5 ms·

I'm tired of people using the shallowest understanding of bigotry in order to harass those who call out bigotry. When a feminist says "kill all men", they're s

I'm tired of people using the shallowest understanding of bigotry in order to harass those who call out bigotry. When a feminist says "kill all men", they're saying "the patriarchy has oppressed women for centuries and I'm angry about it". When a racial justice advocate says "kill all white people" they're saying "white people are literally murdering people of color and I'm angry about it". When a white male software engineer at Google makes the argument to everyone at the company that women are biologically less suited to be engineers, he's invoking an incomprehensible history of physical, financial, and cultural oppression -- a mindset that we still struggle to escape today. They are not the same thing. Please start thinking more deeply about these issues and please do some research. Racism, transphobia, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia are all far more complicated than a few language rules.

whatok 9y ago
If someone doesn't have a decoder book handy to make these translations, how are they supposed to react? How are you supposed to have an actual discussion and change minds if things phrased in such a hostile manner from the start?
- camgunz 9y ago
  If your goal is to have an actual discussion and change minds, you should know about the subject matter. So you don't need a decoder book, you just need to google "misogyny in america". That's the constructive thing to do, if you're interested. edit -- Hey I wrote a little screenplay to demonstrate how a conversation like this might go, in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below: A: kill all men B: huh, A, what's that about? A: Peter Thiel blames the 19th Amendment for the collapse of our society; the patriarchy is everywhere B: <googles patriarchy, suddenly starts buying Shirley Chisholm gear> All of which is to say that if you ask, "huh, A, what's that about?" instead of, "you genocidal maniac feminism is the worst and you're the worst" you can have a discussion.
  - whatok 9y ago
    I don't understand. If I read something that says "kill all men" and I am not aware of the context attached to it, how am I supposed to make the leap to Google "misogyny in america"? Edit: To respond to your edit, I'm saying through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated and likely not get to the point where they ask "huh, what's that about?". I don't know if that's intentional or not but given how pervasive these problems are framed, I would think attracting as large of an audience as possible would be beneficial. > in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below This is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've responded with questions because I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?
    - camgunz 9y ago
      > through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. > I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. > If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding? Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!"
      - whatok 9y ago
        There are a lot of assumptions in your post and I hope my response clarifies my position. >There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. I was not referencing Twitter, I was quoting what was in your post. I did not say anyone was responsible for teaching anyone about feminism or how they should function as ambassadors. I do not feel like I need to be educated on this matter and do not care about how ambassadors conduct themselves. However, if you put yourself out there as an ambassador, it's natural that people scrutinize things you say a bit closer than others. When people are able to say that you represent something or are a spokesperson for a cause, they are going to attach your words to it. This ties into the next quote. > These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. Tactics, messaging, whatever you want to call it, I'm just trying to understand the intent. If people are fed up and this is just venting, then sure, do you I guess? I personally just think it hurts the cause more than it helps it and am wondering if that's a concern or if there's something else going on. >Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!" I have not expressed any concern about male genocide. I have been upfront about asking about the intended efficacy behind the type of language used in this. That's all. Assuming ill intent when it's presented upfront is a really good way to lose people who might have been otherwise agreeable to a cause.
searine 9y ago
>When a feminist says "kill all men", they're saying "the patriarchy has oppressed women for centuries and I'm angry about it". That might be your intent, but that is not how it is interpreted. It sounds bigoted, thus, that language should be avoided if the speaker cares about stopping bigotry.
- camgunz 9y ago
  1. Are you making an "intent is irrelevant" argument about speech outside the workplace? 2. What if the speaker cares about expressing frustration about bigotry? Do they have to get your sign off on how to express it? 3. It's a little wicked to oppress people for centuries, and then tell them they have to choose between expressing anger about it or participating in a constructive dialogue about ending it -- especially when a lot of us don't even recognize the problem.
  - searine 9y ago
    >Are you making an "intent is irrelevant" argument about speech outside the workplace? I am accounting for the fact that people of different backgrounds interpret statements differently. >What if the speaker cares about expressing frustration about bigotry? It is simple to express frustration about bigotry without using bigoted language. >Do they have to get your sign off on how to express it? They can do whatever they like, but if they act like a bigot, don't be surprised when they get labeled as one. >they have to choose between expressing anger about it or participating in a constructive dialogue about ending it Stop putting words in my mouth so that you can defend bigotry. They are free to express their anger any way they wish. However, if they way they choose is to be a bigot, then they will be called a bigot.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      You should probably be aware of the term "tone-policing," because I think you're very close to being directly accused of it. In short, it's the social justice idea that: 1) people with the correct identities (LGBT, POC, women, etc) should be able to express themselves as rudely, angrily, or abusively as they like; and that 2) people with other, disfavored, identities (such as white men) cannot object to that rude, angry, or abusive manner of expression. If they do, it's an objectionable form of "oppression." Instead they must take the incivility, be supportive of it, and desperately and submissively search for some kind of positive meaning in the nasty statements. You see this all of the twisting around "kill all men." However, IMHO, all of that is really just a tactic pushed by a bunch of assholes who want to be jerks to others and get away with it.
ameister14 9y ago
You're asking for a deep knowledge and understanding of bigotry but making a mistake by applying a shallow definition to race in the first place, and isolating that as a direct cause of behavior rather than taking the time to understand the intersectionality of race, class, gender identity and cultural history, among other things. I'm really tired of having to explain to people that claim to have studied this exact thing why it's not as simple as white people vs everyone else. When you boil it down like that you don't get solutions.
- camgunz 9y ago
  > I'm really tired of having to explain to people that claim to have studied this exact thing why it's not as simple as white people vs everyone else. Isn't it though? Look at the race numbers for prison, school quality, poverty, profession, representation in media, etc. Even when you control for everything else (especially socioeconomic status; people love to argue that being poor and white is just as hard but hey, racism is still something that poor Black people have to deal with that poor white people don't) race is a huge, dominating factor.
simonpenn 9y ago
If an individual who I have never met before approaches me wearing a pin that says "kill all men", it is not my responsibility to understand the years of philosophy reading that have caused them to express a totally reasonable and nuanced perspective in very easily misunderstood words. It is 100% reasonable for me to expect that those words mean what they say, and not some other, more subtle meaning that I am unaware of. Even if this is actually true! Even if it is actually true that "kill all men" expands into this reasonable position. Because I have no access to what goes on inside someone else's head. All I have access to is what I see. And when I, a man, see a person with management authority over me, wearing a pin that says 'kill all men', I get scared. This is not appropriate for a workplace, no moreso than any white supremacist garbage is.
- camgunz 9y ago
  > It is 100% reasonable for me to expect that those words mean what they say. Sure, because when someone says "put your money where your mouth is" you eat your wallet. When someone says "keep your chin up" you walk around looking at the sky. If you ever, in your entire life, encounter someone who believes all men should be killed, do you really think you're gonna notice their "Kill All Men" pin before they get you? All this nonsense about "I believe those words" is bananas to me. Get out of here.

whatok 9y ago

If someone doesn't have a decoder book handy to make these translations, how are they supposed to react? How are you supposed to have an actual discussion and change minds if things phrased in such a hostile manner from the start?

camgunz 9y ago
If your goal is to have an actual discussion and change minds, you should know about the subject matter. So you don't need a decoder book, you just need to google "misogyny in america". That's the constructive thing to do, if you're interested. edit -- Hey I wrote a little screenplay to demonstrate how a conversation like this might go, in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below: A: kill all men B: huh, A, what's that about? A: Peter Thiel blames the 19th Amendment for the collapse of our society; the patriarchy is everywhere B: <googles patriarchy, suddenly starts buying Shirley Chisholm gear> All of which is to say that if you ask, "huh, A, what's that about?" instead of, "you genocidal maniac feminism is the worst and you're the worst" you can have a discussion.
- whatok 9y ago
  I don't understand. If I read something that says "kill all men" and I am not aware of the context attached to it, how am I supposed to make the leap to Google "misogyny in america"? Edit: To respond to your edit, I'm saying through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated and likely not get to the point where they ask "huh, what's that about?". I don't know if that's intentional or not but given how pervasive these problems are framed, I would think attracting as large of an audience as possible would be beneficial. > in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below This is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've responded with questions because I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?
  - camgunz 9y ago
    > through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. > I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. > If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding? Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!"
    - whatok 9y ago
      There are a lot of assumptions in your post and I hope my response clarifies my position. >There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. I was not referencing Twitter, I was quoting what was in your post. I did not say anyone was responsible for teaching anyone about feminism or how they should function as ambassadors. I do not feel like I need to be educated on this matter and do not care about how ambassadors conduct themselves. However, if you put yourself out there as an ambassador, it's natural that people scrutinize things you say a bit closer than others. When people are able to say that you represent something or are a spokesperson for a cause, they are going to attach your words to it. This ties into the next quote. > These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. Tactics, messaging, whatever you want to call it, I'm just trying to understand the intent. If people are fed up and this is just venting, then sure, do you I guess? I personally just think it hurts the cause more than it helps it and am wondering if that's a concern or if there's something else going on. >Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!" I have not expressed any concern about male genocide. I have been upfront about asking about the intended efficacy behind the type of language used in this. That's all. Assuming ill intent when it's presented upfront is a really good way to lose people who might have been otherwise agreeable to a cause.

searine 9y ago

>When a feminist says "kill all men", they're saying "the patriarchy has oppressed women for centuries and I'm angry about it". That might be your intent, but that is not how it is interpreted. It sounds bigoted, thus, that language should be avoided if the speaker cares about stopping bigotry.

camgunz 9y ago
1. Are you making an "intent is irrelevant" argument about speech outside the workplace? 2. What if the speaker cares about expressing frustration about bigotry? Do they have to get your sign off on how to express it? 3. It's a little wicked to oppress people for centuries, and then tell them they have to choose between expressing anger about it or participating in a constructive dialogue about ending it -- especially when a lot of us don't even recognize the problem.
- searine 9y ago
  >Are you making an "intent is irrelevant" argument about speech outside the workplace? I am accounting for the fact that people of different backgrounds interpret statements differently. >What if the speaker cares about expressing frustration about bigotry? It is simple to express frustration about bigotry without using bigoted language. >Do they have to get your sign off on how to express it? They can do whatever they like, but if they act like a bigot, don't be surprised when they get labeled as one. >they have to choose between expressing anger about it or participating in a constructive dialogue about ending it Stop putting words in my mouth so that you can defend bigotry. They are free to express their anger any way they wish. However, if they way they choose is to be a bigot, then they will be called a bigot.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    You should probably be aware of the term "tone-policing," because I think you're very close to being directly accused of it. In short, it's the social justice idea that: 1) people with the correct identities (LGBT, POC, women, etc) should be able to express themselves as rudely, angrily, or abusively as they like; and that 2) people with other, disfavored, identities (such as white men) cannot object to that rude, angry, or abusive manner of expression. If they do, it's an objectionable form of "oppression." Instead they must take the incivility, be supportive of it, and desperately and submissively search for some kind of positive meaning in the nasty statements. You see this all of the twisting around "kill all men." However, IMHO, all of that is really just a tactic pushed by a bunch of assholes who want to be jerks to others and get away with it.

ameister14 9y ago

You're asking for a deep knowledge and understanding of bigotry but making a mistake by applying a shallow definition to race in the first place, and isolating that as a direct cause of behavior rather than taking the time to understand the intersectionality of race, class, gender identity and cultural history, among other things. I'm really tired of having to explain to people that claim to have studied this exact thing why it's not as simple as white people vs everyone else. When you boil it down like that you don't get solutions.

camgunz 9y ago
> I'm really tired of having to explain to people that claim to have studied this exact thing why it's not as simple as white people vs everyone else. Isn't it though? Look at the race numbers for prison, school quality, poverty, profession, representation in media, etc. Even when you control for everything else (especially socioeconomic status; people love to argue that being poor and white is just as hard but hey, racism is still something that poor Black people have to deal with that poor white people don't) race is a huge, dominating factor.

simonpenn 9y ago

If an individual who I have never met before approaches me wearing a pin that says "kill all men", it is not my responsibility to understand the years of philosophy reading that have caused them to express a totally reasonable and nuanced perspective in very easily misunderstood words. It is 100% reasonable for me to expect that those words mean what they say, and not some other, more subtle meaning that I am unaware of. Even if this is actually true! Even if it is actually true that "kill all men" expands into this reasonable position. Because I have no access to what goes on inside someone else's head. All I have access to is what I see. And when I, a man, see a person with management authority over me, wearing a pin that says 'kill all men', I get scared. This is not appropriate for a workplace, no moreso than any white supremacist garbage is.

camgunz 9y ago
> It is 100% reasonable for me to expect that those words mean what they say. Sure, because when someone says "put your money where your mouth is" you eat your wallet. When someone says "keep your chin up" you walk around looking at the sky. If you ever, in your entire life, encounter someone who believes all men should be killed, do you really think you're gonna notice their "Kill All Men" pin before they get you? All this nonsense about "I believe those words" is bananas to me. Get out of here.