Yes, you did. In approximately the same way that All Lives Matter was just a dog-whistley way of saying “No they don’t” to Black Lives Matter.
When someone says I suffer from THING, responding with other people suffer too as your primary message is always a dismissal of the person’s suffering.
If you want to avoid the inferred message, include an affirmative message of acknowledgement, like “nobody should suffer like that.”
If we’re going to compare this to BLM then you said something amongst the lines of “White people have to grow up in a world where everyone hates them.” and I responded “Actually, black people have had it worse.”
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
The entire model you are operating on has it’s roots in Marxist class conflict. Broadly the problem with that is that it was created in terms of economic class, and economic class is where it works best (or possibly at all). It can be shoehorned into other dynamics, but it only really works to the degree that that dynamic is also a proxy for economic class.
For example, it works passably well for race in the US because broadly speaking race is a decent proxy for economic class in 21st century America, though less of one than it used to be. It’s a bad fit for sex or gender precisely because those things do not function as a proxy for economic class at all.
the hell are you on about? this discussion was about men claiming everybody hates them, even though they’re privileged on most aspects of life. why do you start rambling about the working class?
The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I’m just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.
Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.
There are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.
Plenty of “white men” are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a “white man” is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.
(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s thesis, in which case it would merely be “racially prejudical.”.)
(edit: wrote “autistic” twice and said sex when I meant gender.)
I’m talking about men in general. Of course some of them belong to other minorities, but this argument is about the person who complained about having to raise a son in a world that allegedly hates men.
It is helpful that they know there are humans in the world who behave like monsters, and that some of them are men who target people who they perceive to be weaker than themselves.
So children, women, other men who are either physically smaller or in a lower position of power. That’s what they need to know. So they can protect themselves, and help stop others from becoming someone else’s monster if the opportunity arises.
Doing things like speaking out against sexual harassment, and calling out bullying behavior, this is everyone’s responsibility btw. Not just men’s and boys, but this is what needs to be taught so world can suck less.
Women are the most hated people the world over. No advantages, only downsides. Any man to ever walk the earth can never experience the equivalent horrors of being despised as much as a woman.
You’re massively ignorant of just how little the world cares about the suffering of males. The same amount of harm to a female will, ten out of ten times, generate more sympathy and outrage than that same harm to a male.
When Boko Haram attacked hundreds of thousands of children, the only reports that generated any outrage were the ones talking only about girls being kidnapped, even though they murdered all the boys. Hell, when the victims were all male, the sex wasn’t even stated in the articles, it’s just “students” etc. But every single time girls were victimized, you’d better believe “girls” or “schoolgirls” was explicitly used. The reason is simple–people in general actually give a shit about girls.
The empathy gap between the sexes is very real, and your comment is a perfect example of it.
I really should’ve used /s . I thought the hyperbole would make it obvious, but it’s a little sad we live in the world where people might actually truly believe it.
think about how it must have felt for all those mothers who had to raise a daughter in an environment that has always been so hateful towards women…
“Fuck you, they had it worse” isn’t really helpful either.
I think the point is to expand the empathy bubble.
It’s hard to have empathy when none is given.
Sometimes it do be hard, yeah. But often most things worth doing are hard in some way.
Why is that my son’s fault?
i never said it was, and I’m sure your son will be fine.
Yes, you did. In approximately the same way that All Lives Matter was just a dog-whistley way of saying “No they don’t” to Black Lives Matter.
When someone says I suffer from THING, responding with other people suffer too as your primary message is always a dismissal of the person’s suffering.
If you want to avoid the inferred message, include an affirmative message of acknowledgement, like “nobody should suffer like that.”
If we’re going to compare this to BLM then you said something amongst the lines of “White people have to grow up in a world where everyone hates them.” and I responded “Actually, black people have had it worse.”
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
The entire model you are operating on has it’s roots in Marxist class conflict. Broadly the problem with that is that it was created in terms of economic class, and economic class is where it works best (or possibly at all). It can be shoehorned into other dynamics, but it only really works to the degree that that dynamic is also a proxy for economic class.
For example, it works passably well for race in the US because broadly speaking race is a decent proxy for economic class in 21st century America, though less of one than it used to be. It’s a bad fit for sex or gender precisely because those things do not function as a proxy for economic class at all.
the hell are you on about? this discussion was about men claiming everybody hates them, even though they’re privileged on most aspects of life. why do you start rambling about the working class?
I’ve had the cops called on me for watching my nephew at the park.
Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
so did they arrest you?
Fuck off, cunt.
you should curse more, it makes me a lot more inclined to agree with you
The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I’m just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.
Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.
so I’m racist now for saying
white men are notnot all white men are oppressed? alright then sure budThere are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.
Plenty of “white men” are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a “white man” is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.
(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s thesis, in which case it would merely be “racially prejudical.”.)
(edit: wrote “autistic” twice and said sex when I meant gender.)
I’m talking about men in general. Of course some of them belong to other minorities, but this argument is about the person who complained about having to raise a son in a world that allegedly hates men.
Yeah you are. Real nice that you expect us to raise a generation of boys to have to see themselves as monsters.
It’s like you’re here just to sully the debate with bad faith responses.
No one is telling boys that they are monsters.
It is helpful that they know there are humans in the world who behave like monsters, and that some of them are men who target people who they perceive to be weaker than themselves.
So children, women, other men who are either physically smaller or in a lower position of power. That’s what they need to know. So they can protect themselves, and help stop others from becoming someone else’s monster if the opportunity arises.
Doing things like speaking out against sexual harassment, and calling out bullying behavior, this is everyone’s responsibility btw. Not just men’s and boys, but this is what needs to be taught so world can suck less.
But we only ever talk about boys being the problem. Half the comments here are about how dangerous men are.
No one is asking them to see themselves as monsters? You’re creating a problem where there isn’t one.
What is a child supposed to pull from the bear vs man type of discussions?
to be better than a bear probably?
children already know to be better than bears, what this argument provides for them is a window into what other people assume based only on gender
then why are so many men worse than bears
Women are the most hated people the world over. No advantages, only downsides. Any man to ever walk the earth can never experience the equivalent horrors of being despised as much as a woman.
Edit: /s. Do people seriously think this way?
The suicide rate among men, including boys is going up. Will that make you feel better?
I can’t tell if this is an example of Poe’s law or why it’s a thing.
It was supposed to be hyperbolic and sarcastic, but it looks like such beliefs can actually be held.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are two of my favorite things, but Poe’s ls is a real thing.
Without a clear indicator of intent, it’s impossible to distinguish snark from extremism
You’re massively ignorant of just how little the world cares about the suffering of males. The same amount of harm to a female will, ten out of ten times, generate more sympathy and outrage than that same harm to a male.
When Boko Haram attacked hundreds of thousands of children, the only reports that generated any outrage were the ones talking only about girls being kidnapped, even though they murdered all the boys. Hell, when the victims were all male, the sex wasn’t even stated in the articles, it’s just “students” etc. But every single time girls were victimized, you’d better believe “girls” or “schoolgirls” was explicitly used. The reason is simple–people in general actually give a shit about girls.
The empathy gap between the sexes is very real, and your comment is a perfect example of it.
I really should’ve used /s . I thought the hyperbole would make it obvious, but it’s a little sad we live in the world where people might actually truly believe it.
Poe’s law, sorry for going off on you.