Comment by undergroundoverground@lemmy.world on full circle

The easiest way to see if it’s OK is to swap out “men” with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should’ve known better.

I think youre right not to engage them though. For all their talk of equality, anyone who talks like that just wants to be at the top of a new hierarchy. Remove or subjugate the men and most women (who haven’t decolonisated their minds) will just replicate the same power structures, adopting the position of patriarch without a hint of self awareness. The way forward is to help other men see the pain caused to them by the patriarchy, as its only then that we can see the pain we cause through the patriarchy, due to the rituals of disregard and empathy killing we go through as boys.

I’ll finish by saying the same thing I said to my dad, shortly after he lost his job" "yes dad, of course I’ve heard of the phrase ‘sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.’ However, you can’t always do that, especially when you’re meant to be firefighter, you doughnut.

The easiest way to see if it’s OK is to swap out “men” with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should’ve known better.

No. You are making an equivalence argument that misses the reality of power dynamics and the context of like centuries of documented social oppression.

Edit: Fuck I didn’t see erin beat me to it.

No, really that doesn’t make it ok. You’re generalizing half the population. It’s not my fault that other people are and have been trash, it’s not my fault that I was born male, and it sure feels great to be generalized with the assholes when I wish every night to just magically wake up with a cis woman’s body (for various reasons am not transitioning and run around as male presenting).

Thank you.

All landlords are parasites. All women are parasites.

One is rather true, in a metaphorical way. The other is a sexist, misogynistic slur.

I’m never quite convinced by this equivalence argument.

Those statements are very much equivalent in this context, the confusion you have is rooted in a false conclusion. You assert one statement is true, and the other is false. The reality is that both statements are false.

If you have a history of dealing with shitty landlords you may draw a conclusion that every landlord must be shitty. That is objectively false—there are many many landlords from all backgrounds and cultures who will behave differently from each other in virtually every way—but it’s an understandable emotional reaction to your personal experiences.

If you have a history of dealing with shitty women you may draw a conclusion that every woman must be shitty. That is objectively false—there are many many women from all backgrounds and cultures who will behave differently from each other in virtually every way—but it’s an understandable emotional reaction to your personal experiences.

Calling all women parasites is indeed sexist bullshit, but calling all landlords parasites isn’t fundamentally better. Generalizing people trends towards nonsense in most cases.

Three objections :

I like my current landlord, he’s my friend and we live together. When I say Landlords are parasites, I’m just saying something that, according to me, is a relatively descriptive statement. From a functional point of view, they could very well be described as functioning like parasites do.
But that’s not all. Generalization may have different semantic meanings. That’s something political movements have elaborated a lot in the last 60 years. If you read about ACAB, you’ll see quite soon that it’s nowhere near a judgment of all individuals.
But the most important argument follows. I’ll gladly say landlords are parasites or ACAB. There are many other variants I’ll never say. One could say it’s arbitrary but it’s far from it, imo. Generalizing on people who are subjects of systematic violence is furthering said violence. Generalizing about powerful interest who are in position to use individualisation and scapegoating of one or their members to ensure the continuation of their power cannot, and it’s not an ideological point, it’s a matter of social science for me, be said to be identical.

I recommend reading Howard Becker’s Whose side are we one, a different, but close and related, demonstration.

No, it’s not an equivalence argument. I didn’t say they were equally wrong or the same thing. Also, nether power dynamics nor oppression make those things right.

You’re telling me that you see no problem with black people saying the same about all white people then?

Yes, I see no problem with black people saying the same about white people; because white people have a manufactured generational power gap supporting them which is designed around keeping black people poor, underrepresented, and under served in their communities.

Much the same way as how men have manufactured a generational power gap supporting them which is designed around keeping women underrepresented.

Just because it sucks for me personally doesn’t mean it’s an invalid sentiment.

But I didn’t manufacture that and neither did you. It also, intentionally, ignores every single other intersection a white person could have.

Don’t worry, the sentiment invalidates itself. That kind of backwards bougouise feminism died in the 80s and should’ve stayed that way.

If you’re a white male, and I think I can safely assume that you are from your comments in this thread, you are the direct beneficiary of a system that has propped you up over literally everyone else. Understanding that system, and your role in it, is critical to trying to finally tear it down to make room for a fair and equitable one.

I didn’t manufacture the system, but I acknowledge it and all I can do now is continue to undermine it by pointing it out constantly.

It’s absolutely right to criticise the system that provides dividends for white people; for men; for straight, cis, able, neurotypical, tall, pretty people; and so on and so on… But even though I don’t fit into all those boxes, I don’t think that gives me the right to attack people that do.

You should reference my other comment in this thread. You’re correct that statements like “all men are trash” are unjustly prejudiced, but you’re making a false equivalence.

My point is that is that both are wrong, not that they are or are not both equally wrong. So, would you mind explaining where the equivalence is please?

I mean, I know its more of a case that some people don’t like that both of those things are wrong to do but I’m gonna need a little more than that and a misunderstanding of an informal fallacy, sorry.

In your comment, whether intended or not. It’s not a long comment. By “whatabouting” the idea of replacing men with any marginalized group, you are making a false equivalence via equivocation. By leaving out the crucial aspect of power imbalance, you minimize its role by implication. See: all lives matter in response to BLM.

You should read my longest comment within this larger thread. Truly read the whole thing, and its child comments, before forming your opinion. I clearly and explicitly state

I am not suggesting that it’s okay to make men feel responsible for the actions of people that share only a gender with them, nothing else.

and that doing so is unjust. Nuance isn’t the same thing as taking an opposing stance. I even go into the fact that women making such blanket statements likely do not hate all men. If you feel the same way after reading my full comment and understanding it, I’m happy to have a discussion about it, but by the context of your comment, I don’t believe you understand my stance, and therefore I don’t want to engage with it further.

Again, you don’t understand what a false equivalence fallacy is. So, you should really stop attempting to use it because doing so is make you look like a fool.

Whatabouting and false equivalences aren’t the same thing. I feel like I’m witnessing the death of irony here.

No, something wrong is still wrong, even if you feel bad about historical injustices. The power imbalance does not change this and also ignores every other intersection a white person could have.

You even drew a false equivalence the BLM which is the only actual false equivalence on this chain.

See the wiki pages of the fallacies you clearly don’t understand.

God damn bougouise feminists.

God forbid a rhetorical argument fall into multiple categories. I never said whataboutism and false equivalences are the same thing. You happened to do both. Equivocation has nothing to do with setting two things as equal, it’s the use of ambiguous language to avoid the bigger picture of an issue or to avoid committing to a stance. It is another form of logical fallacy. Via equivocation (omission and vague language) you omitted key facts (social power imbalance) that makes bringing up a connected, but not equivalent, issue (replacing men are trash with any other group, which is a form of whataboutism) a false equivalence.

You can say I don’t know what I’m talking about. That doesn’t make it true. Your equivocation of your whataboutism argument led to forming a false equivalence.

All lives matter in response to BLM is both whataboutism and a false equivalence. Just because someone didn’t say “what about” or "these things are equal doesn’t make those facts untrue. There is an implied “what about all those other lives, don’t they matter?” which in itself implies that the societal inequalities BLM rose in response to are equal to the pressures felt but the rest of “all lives.”

God damn bougouise feminists.

Lol

Its not whataboutism. Its trying to help you see something youre clearly missing. Its applying the same logic somewhere else, to see if it still works. Its literally how you explain fallacies.

Its not an all lives matter response either. Instead its you attempting to reject intersectionality, in the name of feminism, without a hint of irony or self awareness. Luckily for you, no one else seems to have read theory post the 1980s either.

“Men are trash” being acceptable for all women implies that every man ever has always suffered less power imbalances than every woman ever. For example, it would mean that black male slaves in the 1800s would have to of suffered less at the hand of power imbalances than Queens of the United Kingdom, for your “power imbalance makes sexism ok” argument to hold any weight. Its just a safespace for sexism, provided it’s only directed one way.

Lol no, intersectionality isn’t a false equivalence, as you’re attempting to paint. It’s the rejection of upper class white women, for whom all the men in their lives were all powerful, declaring that all men are always in a higher position of power than all women because that’s the only thing they ever saw (bougouise feminism).

Turns out, for all their talk of equality, people like yourself just want to be at the top of a new hierarchy, exacting revenge.

You literally tried to refute intersectionality with “thats like saying all lives matter.”

It’s always amusing to me to watch someone like the person you’re responding to try to browbeat an argument into submission by referencing pedantic technicalities and yet be so fundamentally wrong about what those technicalities actually mean.

Although on the topic of being pedantic, I kinda miss when whataboutism was called tu quoque. Really made the logical fallacy guys at least sound eloquent.

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

full circle(slrpnk.net)

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Community stats

Community moderators