5 ms·

There is no global mandate that says everyone has to be outraged by all "real issues". Plain and simple, that is the fallacy of relative privation. A person isn

• zo1 12y ago
  >"There is no global mandate that says everyone has to be outraged by all "real issues". Plain and simple, that is the fallacy of relative privation. A person isn't a hypocrite if they post a tweet against this poster hubbub without following up with one about prostate cancer, it just means that they have their own unique interests." We're discussing the public in aggregate. I don't think anyone is expecting each person to be outraged equally by all things that deserve it. As you say, they have their own unique interests. But if the public, in aggregate, ignores (or doesn't get vocal about) an issue while simultaneously giving another issue a disproportionate amount of attention then we can infer things. Such as that, on average, more individuals have a personal unique interest in promoting X, and ignoring Y. Or maybe there are simply more individuals promoting X than there are for Y. >"Furthermore, the author of the article has played a sort of mind game regarding the prostate cancer "real issue": he didn't take to Twitter to personally ask the "Everyday Sexism"/"equality movement" proponents if they also believed that funding for prostate cancer was worthy of concern." Again, we're discussing the public in aggregate. His actions, and the actions of the "Everyday Sexism" group are mere relays/amplifiers for public opinion. The author is merely commenting on the current state of funding, which has supposedly been driven by the up-until-now public opinion on the the topics. >"To assume that these same people wouldn't also be disappointed about a lack of funding for men's issues is really jumping to unfounded conclusions. But, then again, I never got the impression that this article was trying to inspire real conversation... just add divisive fuel to the fire." I'll go ahead and reiterate my point one more time, as you seem to be a little overly hostile towards this article for some odd reason. Even if these groups/individuals are disappointed with the lack of funding of mens issues, public opinion still overrides them. The proverbial "do as I say, not as I do" difference where people say one thing, but do another.
  • rmxt 12y ago
    My gripes are that these extrapolations and inference from a select audience, "Everyday Sexism", to the general public are both tenuous and myopic. The "Everyday Sexism" people have their concerns, prostate cancer advocates have their concerns... the world is a good place for equality and the furtherance of all humankind! News articles on Sky News and tweets from a sexism advocacy group are completely independent. There are no public opinion statistics in this article. What basis is there for assuming that the majority of the people in the Western world act according to and adhere to the "Everyday Sexism" tenets? I might be coming off as hostile to this article because I can't shake the feeling that the author is looking for outrage where there is none to be found. They consciously skirt the middle ground I mentioned in my first post, so as to rile up a mainly male audience. The article drops lines like "you can bet your life if women, or minorities of any ethnicity, sexuality or transgender were killing themselves at four times the rate of straight white men, it would be front page news" which is the opposite of a grounded, good-faith interpretation of "public opinion". This article simply doesn't explore "public opinion" with a holistic approach. The statistics given at the end of the article are misused to show that "we are better off (re: sexism) than we were before, so we might as well not talk about it anymore."