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.
Maybe on your half. Like I said, I’m only here for grammar, rhetoric, and understanding.
I dont want to argue about whether or not the pain of children who happen to resemble the elite of the patriarchy is less urgent than the pain of children who do not. Both sides of that fight are very passionate and have good-sounding arguments and in other contexts I might argue either side.
Right now, here, in this thread, I just want to stand up for language and rhetoric and the need to be mindful that unspoken messages can still be heard and cause harm.
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
I don’t need fucks like you to agree with me, you guys lack the ability for introspection.
then why are you still here
Calling out garbage people like you is a service to society.
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.
Maybe on your half. Like I said, I’m only here for grammar, rhetoric, and understanding.
I dont want to argue about whether or not the pain of children who happen to resemble the elite of the patriarchy is less urgent than the pain of children who do not. Both sides of that fight are very passionate and have good-sounding arguments and in other contexts I might argue either side.
Right now, here, in this thread, I just want to stand up for language and rhetoric and the need to be mindful that unspoken messages can still be heard and cause harm.
ok so you’re admitting you’re here for being annoying instead of adding anything of value to the discussion? thanks man, appreciate it