• Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    You can’t justify racism or sexism in any direction without indirectly justifying it in the other direction.

    Blaming an entire group for the acts of a subset of that group removes the disincentive to become a part of the subset and adds a disincentive to support those who want to fight the injustice that gets reduced to another racial or gender conflict.

    I think it’s no wonder that many gen z males have decided to reject the mindset that demonizes white men in general, even though that mindset is often quick to add, “there’s some good ones!”

    And the whole justification of “they have more power” means dick all to individuals that fall in the group that feel powerless in their life. Plus there’s that little voice wondering if the racism will fade if the power balance does shift or if it will be the same thing but with oppression going in the other direction.

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Your argument sounds suspiciously like someone looking to justify shitty behavior.

      “You can’t acknowledge an extremely well documented culture of hate because that’s reverse sexism/racism”

      “You can’t say men are bad because some men are good and if you don’t give them special attention for being good they might start being bad.”

      “Some men have it hard too so power imbalance doesn’t exist and you can’t use it to explain why some women are mistrustful of men in general”.

      “We need to leave the status quo because if we don’t maybe the others will get control and then they’ll treat us like we treat them now”

      All of the above are shitty arguments.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        And you sound suspiciously like you don’t want anything to get better and want to see increased racial and gender tensions by rebutting with a series of strawman arguments of the worst ways you could interpret anything I was saying.

        • Nate Cox@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          I very much want things to get better, I suspect we just have different ideological definitions of “better”.

          My version of better is a world where women don’t have to worry about every interaction that they are going to have with men, where they feel safe and secure and no woman ever gets trod upon so often that they feel compelled to lash out. We do this by lifting people up and empathizing with their frustrations, and calling out shitty behavior where we see it.

          It sounds like your version of better is where we pretend that everything is ok and carry on like normal, condemning those who make any attempt to empathize as agitators.

          Feel free to cite where I have strawman’d you, because I’m only inferring from what you have presented.