4 ms·

> "kill all men" > no actual ill will was intended Pick one.

by Clanan 9y ago

tdb7893 9y ago
It could be intended as a joke or hyperbole so those two statements aren't mutually exclusive
- stcredzero 9y ago
  What's the likelihood that "Kill all X" would be taken as a joke, when X = Jewish people? Black people? Women? Asians?
  - camgunz 9y ago
    There's a false equivalence. There's never been male genocide, so "kill all men" is basically a joke. But there's nothing funny about advocating for genocide against the Jewish people, because that actually happened. That's why the standard for orientation discrimination doesn't apply to straight people. It's why the standard for race discrimination doesn't apply to white people. And it's why the standard for sex discrimination doesn't apply to cis men. The history is just very different.
    - alexozer 9y ago
      Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Last I heard, it was best to treat people equally.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        > Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Not at all! I'm saying that the history of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US, and that the experience of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US. For example, women are far, far more likely to be physically assaulted by a man than a man is by a woman. And we're not just talking about a dozen or so cases: violence against women is epidemic in the US (and most of the world). So rather than using "ancestors", we can use "people currently alive". And rather than "superficial characteristics like skin color and sex" we can use "ascribed statuses" like race and sex. Or we can leave sex out of it. Let's say there was a group of men who have, for centuries, been victimized by the rest of men. They've been abducted, sold, tortured, murdered, humiliated and exploited for centuries. That's the story of Black men (and women, of course) in America. We can't make some simple rules about "fairness" and leave it at that. We have to understand the history of people, the history of our culture, and the current ways our culture oppresses people before we can even begin to talk about fairness. If we want to be fair towards Black people we have to take into account the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, and institutional racism. If we want to be fair towards women we have to take into account chattel, disenfranchisement, sexism, and rape culture. Not doing this is essentially breaking someone's leg before a sprint, and when they lose and they say "Wow, that was super unfair!" we say "Wow you had the same rules! What are you upset about? That whole leg breaking thing happened a _long time ago_"
        stcredzero 9y ago
        So you are saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex. Your excuse is "history." I know of some other groups who have engaged in that sort of ideology. One is the KKK. The other is the Nazis. Also, the Soviets all throughout the USSR, particularly in Ukraine. Not doing this is essentially breaking someone's leg before a sprint, and when they lose and they say "Wow, that was super unfair!" we say "Wow you had the same rules! What are you upset about? That whole leg breaking thing happened a _long time ago_" You are super ignorant of history, because you are buying into a far-left propaganda version of history used to justify inter-group conflict. If slavery is leg breaking, then also note that Koreans have been doing it to Koreans, Europeans have been doing it to Europeans, Africans have been doing it to fellow Africans. If there has been a lot of leg breaking going on, the solution is to stop the leg breaking, not engage in recriminations about it. Since when have recriminations been the solution to peace in history? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0X71d9Z08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0X71d9Z08
        camgunz 9y ago
        > So you are saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex. No I'm not using skin color (can we just say race?) and sex, and I don't think you can just dismiss history as an excuse. For example, there are a lot of people in Africa who look like Black people, but when they come to the US they haven't labored under the same kind of racism that Blacks have, so their history and culture are different, and they don't have the same disadvantages (they still have many). However, if they have kids here that difference pretty much goes away for them. > I know of some other groups who have engaged in that sort of ideology. One is the KKK. The other is the Nazis. Also, the Soviets all throughout the USSR, particularly in Ukraine. I earnestly hope you're not comparing me to the KKK, Nazis, and the Soviets, so let's proceed as though you aren't. > You are super ignorant of history, because you are buying into a far-left propaganda version of history used to justify inter-group conflict. I really don't know what this means. Slavery in the US was horrible and its effects reverberate today. We're continuing to have a national debate about how to view the Confederacy (which I personally think is ridiculous -- it was a monstrous pro-slavery rebellion resulting in the deaths of millions of Americans) and historic Americans who were also slave owners. Slavery, along with Jim Crow and segregation, really did happen and institutional racism persists to this day. Also maybe be a little nicer. > Koreans have been doing it to Koreans Nobi made up around 10% of the Korean population and wasn't based on race. Black slaves in the US made up about 50% of the population in the South and... are Black. There was no Korean Jim Crow and no Korean segregation, probably both because of WW2 and because, again, slavery in Korea wasn't racial. > Europeans have been doing it to Europeans The most recent example of this is Barbary slavery, but again there are significant differences: slavery wasn't inherited and it wasn't race-based. Also no Jim Crow or segregation. > Africans have been doing it to fellow Africans. I'm guessing this list is your argument that slavery shouldn't be an excuse today, but Wikipedia has a whole section on effects in Slavery in Africa [1]. It's also in many ways intertwined with the Atlantic slave trade. Africa is a big place so this topic is just too big, but suffice it to say this too was super bad and continues to cause problems today. > If there has been a lot of leg breaking going on, the solution is to stop the leg breaking, not engage in recriminations about it. Since when have recriminations been the solution to peace in history? I don't know what you mean by "recriminations" here. If anyone's making recriminations ("an accusation in response to one from someone else") it's the people saying "What are you upset about?" -- their accusation came second...? Maybe what you mean is "bringing the whole slavery/segregation thing up all the time". But like it or not, we can't escape the actions of people we have no relation to, because those actions had long-lasting effects we continue to deal with. We don't get to disclaim responsibility for the current state of our society, because it's our society now. I agree we should stop leg breaking -- or really what I mean here is we should address our racist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic culture. Something like 30% of the US is cis, straight, white, and male. That means 70% of the US deals with some form of discrimination constantly, every day, all the time. This discrimination has significant effects on health, crime, the economy, really everything for all of us. Men face discrimination as well: look at the prison population for example. This is an urgent, national issue rooted in our culture from before we were even a country. In order to even start talking about it, we need to understand its history. It's not merely an "excuse". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#Effects

> "kill all men" > no actual ill will was intended Pick one.

by Clanan 9y ago

> "kill all men" > no actual ill will was intended Pick one.

tdb7893 9y ago

It could be intended as a joke or hyperbole so those two statements aren't mutually exclusive

stcredzero 9y ago
What's the likelihood that "Kill all X" would be taken as a joke, when X = Jewish people? Black people? Women? Asians?
- camgunz 9y ago
  There's a false equivalence. There's never been male genocide, so "kill all men" is basically a joke. But there's nothing funny about advocating for genocide against the Jewish people, because that actually happened. That's why the standard for orientation discrimination doesn't apply to straight people. It's why the standard for race discrimination doesn't apply to white people. And it's why the standard for sex discrimination doesn't apply to cis men. The history is just very different.
  - alexozer 9y ago
    Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Last I heard, it was best to treat people equally.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      > Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Not at all! I'm saying that the history of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US, and that the experience of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US. For example, women are far, far more likely to be physically assaulted by a man than a man is by a woman. And we're not just talking about a dozen or so cases: violence against women is epidemic in the US (and most of the world). So rather than using "ancestors", we can use "people currently alive". And rather than "superficial characteristics like skin color and sex" we can use "ascribed statuses" like race and sex. Or we can leave sex out of it. Let's say there was a group of men who have, for centuries, been victimized by the rest of men. They've been abducted, sold, tortured, murdered, humiliated and exploited for centuries. That's the story of Black men (and women, of course) in America. We can't make some simple rules about "fairness" and leave it at that. We have to understand the history of people, the history of our culture, and the current ways our culture oppresses people before we can even begin to talk about fairness. If we want to be fair towards Black people we have to take into account the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, and institutional racism. If we want to be fair towards women we have to take into account chattel, disenfranchisement, sexism, and rape culture. Not doing this is essentially breaking someone's leg before a sprint, and when they lose and they say "Wow, that was super unfair!" we say "Wow you had the same rules! What are you upset about? That whole leg breaking thing happened a _long time ago_"
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        So you are saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex. Your excuse is "history." I know of some other groups who have engaged in that sort of ideology. One is the KKK. The other is the Nazis. Also, the Soviets all throughout the USSR, particularly in Ukraine. Not doing this is essentially breaking someone's leg before a sprint, and when they lose and they say "Wow, that was super unfair!" we say "Wow you had the same rules! What are you upset about? That whole leg breaking thing happened a _long time ago_" You are super ignorant of history, because you are buying into a far-left propaganda version of history used to justify inter-group conflict. If slavery is leg breaking, then also note that Koreans have been doing it to Koreans, Europeans have been doing it to Europeans, Africans have been doing it to fellow Africans. If there has been a lot of leg breaking going on, the solution is to stop the leg breaking, not engage in recriminations about it. Since when have recriminations been the solution to peace in history? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0X71d9Z08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0X71d9Z08
        camgunz 9y ago
        > So you are saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex. No I'm not using skin color (can we just say race?) and sex, and I don't think you can just dismiss history as an excuse. For example, there are a lot of people in Africa who look like Black people, but when they come to the US they haven't labored under the same kind of racism that Blacks have, so their history and culture are different, and they don't have the same disadvantages (they still have many). However, if they have kids here that difference pretty much goes away for them. > I know of some other groups who have engaged in that sort of ideology. One is the KKK. The other is the Nazis. Also, the Soviets all throughout the USSR, particularly in Ukraine. I earnestly hope you're not comparing me to the KKK, Nazis, and the Soviets, so let's proceed as though you aren't. > You are super ignorant of history, because you are buying into a far-left propaganda version of history used to justify inter-group conflict. I really don't know what this means. Slavery in the US was horrible and its effects reverberate today. We're continuing to have a national debate about how to view the Confederacy (which I personally think is ridiculous -- it was a monstrous pro-slavery rebellion resulting in the deaths of millions of Americans) and historic Americans who were also slave owners. Slavery, along with Jim Crow and segregation, really did happen and institutional racism persists to this day. Also maybe be a little nicer. > Koreans have been doing it to Koreans Nobi made up around 10% of the Korean population and wasn't based on race. Black slaves in the US made up about 50% of the population in the South and... are Black. There was no Korean Jim Crow and no Korean segregation, probably both because of WW2 and because, again, slavery in Korea wasn't racial. > Europeans have been doing it to Europeans The most recent example of this is Barbary slavery, but again there are significant differences: slavery wasn't inherited and it wasn't race-based. Also no Jim Crow or segregation. > Africans have been doing it to fellow Africans. I'm guessing this list is your argument that slavery shouldn't be an excuse today, but Wikipedia has a whole section on effects in Slavery in Africa [1]. It's also in many ways intertwined with the Atlantic slave trade. Africa is a big place so this topic is just too big, but suffice it to say this too was super bad and continues to cause problems today. > If there has been a lot of leg breaking going on, the solution is to stop the leg breaking, not engage in recriminations about it. Since when have recriminations been the solution to peace in history? I don't know what you mean by "recriminations" here. If anyone's making recriminations ("an accusation in response to one from someone else") it's the people saying "What are you upset about?" -- their accusation came second...? Maybe what you mean is "bringing the whole slavery/segregation thing up all the time". But like it or not, we can't escape the actions of people we have no relation to, because those actions had long-lasting effects we continue to deal with. We don't get to disclaim responsibility for the current state of our society, because it's our society now. I agree we should stop leg breaking -- or really what I mean here is we should address our racist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic culture. Something like 30% of the US is cis, straight, white, and male. That means 70% of the US deals with some form of discrimination constantly, every day, all the time. This discrimination has significant effects on health, crime, the economy, really everything for all of us. Men face discrimination as well: look at the prison population for example. This is an urgent, national issue rooted in our culture from before we were even a country. In order to even start talking about it, we need to understand its history. It's not merely an "excuse". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#Effects