5 ms·

Play mad-libs with the demographic you mentioned if you want to see how well any statement like this ages.

JasonCannon 5y ago
Hit me up when women and trans people start oppressing cis men. Until then, "play mad-libs" doesn't really hold up any water. There is this thing called history, and it backs the above person's comment.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  This is a dubious way to rationalize bigotry against a demographic and it doesn't even address the original hyperbolic and bigoted claim.
  - JasonCannon 5y ago
    What bigotry? What oppression are cis men facing? I can definitely share tons of examples of the oppression that cis men have carried out.
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      big·ot·ry obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
      - throwaway984393 5y ago
        That's really not helpful. Can you find a more productive way to make your case?
        CyberDildonics 5y ago
        You claimed an entire demographic of people don't deserve respect, I think the burden is on you to explain why that is not literally the definition of bigotry.
        throwaway984393 5y ago
        I think you've projected that claim. I'll try to explain my comment in more detail: "They (cis-men) are probably not awarded respect and credibility by default because historically they've been the ones causing all the shit." Here is what I meant, broken down: "They (cis-men)" I should have said cis-het-men, so, my bad there. And I am indeed calling out a gigantic swath of people. But that in itself isn't an example of bigotry. Bigotry requires a particular kind of obstinate thought that rejects entirely any alternatives. If you continue reading, I think you'll see that I leave room for other possibilities. "are probably" Here's the first hint that the claim I'm making is hedged, as in, I'm not 100% all-in on this belief; there is room for doubt. This doesn't excuse the above generalization, but it's part of an overall supposition that there is a large group of people that the following theory applies to, and not without evidence. "not awarded respect and credibility by default" The parent commenter asserted their feeling that "men are awarded so little respect and credibility on the subject of gender issues". What I'm proposing with this line is that men probably can receive respect and credibility on this subject, but that they will need to do something in order to achieve it; that it will not be given to them by default. "because historically" Here I'm referencing how historic trends in the actions and speech of these people are what may provide evidence of my claim. By looking at past behavior of the group at large we may find a reason for the parent commenter's feeling. It's not my belief that this state of affairs in inherent to this group of people, but that it's simply been going on for a while. "they've been the ones causing all the shit" What I should have said instead was "being insensitive and resistant to discussion of gender issues". The point being that cis-het men in general, in many, many cases throughout history, in probably the majority of cases, have not given the kind of respect and credibility to others in terms of gender issue discussion, that the parent commenter wishes men were given. I should have explicitly qualified in my comment that I was generalizing and only meant to impune the overall majority of that group of people. Sorry. But, my point remains... men in general will continue to be treated this way, until men in general demonstrate that their perspective has changed.

Hit me up when women and trans people start oppressing cis men. Until then, "play mad-libs" doesn't really hold up any water. There is this thing called history, and it backs the above person's comment.

CyberDildonics 5y ago
This is a dubious way to rationalize bigotry against a demographic and it doesn't even address the original hyperbolic and bigoted claim.
- JasonCannon 5y ago
  What bigotry? What oppression are cis men facing? I can definitely share tons of examples of the oppression that cis men have carried out.
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    big·ot·ry obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
    - throwaway984393 5y ago
      That's really not helpful. Can you find a more productive way to make your case?
      - CyberDildonics 5y ago
        You claimed an entire demographic of people don't deserve respect, I think the burden is on you to explain why that is not literally the definition of bigotry.
        throwaway984393 5y ago
        I think you've projected that claim. I'll try to explain my comment in more detail: "They (cis-men) are probably not awarded respect and credibility by default because historically they've been the ones causing all the shit." Here is what I meant, broken down: "They (cis-men)" I should have said cis-het-men, so, my bad there. And I am indeed calling out a gigantic swath of people. But that in itself isn't an example of bigotry. Bigotry requires a particular kind of obstinate thought that rejects entirely any alternatives. If you continue reading, I think you'll see that I leave room for other possibilities. "are probably" Here's the first hint that the claim I'm making is hedged, as in, I'm not 100% all-in on this belief; there is room for doubt. This doesn't excuse the above generalization, but it's part of an overall supposition that there is a large group of people that the following theory applies to, and not without evidence. "not awarded respect and credibility by default" The parent commenter asserted their feeling that "men are awarded so little respect and credibility on the subject of gender issues". What I'm proposing with this line is that men probably can receive respect and credibility on this subject, but that they will need to do something in order to achieve it; that it will not be given to them by default. "because historically" Here I'm referencing how historic trends in the actions and speech of these people are what may provide evidence of my claim. By looking at past behavior of the group at large we may find a reason for the parent commenter's feeling. It's not my belief that this state of affairs in inherent to this group of people, but that it's simply been going on for a while. "they've been the ones causing all the shit" What I should have said instead was "being insensitive and resistant to discussion of gender issues". The point being that cis-het men in general, in many, many cases throughout history, in probably the majority of cases, have not given the kind of respect and credibility to others in terms of gender issue discussion, that the parent commenter wishes men were given. I should have explicitly qualified in my comment that I was generalizing and only meant to impune the overall majority of that group of people. Sorry. But, my point remains... men in general will continue to be treated this way, until men in general demonstrate that their perspective has changed.