutely not true. The critique is based on adding a racial connotation to gender oppression, which is completely orthogonal to it.
To be even more frank, saying that women and minorities need safe spaces because white men historically oppressed them is complete bonkers. Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
I literally took your words literally, as I quoted and addressed the very sentence you wrote. You decided to add white to a sentence that didn't need it. It's already the second comment where you refuse to elaborate and instead you indulge in meta-conversation. So for the sake of clarity, discard everything I have said so far, and allow me to simply ask what did you mean with that sentence?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
You decided to add white to a sentence that didn’t need it.
Are you implying that minorities aren't oppressed and don't need safe spaces? Because it seems like your questions are focused entirely on why I included both women and minorities in the same sentence, which I assert is true in the vast majority of the world where English (the language we are speaking) is the primary language for the country. Heck, it is also true for most European countries where English isn't the primary language.
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
If you want any statement to be true for literally the entire world, then your expectations are unreasonable.
-
Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
You decided to add white to a sentence that didn’t need it.
Are you implying that minorities aren't oppressed and don't need safe spaces? Because it seems like your questions are focused entirely on why I included both women and minorities in the same sentence, which I assert is true in the vast majority of the world where English (the language we are speaking) is the primary language for the country. Heck, it is also true for most European countries where English isn't the primary language.
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
If you want any statement to be true for literally the entire world, then your expectations are unreasonable.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Are you implying that minorities aren’t oppressed and don’t need safe spaces?
What?
My only qualm is that you added white to a sentence about gender oppression. Of course minorities are oppressed and need safe spaces.which I assert is true in the vast majority of the world where English (the language we are speaking) is the primary language for the country
What has the language we are speaking (which is not even my language) to do with what is "historically" true or not? Is this just a classic example of US exceptionalism or what?
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
Minorities are also oppressed by way more demographics than white men (EDIT: example, gay people are also oppressed by non-white men, so technically the common group of oppressor is already larger than white men).
If you want any statement to be true for literally the entire world, then your expectations are unreasonable.
Saying that men oppressed women is a much, much, much more accurate statement, for example. There are always exceptions, but we are talking about different things.
-
so can we get a community for whites only?
edit: sorry, forgot about hexbear
edit2: Jesus Christ, it's a fucking joke.
-
Are you implying that minorities aren’t oppressed and don’t need safe spaces?
What?
My only qualm is that you added white to a sentence about gender oppression. Of course minorities are oppressed and need safe spaces.which I assert is true in the vast majority of the world where English (the language we are speaking) is the primary language for the country
What has the language we are speaking (which is not even my language) to do with what is "historically" true or not? Is this just a classic example of US exceptionalism or what?
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
Minorities are also oppressed by way more demographics than white men (EDIT: example, gay people are also oppressed by non-white men, so technically the common group of oppressor is already larger than white men).
If you want any statement to be true for literally the entire world, then your expectations are unreasonable.
Saying that men oppressed women is a much, much, much more accurate statement, for example. There are always exceptions, but we are talking about different things.
My only qualm is that you added white to a sentence about gender oppression.
Goddess you know what I meant to write, guess asking me to explain was a waste of time!
-
My only qualm is that you added white to a sentence about gender oppression.
Goddess you know what I meant to write, guess asking me to explain was a waste of time!
You meant to write what you wrote, I assumed...?
But I see we are going in circles. So far you are leaning on "that's the common oppressor" which sounds silly to me if I am being honest. But anyway, whatever. I stand by the fact that your original statement is either extremely US-centric (and frankly a bit racist from multiple points of view) or just generally incorrect. Don't need to convince you or change your mind. So have a good day/evening/whatever.
-
No it doesn't exclude that, but it also unnecessarily mixes racial with gender discrimination, and in a general statement like that is odd to do that. The intention I perceived was to link the creation of spaces that women (or minorities) require to white men discrimination only, which is absurd in my opinion.
To make a similar example, saying "gay people need their spaces, because they are historically discriminated by black women" doesn't "exclude" that also men discriminate them, or that also white women do, but I hope you can see what an odd statement that is, and if someone would find it misogynistic or racist, I think they would be right.
Thinking maliciously, I would say that's the classic way for a white guy (the commenter stated that about himself) to make a statement that is less controversial because it only "accuses" their own demographic and the most acceptable demographic to critique.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Your example doesn't really match up because you only mentioned one group and the group shares no logical overlap with the called-out demographic (it's a sexual preference group, while the demographic is a gender+race combo).
I interpreted the original statement as shorthand for white people discriminating against black people and men discriminating against women. Your reading is more grammatically accurate, but less charitable. Given your final paragraph I would encourage you to be more charitable with your interpretations.
-
You meant to write what you wrote, I assumed...?
But I see we are going in circles. So far you are leaning on "that's the common oppressor" which sounds silly to me if I am being honest. But anyway, whatever. I stand by the fact that your original statement is either extremely US-centric (and frankly a bit racist from multiple points of view) or just generally incorrect. Don't need to convince you or change your mind. So have a good day/evening/whatever.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I stand by the fact that your original statement is either extremely US-centric (and frankly a bit racist from multiple points of view) or just generally incorrect.
Saying that white men oppress people is racist?
Holy shit, that's comedy gold!
-
Your example doesn't really match up because you only mentioned one group and the group shares no logical overlap with the called-out demographic (it's a sexual preference group, while the demographic is a gender+race combo).
I interpreted the original statement as shorthand for white people discriminating against black people and men discriminating against women. Your reading is more grammatically accurate, but less charitable. Given your final paragraph I would encourage you to be more charitable with your interpretations.
Fair enough.
However, OP stood by his statement:
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
So I guess your interpretation was too generous, mine slightly too strict.
-
I stand by the fact that your original statement is either extremely US-centric (and frankly a bit racist from multiple points of view) or just generally incorrect.
Saying that white men oppress people is racist?
Holy shit, that's comedy gold!
That's not the argument, and you know it, which you need to understand, now it makes it even harder not to think maliciously about the good faith you bring to the conversation.
In case you actually care about it:
I feel your statement not only unfairly characterizes white men (not all of them, taking blame for other demographics too etc., etc.,) which who cares, but also is completely exclusionary of all those women who were are not historically oppressed by white men, for example those in different parts of the world, those themselves part of racial minorities etc., and that's what I think is racist. Of course, in that US-centric perspective the world is the same as for Hollywood disaster movies...You disagree for sure, but since you were interested in comedy...
-
That's not the argument, and you know it, which you need to understand, now it makes it even harder not to think maliciously about the good faith you bring to the conversation.
In case you actually care about it:
I feel your statement not only unfairly characterizes white men (not all of them, taking blame for other demographics too etc., etc.,) which who cares, but also is completely exclusionary of all those women who were are not historically oppressed by white men, for example those in different parts of the world, those themselves part of racial minorities etc., and that's what I think is racist. Of course, in that US-centric perspective the world is the same as for Hollywood disaster movies...You disagree for sure, but since you were interested in comedy...
Wow, just wow.
-
Wow, just wow.
Really annoying interaction. I am out. Cya.
-
here comes the welcome wagon!
