3 ms·

Ironically, by dismissing your input because of your race or gender, they are engaging in the exact behavior they are purportedly against. That kind of juvenile

Ironically, by dismissing your input because of your race or gender, they are engaging in the exact behavior they are purportedly against. That kind of juvenile hypocrisy should be avoided by everyone, but sadly, is not.

gaius 11y ago
I don't mind people believing that men have no right to speak on gender issues - it's a free country, people can believe anything they want to believe, and even say it out loud. But if that person is white and has a lot to say on race issues anyway, or went to a $40,000/year liberal arts college and majored in something with no vocational application, and speaks about poverty, then I think they maybe don't have an entirely logically consistent philosophy behind them.
- bonesmoses 11y ago
  Unfortunately that's not where it ends. I wish it was only gender or sociological issues. Beyond that, you don't have to be poor, or female, or black, or... etc., to understand empathy. In a world where empathy didn't exist, maybe they would have a point. But humans can and do empathize, and can bring in elements from that divergent background to improve the overall situation. But only if the discussion isn't cut off with, "STFU, what do you know!?"
Cthulhu_ 11y ago
They've just redefined what it means to be feminist, liberal, or whatever the opposite of racist is, and taken it to a left-wing extremist position. It's their Nietzsche's Übermensch, just anything but white, male, straight, etc - which in effect makes the murder advocates just as bad as the nazi's or any entity that advocated ethnic cleansings. At least they're still at just words now.
bakhy 11y ago
> exact behavior they are purportedly against This is the worst kind of rhetoric. Probably all groups who were ever oppressed suffered a little bit more than just people criticizing them. I guess your empathy did not go far enough to realize that?
- atlantic 11y ago
  What he's saying is that all oppressed groups suffer from prejudice before all else. Prejudice is the facilitator for all forms of oppressive behaviour. And prejudice against the supposedly privileged is a prejudice like any other. No rhetoric there.
  - bakhy 11y ago
    yes, prejudice is prejudice. and prejudice may be a facilitator of oppression (although one could talk of chicken and egg here). but prejudice is still NOT oppression. it takes more than prejudice for oppression to take place. some people, you may be surprised, go through a lot more than just experiencing occasional stereotyping. take this example - while a lot of str8 men may now be worried someone will falsely accuse them of being sexist or homophobes, I literally do not know a single gay person (I'm gay, I know a few gay people) that did not experience physical or verbal violence at least once.
mkr-hn 11y ago
It's an overcorrection for the tendency of people without an experience to speak for and over people who have the experience. Think of it like someone speaking on something technical with no relevant technical background. If near 100% of the time they were wrong, you might wish they'd just not talk about it.

gaius 11y ago

I don't mind people believing that men have no right to speak on gender issues - it's a free country, people can believe anything they want to believe, and even say it out loud. But if that person is white and has a lot to say on race issues anyway, or went to a $40,000/year liberal arts college and majored in something with no vocational application, and speaks about poverty, then I think they maybe don't have an entirely logically consistent philosophy behind them.

bonesmoses 11y ago
Unfortunately that's not where it ends. I wish it was only gender or sociological issues. Beyond that, you don't have to be poor, or female, or black, or... etc., to understand empathy. In a world where empathy didn't exist, maybe they would have a point. But humans can and do empathize, and can bring in elements from that divergent background to improve the overall situation. But only if the discussion isn't cut off with, "STFU, what do you know!?"

Cthulhu_ 11y ago

They've just redefined what it means to be feminist, liberal, or whatever the opposite of racist is, and taken it to a left-wing extremist position. It's their Nietzsche's Übermensch, just anything but white, male, straight, etc - which in effect makes the murder advocates just as bad as the nazi's or any entity that advocated ethnic cleansings. At least they're still at just words now.

bakhy 11y ago

> exact behavior they are purportedly against This is the worst kind of rhetoric. Probably all groups who were ever oppressed suffered a little bit more than just people criticizing them. I guess your empathy did not go far enough to realize that?

atlantic 11y ago
What he's saying is that all oppressed groups suffer from prejudice before all else. Prejudice is the facilitator for all forms of oppressive behaviour. And prejudice against the supposedly privileged is a prejudice like any other. No rhetoric there.
- bakhy 11y ago
  yes, prejudice is prejudice. and prejudice may be a facilitator of oppression (although one could talk of chicken and egg here). but prejudice is still NOT oppression. it takes more than prejudice for oppression to take place. some people, you may be surprised, go through a lot more than just experiencing occasional stereotyping. take this example - while a lot of str8 men may now be worried someone will falsely accuse them of being sexist or homophobes, I literally do not know a single gay person (I'm gay, I know a few gay people) that did not experience physical or verbal violence at least once.

mkr-hn 11y ago

It's an overcorrection for the tendency of people without an experience to speak for and over people who have the experience. Think of it like someone speaking on something technical with no relevant technical background. If near 100% of the time they were wrong, you might wish they'd just not talk about it.