3 ms·
I think GP is more in response to "view[ing] men as a kind of primordial oppressor", then the "Kill All Men" statement. In any case - "Kill All Men" was always
by neutronicus 11mo ago
I think GP is more in response to "view[ing] men as a kind of primordial oppressor", then the "Kill All Men" statement.
In any case - "Kill All Men" was always just a shibboleth. Treating it as an actual policy recommendation is prima facie risible. Throwing it out there to see who is oblivious enough to object is the point.
- JulianChastain 11mo agoWhen I grew up, I was taught that if someone in your friend group makes a racist joke, you should stand up to them, and inform them that casual racism leads to normalizing racism. Even if "Kill All Men" was just a shibboleth of a specific online culture, it seems like objecting to it would be a kind of moral duty (for the same reasons), as long we are in agreement that normalized misandry is bad. But again, in my generation I don't think there was any kind of consensus that misandry is wrong. That's why objecting to a shibboleth like this would be evidence of how "oblivious" and behind the times you are
- immibis 11mo agoOkay but "some people are racist and we should stand up to them" is different from "the sentiment that forms of masculinity are some of the chief evils of society was the dominant narrative."
- JulianChastain 11mo agoBoth are damaging and shouldn't be normalized, for similar reasons.