3 ms·
> The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men. Why would there be? The point of view is not o
by Yetanfou 9y ago
> The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men.
Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world.
...but in that case the 'radical left' should not have any problems with factual conclusions about the over-representation of people from certain ethnic groups in crime statistics. As this is definitely not the case - anyone even hinting at this is soon labelled racist, cast out of the ingroup, no longer invited to the television studios to discuss politics with the in-crowd and generally portrayed as an all-out bad person - this statement falls flat on its face. The 'radical left', and especially that contingent which labels themselves as 'radical feminist' do make an exception for two distinct categories: men in general (around 50% of the population) and - to use their own terminology - 'cis-gender heterosexual white men' (and 'whites' in general). These groups can be singled out by their group membership and accused of all sorts of things without risk.
- pron 9y ago> but in that case the 'radical left' should not have any problems with factual conclusions about the over-representation of people from certain ethnic groups in crime statistics. We don't. We have a problem with the context this is brought up with. Like the Kiergegaard story about the madman and the round Earth. > this is definitely not the case - anyone even hinting at this is soon labelled racist Totally made up BS. If you choose to misunderstand things, that's not our fault. OTOH, people who believe that blacks are somehow more innately inclined towards crime -- a scientific fallacy -- are racist, and so their "labeling" as such is not only justified but necessary. I don't know what word best describes racism other than "racism".