[Politics] What matters more? My Sex or my Race? (Interesting MCU conversation explored)

[RobertEHouse]

I don't think that can be entirely attributed to inequality. Many(if not most) women also favor a work/life balance more, and aren't willing to sacrifice everything for their job like so many male CEO's do.

Entirely due to inequality? Perhaps not, but it'd be a big factor.

As to work/life balance, I'd say that's in large part due to social expectations. Women are supposed to but their careers on hold to raise a family, men are supposed to not do this. Which is itself an inequality. If the husband wants to stay home and look after the kids, and the wife to run the company, both will face derision.

Stroopwafel you are actually right, that and all you have do to is look at the gender pay gap to get a clear idea. (Have to scroll down a bit, the whole site breaks a lot down. )

* Men usually go into more high risk high stress careers. We are talking like Deep water welder,Stock broker, in corporate companies. High risk and stress means usually a high pay and pension plan. These types of careers usually offer limited holidays and down time.

* Women tend to usually go into jobs such as social worker, Teacher, counselor,which are lower stress and allow more work/life balance. This though comes with more days off but a lower pay check and pension.


*the interesting thing is the gap is shrinking, simply because in part some men don't want a full time stress job. Opt for teacher or social workers etc. A few women go into high stress either having families all ready or simply not wanting one.

https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Only if you use the pop version of intersectionality popular on Tumblr or Instagram. Actual, honest to God, intersectionality is an academic theory...

I know very much what intersectionality is, thank you very much. I don't need you whatever-splaining to me, because your disapproval of my analysis doesn't actually mean I don't know what it is. The problem with "academic theories" is they're worthless absent practicum, those willing to actually put it in practice consistent with the theory itself, or expansion and evolution towards a form that yields results.

Feel free to ask me how straight-up moronic contemporary alternate voting method advocates are in the face of Duverger's law.

Intersectionality is itself unfalsifiable, it yields unfalsifiable and subjective claims, it's academically stagnant and has been for thirty years, and it has no potential to yield practicum or workable policy positions. It's not even a theory at this point, it's dogma, and the sooner progressive and social justice advocates ditch it in rhetoric as well as principle and practice, the better.

 

[Saelune]

Generalisations are as true as the facts supporting them. The problem is their misapplication.

The context here is them being applied to individuals. Sure, generalizations can be based on factual information but the moment you move away from academic pursuits and apply them to specific individuals you're bound to misrepresent any individual because nobody will fit in with that general concept that's derived by averaging every individual. Even if they put a lot of effort into being very very average. In my eyes, saying to someone "you're a man so you have to take a step back and let women's opinions rule the discourse" is no different than saying to someone "95% of people are not gay so you by definition can't be gay cause you're a person". Both things use generalizations to erase the individual. If you're bothered by the latter, you MUST be bothered by the former to not be a hypocrite.

These kinda questions are why oppression olympics are a failed cause. Even if you satisfy this quandary, next time someone will add sexuality or disability into the equation. Someone will add immigration status.

Then let them. This isn't the last MCU or even super hero movie. If someone wants a gay hero after Captain Marvel, let them. If someone wants a muslim hero after that gay one. Let them. Trans one? Hell yeah bud.

You shouldn't be this upset because people ask for things on the internet.

Dunno where I'm being any amount of upset here lol. I'm just pointing out the irrationality here. People's opinions ought not be granted special consideration based on these factors, this actively worsens our society by pursuing goals outside of merit. Someone being female doesn't make them by default more suitable to opine about MCU protagonists or films or what have you. Any decision reached with this as a basis will be fundamentally weaker than it otherwise would have been. At some point we have to say to someone "no, you having three moles in your nose and not two does not mean you deserve special consideration" and since nobody can really draw a line about which arbitrary characteristic is fair game to be granted sagacity over but which is patently absurd, I will simply say that none of them should have that function in society and that way everyone's gonna be treated fairly. Cause come on, being blind or deaf is way more disarming and a bigger hardship to live with by orders of magnitude as opposed to being black or gay or what have you but we barely even hear from those people. It's kinda obscene.

I'm not even that much into comic books and their films to begin with, it's the principle of the matter that's the issue here.

Your choice in words and topics, coupled with your "its not like I even *like* comics b-baka" finisher reveal your true feelings here bud.

I mean hell, first we were talking about what the next Marvel hero would be, and now we're debating on whether someone's life experiences qualifies them to have more nuanced opinions on media???? I know people on the internet are pretty homogeneous. Hell, I couldn't tell one gamergater from the other. But sometimes people's experiences can give them better insight into topics.

And sometimes it's experiences that straight white men don't have.

I don't know why this is a hot take

There's no experience that a straight white man (or any person in general) can't comprehend, even if they never experience it themselves. It's called empathy. You study a subject, read about it and come to learn. To out of hand wave off somebody because of arbitrary characteristics that are not their choice is the exact evil perpetrated against women that you're railing against here.


And I am very much a deredere type of person, not much in the tsun department, if I like something I gush over it almost compulsively. I've only seen the first thor movie, the Xmen origins movie, black panther and I think parts of ironman 1? Not seen any avengers at all. Like I said, not really a fan. I'm way more into manga.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

It is not a one beats all. We all have privileges and disadvantages.

I have privilege for being an American, and white and living close to New York in a good neighborhood.

I am disadvantaged by being LGBT, particularly trans.

And yes, there are sexist women, racist black people, even homophobic gay people of all things.

Though another important point is who is bigoted, the power they have, and how they use it. The President of the US being bigoted is worse than an average citizen being bigoted.

The point is you can infinitely go into these sub-facets of people's being and keep dividing and dividing forever. Maybe someone was short and has a complex with that. I had bracers growing up which I consider to be isolating and make you stand out negatively. Stuff like that. You can always find stuff like that to make yourself seem harmed by something that's not your fault. That's just life and chance. Some people are born with no lungs and die and some people are born perfect the heirs of kings. You're not gonna fix this by making everyone aware of all the multitudes of ways that life was being life at you. Just take it for granted that life works like that and move past it onto things that are about your actions and not your circumstances.


In the context of this topic; your opinion on movies is not more valuable purely because you're this or that sex. Someone who is just another man can still be way more worthwhile to listen to based on his expertise on lore and so on. It's why when experts testify at court their expert opinion is given more weight than a layman's, and there is no such category of expertise that is attained by merely being born as something. You have to actually accomplish things to get your opinion to count more than that of just another random insignificant person. Your oppression doesn't make you significant, even if you're marginally more oppressed than most everyone else. It just makes you pitiable.

Remember when people with braces weren't legally allowed to marry? Remember when movements of naturally straight teeth supremacists marched chanting to kill you? Remember when you had your liberty over your body made illegal in the state of Georgia? No? Hm. Weird.

Yeah the thing is that those are not the only aspects of individuals that intersectionality busies itself with. If they were you'd have a point. No, they claim being merely a fatass is also oppression, when in fact back in the times of slavery the fat people were the privileged since being fat was a sign of being wealthy and it is also indicated by paintings of women at the time depicting them more on the chubby side. And there's no such laws in place oppressing fat people either (outside of the law of gravity I guess).

So yeah, you actually agree with me that at least some arbitrary characteristics that intersectionality deems important are in fact comparatively unimportant. The issue now becomes how do we go on to decide where the line is, and I don't think there's any good way of doing that. Hence my initial response.

Cause come on, being blind or deaf is way more disarming and a bigger hardship to live with by orders of magnitude as opposed to being black or gay or what have you but we barely even hear from those people. It's kinda obscene.

This literally goes into the topic of Intersectionality and sub-facets you were speaking about before. Everyday things will be harder for people with physical ailments. But they are 'treated better' by society at large. However, this better treatment offend makes those challenged individuals feel like more of a subject of Pity than an actual person.

Meanwhile, being apart of a stigmatized minority can and has lead majority populations to go out of their way to mistreat those minorities because they know they simply can't fight back and no one will care. Look at the treatment of the Native American and how the majority basically used them as human punching bags Forever. But then people in the majority who do not see this treatment or do not care about anything that doesn't happen outside of their sphere of influence will decide that this is made up BS that isn't worth their time, or made up lies to get sympathy.

A meeting between that Blind and/or deaf person and that Native American person can go one of two ways. They can look at the other's strife and empathize. See some of their struggle and connect through that. Or they can lose themselves in their own issues and instead of find an ally, they found a competitor for attention.

The former is what I tried to do with.. I'm just going to call her S because I'm tired of just referring to her as my friend. This is what I tried to do with S. I tried to present my plight as well to say I get it. I know what it's like not to be counted. I could dismiss her plight by saying "You're a White Woman, S. You are the most coveted person on this planet. What do you know about struggle?". That's easy. That's shifting the focus on me and whoo, boy, won't that be fun?

But instead, wouldn't it be better in the long run if S and I could stand together? Instead of just these base differences and counting that only, can't we sit and find out how we're alike and build from there? Because thinking about how we're different and building Walls has not helped us in one single moment of humanity's history.

Also, I don't know what you've been listening to but you hear about people with Disabilities having to champion for their own agency or share of resources all the time. All the time. Do you have a family member in Education? If so, then you hear about how funding has been Dwindling under Federal Government Spending [https://vinson-consulting.com/blog/with-federal-funding-dwindling-special-services-programs-struggle-to-support-students/]. We hear how Mental Health and disabilities account for at least 25 percent of Police Killings [https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/police-command-and-control-culture-often-lethal]. But these are swept under the rug. Tragic Accidents due to Police Following Procedure.

We live in a society where one side can have "Tragic Accidents" and the other side has "No Excuses". This is a daunting prospect. Especially if you're not in the Majority, and put that to the Nth Magnitude when you're on the Ostracized Fringe in the Majority's perception. There can be no fair play, therefore no peace for those who deal with it and yet still has to hear sentiments of "It's not a fair world, so stop whining".

Which leads me to ask people who always spout this mindset one question that always comes to mind... So what are you doing?

We all struggle with the frailty of life, the limited scope of power or influence of our individual positions, and the utter meaningless of it all compared to the unfazed Universe that won't even notice when the Earth itself gets stuffed out. But somehow we feel the need to tell people that they shouldn't voice their opinions to make their lives better. What always struck me as odd is... isn't the very act of trying to tell people to suffer in silence the act of trying to change the conditions of another individual's life? That they are tired of having to think about something and they rather not, so they will speak out to tell others to stop speaking out so they don't have to deal with it any more?

How is that any different than people speaking out to have agency over their own bodies, to say their skin color doesn't matter, to say sexuality and gender can be fluid even if you don't think it to be? How are they always complaining when they bring up those ideals and it's so very annoying, but those who tell them to shut up are only speaking their mind and must be heeded as for some reason their opinion is faultless compared to people speaking to try to have a better life?

To sum up, there's often this weird dichotomy that baffles me. There's always a segment of people who tell others to stop talking, stop bringing up things, and stop trying to change the world. And very often, these are the same people who will at some point say they never heard of a problem before so there must not really be one. I often am fascinated on how that works.

I think your error is conflating how society treats you with how your life actually unfolds.


Even is society sees to a disabled person's every need and heaps praises upon them constantly, their LIFE will still be suffering compared to the life of an average pleb with little power and a lot of freedom.

Yes, society may frown upon them, but at least you have the power to (justly) frown back and use your own capacity to seek a measure of happiness. Happiness earned, not given, one that's meaningful. I think such a life will be definitely riskier but I think it's also a lot more meaningful and ultimately worthwhile. Someone may not find happiness that way but I think most people would choose it in a heartbeat over the alternative.


This is the issue with this blind spot you form on yourself, you overfocus on the system and forget to pay attention to the individual and how their life is actually turning out with these influences applied on it. If a blind person still suffers more than a black person, it really doesn't matter one bit how well society treats them. It's extremely callous to think that it does. Such thinking only comes from a place where you're competing for oppression with other people instead of trying to uplift everyone around you and in so doing be uplifted yourself. The measure for how oppressed someone is should not be a list of things that are unjustly foisted on you, it should be how you feel about your life and the factual options you have available to you. Not being able to see your parent's or children's smiles is imo a whole lot more of a detriment than not being hired for a job because your name is too creole-sounding. It's the kind of pain whole books can be written over and you can't merely jot it down on a list and pretend you have captured it.


Anyhow, in the context of this topic, there's not really a minority since women make 50% of the country, though I will say that white women are not the most coveted like you describe, maybe they are in other places so if you average the whole world it adds up but in the USA it's Asian girls that rank the highest in desirability polls from things like dating sites. Either way, you say you're trying to make your life better but how does that excuse making other people's lives worse in the process? Not allowing fans of movies to opine when those movies were built upon their continued patronage over decades is a MUCH larger blow to those people's lives than it is to the women who lack their preferred protagonist. The capacity to affect those movies, to be a contributing part of that community is a bigger part of a lot of those men's life and to rob them of it is a greater evil and robs folks of more happiness by an order of magnitude.

At best it's just really selfish, it's a thinking that says "well, I'm oppressed, so I get to do this to you cause you had it coming" but no, two wrongs never make a right. Good is good no matter who experiences it and the option that generates the most good overall is better for our species, even if it in its steps follows a lack of equity, since everyone will eventually be raised up by that progress higher than they'd have otherwise been, even if there's never full equity. Lots of people had to die for medicine to evolve to the place that it has, lots of people suffered, but now we enjoy the fruits of that labor and the average human lives twice as long as most KINGS did back in the days of antiquity. And they don't even feel like kings either, it's pretty hilarious! Our average pantry has enough spices to raise an army and conquer the neighboring town if it was a thousand years ago, but we just think of spice as commonplace and mundane. I'll just be busy here being awed by those and myriads of other similar facts.

Lots of straight white men understand empathy. Those men are not Republican men. Those men are also not people threatened by black or women or LGBT rights. They are allies to those groups because they understand that those groups deserve the same privileges as they themselves do.

Dude, Dreiko, the moral is we need to all not be shitty to eachother. But we also need to not pretend that everything is equally unfair. It isn't. It shouldn't be a pissing contest, so stop making it one.

The only reason we need to keep making these so called lines is because of bigots looking for loopholes. 'All people are equal' should be enough, but then some people said blacks arent people, and that women arent people, and that gays arent people, and we keep having to explicitly make it clear that we are ALL PEOPLE!

 

[Batou667]

So what are your thoughts? Does what I say suck, but still being a man for the most part makes up for whatever I have to endure? Should people be more open minded than what it appears from the outside? Or should we all stop talking to each other and just ask about the weather like we're British or Canadian?

Your thoughts underline why I think Intersectionality is a well-intentioned fool's errand that boils down to a pedantic, navel-gazing SJW Bingo. And it sounds like you're learning that you can be as "marginalised" a minority as you like, the progressives will still throw you under the bus the minute you stop being flavour of the month.

 

[Saelune]

Only if you use the pop version of intersectionality popular on Tumblr or Instagram. Actual, honest to God, intersectionality is an academic theory...

I know very much what intersectionality is, thank you very much. I don't need you whatever-splaining to me, because your disapproval of my analysis doesn't actually mean I don't know what it is. The problem with "academic theories" is they're worthless absent practicum, those willing to actually put it in practice consistent with the theory itself, or expansion and evolution towards a form that yields results.

Feel free to ask me how straight-up moronic contemporary alternate voting method advocates are in the face of Duverger's law.

Intersectionality is itself unfalsifiable, it yields unfalsifiable and subjective claims, and it has no potential to yield practicum or workable policy positions. It's not even a theory at this point, it's dogma, and the sooner progressive and social justice advocates ditch it in rhetoric as well as principle and practice, the better.

You don't know what intersectionality is.

 

[Saelune]

So what are your thoughts? Does what I say suck, but still being a man for the most part makes up for whatever I have to endure? Should people be more open minded than what it appears from the outside? Or should we all stop talking to each other and just ask about the weather like we're British or Canadian?

Your thoughts underline why I think Intersectionality is a well-intentioned fool's errand that boils down to a pedantic, navel-gazing SJW Bingo. And it sounds like you're learning that you can be as "marginalised" a minority as you like, the progressives will still throw you under the bus the minute you stop being flavour of the month.

You don't know what intersectionality is.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Cause come on, being blind or deaf is way more disarming and a bigger hardship to live with by orders of magnitude as opposed to being black or gay or what have you but we barely even hear from those people. It's kinda obscene.

This literally goes into the topic of Intersectionality and sub-facets you were speaking about before. Everyday things will be harder for people with physical ailments. But they are 'treated better' by society at large. However, this better treatment offend makes those challenged individuals feel like more of a subject of Pity than an actual person.

Meanwhile, being apart of a stigmatized minority can and has lead majority populations to go out of their way to mistreat those minorities because they know they simply can't fight back and no one will care. Look at the treatment of the Native American and how the majority basically used them as human punching bags Forever. But then people in the majority who do not see this treatment or do not care about anything that doesn't happen outside of their sphere of influence will decide that this is made up BS that isn't worth their time, or made up lies to get sympathy.

A meeting between that Blind and/or deaf person and that Native American person can go one of two ways. They can look at the other's strife and empathize. See some of their struggle and connect through that. Or they can lose themselves in their own issues and instead of find an ally, they found a competitor for attention.

The former is what I tried to do with.. I'm just going to call her S because I'm tired of just referring to her as my friend. This is what I tried to do with S. I tried to present my plight as well to say I get it. I know what it's like not to be counted. I could dismiss her plight by saying "You're a White Woman, S. You are the most coveted person on this planet. What do you know about struggle?". That's easy. That's shifting the focus on me and whoo, boy, won't that be fun?

But instead, wouldn't it be better in the long run if S and I could stand together? Instead of just these base differences and counting that only, can't we sit and find out how we're alike and build from there? Because thinking about how we're different and building Walls has not helped us in one single moment of humanity's history.

Also, I don't know what you've been listening to but you hear about people with Disabilities having to champion for their own agency or share of resources all the time. All the time. Do you have a family member in Education? If so, then you hear about how funding has been Dwindling under Federal Government Spending [https://vinson-consulting.com/blog/with-federal-funding-dwindling-special-services-programs-struggle-to-support-students/]. We hear how Mental Health and disabilities account for at least 25 percent of Police Killings [https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/police-command-and-control-culture-often-lethal]. But these are swept under the rug. Tragic Accidents due to Police Following Procedure.

We live in a society where one side can have "Tragic Accidents" and the other side has "No Excuses". This is a daunting prospect. Especially if you're not in the Majority, and put that to the Nth Magnitude when you're on the Ostracized Fringe in the Majority's perception. There can be no fair play, therefore no peace for those who deal with it and yet still has to hear sentiments of "It's not a fair world, so stop whining".

Which leads me to ask people who always spout this mindset one question that always comes to mind... So what are you doing?

We all struggle with the frailty of life, the limited scope of power or influence of our individual positions, and the utter meaningless of it all compared to the unfazed Universe that won't even notice when the Earth itself gets stuffed out. But somehow we feel the need to tell people that they shouldn't voice their opinions to make their lives better. What always struck me as odd is... isn't the very act of trying to tell people to suffer in silence the act of trying to change the conditions of another individual's life? That they are tired of having to think about something and they rather not, so they will speak out to tell others to stop speaking out so they don't have to deal with it any more?

How is that any different than people speaking out to have agency over their own bodies, to say their skin color doesn't matter, to say sexuality and gender can be fluid even if you don't think it to be? How are they always complaining when they bring up those ideals and it's so very annoying, but those who tell them to shut up are only speaking their mind and must be heeded as for some reason their opinion is faultless compared to people speaking to try to have a better life?

To sum up, there's often this weird dichotomy that baffles me. There's always a segment of people who tell others to stop talking, stop bringing up things, and stop trying to change the world. And very often, these are the same people who will at some point say they never heard of a problem before so there must not really be one. I often am fascinated on how that works.

I think your error is conflating how society treats you with how your life actually unfolds.

Even is society sees to a disabled person's every need and heaps praises upon them constantly, their LIFE will still be suffering compared to the life of an average pleb with little power and a lot of freedom.

Yes, society may frown upon them, but at least you have the power to (justly) frown back and use your own capacity to seek a measure of happiness. Happiness earned, not given, one that's meaningful. I think such a life will be definitely riskier but I think it's also a lot more meaningful and ultimately worthwhile. Someone may not find happiness that way but I think most people would choose it in a heartbeat over the alternative.

This is the issue with this blind spot you form on yourself, you overfocus on the system and forget to pay attention to the individual and how their life is actually turning out with these influences applied on it. If a blind person still suffers more than a black person, it really doesn't matter one bit how well society treats them. It's extremely callous to think that it does. Such thinking only comes from a place where you're competing for oppression with other people instead of trying to uplift everyone around you and in so doing be uplifted yourself. The measure for how oppressed someone is should not be a list of things that are unjustly foisted on you, it should be how you feel about your life and the factual options you have available to you. Not being able to see your parent's or children's smiles is imo a whole lot more of a detriment than not being hired for a job because your name is too creole-sounding. It's the kind of pain whole books can be written over and you can't merely jot it down on a list and pretend you have captured it.

Anyhow, in the context of this topic, there's not really a minority since women make 50% of the country, though I will say that white women are not the most coveted like you describe, maybe they are in other places so if you average the whole world it adds up but in the USA it's Asian girls that rank the highest in desirability polls from things like dating sites. Either way, you say you're trying to make your life better but how does that excuse making other people's lives worse in the process? Not allowing fans of movies to opine when those movies were built upon their continued patronage over decades is a MUCH larger blow to those people's lives than it is to the women who lack their preferred protagonist. The capacity to affect those movies, to be a contributing part of that community is a bigger part of a lot of those men's life and to rob them of it is a greater evil and robs folks of more happiness by an order of magnitude.

At best it's just really selfish, it's a thinking that says "well, I'm oppressed, so I get to do this to you cause you had it coming" but no, two wrongs never make a right. Good is good no matter who experiences it and the option that generates the most good overall is better for our species, even if it in its steps follows a lack of equity, since everyone will eventually be raised up by that progress higher than they'd have otherwise been, even if there's never full equity. Lots of people had to die for medicine to evolve to the place that it has, lots of people suffered, but now we enjoy the fruits of that labor and the average human lives twice as long as most KINGS did back in the days of antiquity. And they don't even feel like kings either, it's pretty hilarious! Our average pantry has enough spices to raise an army and conquer the neighboring town if it was a thousand years ago, but we just think of spice as commonplace and mundane. I'll just be busy here being awed by those and myriads of other similar facts.

I'm... trying to see if we even had the same conversation.

I literally said that life will be harder with physical Ailments, and though even every day society will treat them 'better', most will come to resent such treatment, making it not as welcomed as people might thing.

This literally goes into the topic of Intersectionality and sub-facets you were speaking about before. Everyday things will be harder for people with physical ailments. But they are 'treated better' by society at large. However, this better treatment offend makes those challenged individuals feel like more of a subject of Pity than an actual person.

As I said in later in the post, Society DOESN'T see to their every need. Most of the time, they are at the bottom rung, and the first in line to have their funds cut and their services erased. This is a massively unfair yet regularly implemented situation that most Physically or Mentally Challenged people find themselves in.

And furthermore, I don't understand your meaning, really. About me being able to go out and find happiness in my life, to earn it. That is literally the same thing with every blind person I know, everyone in a wheelchair like my cousin, every disabled or challenged person whether it be from Birth or Accident, every living person ever in life. That is the same for everyone. I don't follow your meaning when you apply it to me. In fact, I don't even get this in the context of any bit of our communication. We're not talking about happiness. We're talking about people who champion their vulnerabilities over others'. We're talking about sharing the stage, and not trying to make a one Tragedy show. I'm really not trying to be flippant, but I'm struggling with trying to answer you as it being germane to the conversation at hand.

You try to make a point about focus on the individuality of human endeavors by using Generalities. A Blind person's life has systemic problems in basic survival. In the environment, stripped of Society, the Blind person is in an unquestionable disadvantage to everyone.

But the problem is, we can't strip society from the conversation because it will be the only situation where skin color matters. More over, we can't strip society from the conversation because unless you're not around people (and if you're not, what does any of this matter), society will be everywhere. In a Societal world, A Black Person can suffer more than a Blind Person. A Blind Person can be rich, comfortable, and be taken care of. While having one of their senses taken away from them, they can still have a better quality of life than other people. And understand: A better quality of life (Having the finer things, the best education handed to them, jobs at their beck and call, money, a supportive family and set of friends) does not mean an easier life. Which I think you're conflating Suffering with. You're asking me and others to just see being blind as suffering, when I think it's up to the individual to express to me their life experiences and tell me how they think about them.

I think it's more callous to look at someone with a different lifestyle than me and automatically assume they are suffering. That's prejudging their experiences without input.

I'm going to count this up to misunderstanding, so I'm going to clear it up. Mindsets like the one I expressed with the "White Women" comment are dumb. As dumb as telling me that just being a man means I'm represented by all men everywhere so I don't have to worry. I thought I made the facetiousness clear with "That's easy. That's shifting the focus on me and whoo, boy, won't that be fun?". If I did not, I do apologize.

But the rest of that paragraph is ripe for the picking, although I will temper myself. With your 'Opine' comment, you forget one part of that equation.

Minorities have been paying to go see those movies too. Women have been going to see those movies too. LGBTQ fans have been going to see those movies too.

Like, I'm actually considering that you're being humorous at this statement, because the level of piss-taking seems extreme. The fact that they have a female protagonist robs men of their happiness? Like it's some sort of slap in the face that there's a movie that's not for them?

Not every Martial Art movie is for me. It's not robbing me of happiness if Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li exists. Likewise, it's not a slap in the face of Direct-To-Video VHS tapes if the new martial art flicks star less Van Damme and More Michael Jai White.

I really hope I just misread that whole thing. I don't want to go in too much in case I did. I hope this is just a case of mixed wires, because if not... I honestly don't know.

 

[Erttheking]

So what are your thoughts? Does what I say suck, but still being a man for the most part makes up for whatever I have to endure? Should people be more open minded than what it appears from the outside? Or should we all stop talking to each other and just ask about the weather like we're British or Canadian?

Your thoughts underline why I think Intersectionality is a well-intentioned fool's errand that boils down to a pedantic, navel-gazing SJW Bingo. And it sounds like you're learning that you can be as "marginalised" a minority as you like, the progressives will still throw you under the bus the minute you stop being flavour of the month.

Yup, as a progressive, that sure is what I like to do. You got me all figured out. Oh no wait, I generally recognize that society as a whole tends to favor one type of person and that other people tend to be less pandered to.

Only if you use the pop version of intersectionality popular on Tumblr or Instagram. Actual, honest to God, intersectionality is an academic theory...

I know very much what intersectionality is, thank you very much. I don't need you whatever-splaining to me, because your disapproval of my analysis doesn't actually mean I don't know what it is. The problem with "academic theories" is they're worthless absent practicum, those willing to actually put it in practice consistent with the theory itself, or expansion and evolution towards a form that yields results.

Feel free to ask me how straight-up moronic contemporary alternate voting method advocates are in the face of Duverger's law.

Intersectionality is itself unfalsifiable, it yields unfalsifiable and subjective claims, it's academically stagnant and has been for thirty years, and it has no potential to yield practicum or workable policy positions. It's not even a theory at this point, it's dogma, and the sooner progressive and social justice advocates ditch it in rhetoric as well as principle and practice, the better.

I find it a bit funny that you think intersectionality is "unfalsifiable" when all you need to do is look at the Republican party and how utterly dominated by straight white men. A handful of women, all Christain, all hetero. Frankly, the way the Republican party acts is a downright textbook example of intersectionality. Blacks, hispanics, women, the LGBT community, the Republican party shits on them all. So how did you prove intersectionality doesn't exist again? Oh right, you spoke about it harshly. You didn't go into much detail into how it was wrong, you just said that it was wrong.

And it hasn't solved all equality problems, and racism still exists so I guess we should just throw everything Martin Luther King Jr. ever said in the bin because that's all way older than 30 years. Or maybe anger and frustration with a situation doesn't give you full reign to idly dismiss everything you dislike.

Maybe you should listen to Geth, I get the feeling she's a lot more well educated than you on the subject.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Lots of straight white men understand empathy. Those men are not Republican men. Those men are also not people threatened by black or women or LGBT rights. They are allies to those groups because they understand that those groups deserve the same privileges as they themselves do.

Dude, Dreiko, the moral is we need to all not be shitty to eachother. But we also need to not pretend that everything is equally unfair. It isn't. It shouldn't be a pissing contest, so stop making it one.

The only reason we need to keep making these so called lines is because of bigots looking for loopholes. 'All people are equal' should be enough, but then some people said blacks arent people, and that women arent people, and that gays arent people, and we keep having to explicitly make it clear that we are ALL PEOPLE!

You also need to not pretend that things are supposed to not be unequally unfair. You need to take it for granted that they will be, you need to cherish when they're made less so, you need to rejoice in every step we take in making things more equal, as inequity is the natural order of the universe and our civilization is what innovated equality.

The people who said blacks and women (and the "other") aren't people were NOT people looking for loophole, with the default being "all people are equal". You have your timeline backwards.

For millennia the powerless were not equal to the in-group community's rulers, the "other" was something to tame, conquer or exterminate. The people who first discovered sub-saharan Africans considered them the missing link of evolution between apes and humans. There wasn't this magical equality movement moving along in the 1400s but some dastardly Dutch merchant made a loophole that allowed slavery to be perpetrated upon them. Slavery was the norm.


Our society, with all of its ills, is the one that invented things like equality movements, concepts like women being more than cattle and so on. In order to do that, it had to first do all those evils upon people for long enough to notice them being evil. The alternative is not a society without evils, the alternative is a society fully ignorant of those things being evil at all to begin with. There literally has never existed a society which started out with equality but then some republican-esque actors found a loophole and messed it up.


Finally, I think I've said it to you before but I'm no republican lol. You need to try to open your mind to diversity of opinion from the left because other, less confident people will take comments like these to mean they really should go join the republicans. My approach is one of not letting folks co-opt liberal values with progressive nuttiness though, so you don't have to worry, I'm still voting for Bernie while telling you that you're wrong when I feel that you are.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Dreiko. What is "supposed" to be doesn't matter. What does matter is what is. And for fuck's sake Dreiko, telling a disadvantaged person how they should be feeling about the march towards equality is one of the most utterly tone-deaf things I've heard in awhile.

And we don't live in an era where we openly genocide and enslave, whoop-de-do. Better does not equal good by default Dreiko. If the bar was set so utterly low, baby steps forward do not automatically warrant celebration, particularly when there are people trying to force things backwards.

 

[stroopwafel]

Lots of straight white men understand empathy. Those men are not Republican men. Those men are also not people threatened by black or women or LGBT rights. They are allies to those groups because they understand that those groups deserve the same privileges as they themselves do.

The problems lie in those qualifications. People can empathize with people, not with pedantic social statements. I think this youtuber says it very well.

 

[Worgen]

Well, technically race only really matters because other people make it matter. Sex there are actual biological differences that are useful, like if someone has ovaries or not. You really can't tell anything by someones skin color besides their skin color.

Edit: I should really read the post and not just go on the subject line. Anyway this seems deep enough that I'm gonna leave it to other people. *gets out of the pool*

 

[Trunkage]

Hhm... Well Dreiko, thankfully, already made my point on your questions so instead I'll bring up something I think this might be an indication of the problem with coalitions, if one party, party 1, of that coalition gets the chance to get what they want but another party, party 2, doesn't, chances are that party 1 is going to take that instead of continuing to stand with party 2 in solidarity.

For instance, LGBT, why is the T there? The LGB indicates sexual and romantic preferences while the T indicates an identity of self that goes against what is more common. It's a bit like how Visual Novels are placed in the same stores as games despite them being more like interactive graphic novels for the most part. They aren't what you'd technically consider a game (Except for the VN's that do have gameplay) but because their audience and niche attract similar groups of people and placing them with games increases the number of people that will see and purchase them, they get placed with games.

I'm percolating in my head the idea that one might be able to tell if a minority group truly has strength to stand on its own if it is willing to distance itself from another minority group or "eat" it for its own benefit. I've noticed more and more of my fellow aspies acting... snobbish in regards to talking about NT's on forums which I feel is another sign of us having more power in the public sphere that they feel they can act that way.

The real pissing contest is done by bitter straight white men who cant handle the notion of giving a fuck about people who dont look like them.

It always stuns me when you say these things with a completely straight face and no sense of the irony of how you yourself act like the people you describe.

It stuns me that people who support Trump complain I am uncivil. Oh wait, its because they don't actually care about civility, they just care about keeping people like me oppressed.

You agree with Dreiko. Thats the problem. Because you should not agree with Dreiko on this topic.

It's the same problem with Racism. Their definition of civility is not in line with yours, and generally they make it up on the spot instead of having to deal with an argument.

A lot of troubles arises when people don't feel part of a group. It doesn't matter if it's LBGT, Incels, women, men, racists, conservative or liberals. Being part of a group makes us feel secure. The same issues arises with Captain America. Him being white man makes it hard for some people to connect with him, just like Black Panther is harder for some white people to connect with, or Danvers is hard for some men to connect with. We need connection to feel secure, and just look at Incels to realise what happens when you feel outside the group.

I found Black Panther average. It didn't connect with me, but it sure connect with some people. I'm not going to take that away from people just becuase I didn't connect with it. I thought Captain Marvel was way better, but I seem to be in the minority, at least on this forum

Life is hard and to say a person is a man or white had privilege is ignorant to who they are as an individual. We all have our own individual struggles and pains regardless of our sex or race. Yet, to clump someone by sex/race and say it is easier for them is not accounting for every person known as one. It devalues the individual as a whole and is the same tactic the KKK or Nazism did to dehumanize Jews. It ignores that it is baseline racism at its core, with a society which tides itself to justice. It is in essence borderline Joseph Goebbles thinking and approach. Every person is a individual, and as a individual they are not held to these stereotypes.

The same is true with the MCU characters; they should be based upon themselves as individuals. Not characters to just check mark a group. They should be individuals first well written, in essence be human without being a stereotype. Ironically, it seems Hollywood is more interested fluff than actual character development.So anything created for LGBTQ etc would just feel very hollow and placed in films just to fill seats.

Sounds like your an inter-sectionalist.

Hey, I'm all for well written LBGT characters. LBGT is not a character trait. Just don't expect that to connect with some audience who've never experienced anything like thier world view, especially when they automatically find it deplorable or evil. No amount of writing will ever get over that hurdle

Becuase, I have found, some people are using this bias, and pretending it got something to do with the writing or story.

 

[Saelune]

Lots of straight white men understand empathy. Those men are not Republican men. Those men are also not people threatened by black or women or LGBT rights. They are allies to those groups because they understand that those groups deserve the same privileges as they themselves do.

Dude, Dreiko, the moral is we need to all not be shitty to eachother. But we also need to not pretend that everything is equally unfair. It isn't. It shouldn't be a pissing contest, so stop making it one.

The only reason we need to keep making these so called lines is because of bigots looking for loopholes. 'All people are equal' should be enough, but then some people said blacks arent people, and that women arent people, and that gays arent people, and we keep having to explicitly make it clear that we are ALL PEOPLE!

You also need to not pretend that things are supposed to not be unequally unfair. You need to take it for granted that they will be, you need to cherish when they're made less so, you need to rejoice in every step we take in making things more equal, as inequity is the natural order of the universe and our civilization is what innovated equality.

The people who said blacks and women (and the "other") aren't people were NOT people looking for loophole, with the default being "all people are equal". You have your timeline backwards.

For millennia the powerless were not equal to the in-group community's rulers, the "other" was something to tame, conquer or exterminate. The people who first discovered sub-saharan Africans considered them the missing link of evolution between apes and humans. There wasn't this magical equality movement moving along in the 1400s but some dastardly Dutch merchant made a loophole that allowed slavery to be perpetrated upon them. Slavery was the norm.


Our society, with all of its ills, is the one that invented things like equality movements, concepts like women being more than cattle and so on. In order to do that, it had to first do all those evils upon people for long enough to notice them being evil. The alternative is not a society without evils, the alternative is a society fully ignorant of those things being evil at all to begin with. There literally has never existed a society which started out with equality but then some republican-esque actors found a loophole and messed it up.


Finally, I think I've said it to you before but I'm no republican lol. You need to try to open your mind to diversity of opinion from the left because other, less confident people will take comments like these to mean they really should go join the republicans. My approach is one of not letting folks co-opt liberal values with progressive nuttiness though, so you don't have to worry, I'm still voting for Bernie while telling you that you're wrong when I feel that you are.

Declaration of Independence, 1776: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Slavery wasn't ended until nearly a century later. Women didn't get to vote until later than that.

And that isn't ignoring Civil Rights law after Civil Rights law that has to be even more clear that the Government should not be bigoted.

You telling me to open my mind to diversity is like Trump telling me to be civil. You are opposed to the progresive movement. You have made that clear in your history here.

Anyone who supports bigotry to spite the left was always a bigot.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Lots of straight white men understand empathy. Those men are not Republican men. Those men are also not people threatened by black or women or LGBT rights. They are allies to those groups because they understand that those groups deserve the same privileges as they themselves do.

Dude, Dreiko, the moral is we need to all not be shitty to eachother. But we also need to not pretend that everything is equally unfair. It isn't. It shouldn't be a pissing contest, so stop making it one.

The only reason we need to keep making these so called lines is because of bigots looking for loopholes. 'All people are equal' should be enough, but then some people said blacks arent people, and that women arent people, and that gays arent people, and we keep having to explicitly make it clear that we are ALL PEOPLE!

You also need to not pretend that things are supposed to not be unequally unfair. You need to take it for granted that they will be, you need to cherish when they're made less so, you need to rejoice in every step we take in making things more equal, as inequity is the natural order of the universe and our civilization is what innovated equality.

The people who said blacks and women (and the "other") aren't people were NOT people looking for loophole, with the default being "all people are equal". You have your timeline backwards.

For millennia the powerless were not equal to the in-group community's rulers, the "other" was something to tame, conquer or exterminate. The people who first discovered sub-saharan Africans considered them the missing link of evolution between apes and humans. There wasn't this magical equality movement moving along in the 1400s but some dastardly Dutch merchant made a loophole that allowed slavery to be perpetrated upon them. Slavery was the norm.


Our society, with all of its ills, is the one that invented things like equality movements, concepts like women being more than cattle and so on. In order to do that, it had to first do all those evils upon people for long enough to notice them being evil. The alternative is not a society without evils, the alternative is a society fully ignorant of those things being evil at all to begin with. There literally has never existed a society which started out with equality but then some republican-esque actors found a loophole and messed it up.


Finally, I think I've said it to you before but I'm no republican lol. You need to try to open your mind to diversity of opinion from the left because other, less confident people will take comments like these to mean they really should go join the republicans. My approach is one of not letting folks co-opt liberal values with progressive nuttiness though, so you don't have to worry, I'm still voting for Bernie while telling you that you're wrong when I feel that you are.

Declaration of Independence, 1776: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Slavery wasn't ended until nearly a century later. Women didn't get to vote until later than that.

And that isn't ignoring Civil Rights law after Civil Rights law that has to be even more clear that the Government should not be bigoted.

You telling me to open my mind to diversity is like Trump telling me to be civil. You are opposed to the progresive movement. You have made that clear in your history here.

Anyone who supports bigotry to spite the left was always a bigot.

Yes, the declaration of independence was addressing the ill of autocracy, not the ill of slavery and gender based discrimination or racism. You eat a burger one bite at a time. First you address the biggest obstacle to equality, that of a king doing whatever the hell he wants and being within his right to do so, then you move on to smaller (but still pressing) issues.

Your hypothetical resolution where every form of inequity is righted in one fell swoop is utopian and holding any civilization to this standard is bound to have them failing to meet up to it. It's more reasonable to be happy we got as much as we got, since there had not been many other civilizations outside of my ancestors the ancient Greeks who just chose to be democratic like that. It's a momentous achievement, to take away from it due to its imperfections is to set unrealistic expectations of perfection from imperfect humans with an 18th century education.

And you can be liberal without being a progressive, you can want social democracy without being particularly concerned about social issues. You don't get to call people bigots just because they have different priorities and equating them to corporatism or venture capitalists and religious fundamentalist republicans is fallacious.

Snip

Dreiko. What is "supposed" to be doesn't matter. What does matter is what is. And for fuck's sake Dreiko, telling a disadvantaged person how they should be feeling about the march towards equality is one of the most utterly tone-deaf things I've heard in awhile.

And we don't live in an era where we openly genocide and enslave, whoop-de-do. Better does not equal good by default Dreiko. If the bar was set so utterly low, baby steps forward do not automatically warrant celebration, particularly when there are people trying to force things backwards.

Bro, you have a tone policing fetish or something? I mean, you do you I guess XD.

Anyhow, the perfect is the enemy of the good. When the alternative to baby steps is no steps, rational people will rejoice at the baby steps. Gratitude is a value that ought matter more.

 

[Hawki]

It's the same problem with Racism. Their definition of civility is not in line with yours, and generally they make it up on the spot instead of having to deal with an argument.

Racism: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Civility: "Formal politeness and courtesy in behaviour or speech."

It isn't hard.

The same issues arises with Captain America. Him being white man makes it hard for some people to connect with him, just like Black Panther is harder for some white people to connect with, or Danvers is hard for some men to connect with.

...and?

I don't doubt there might be some people whose ability to connect to fictional characters is dependent on their skin colour or gender. That said, I'd raise an eyebrow at the notion. If someone says "I can't connect with Carol Danvers because I'm not a white woman," that says far more about the person than the character.

I'm white and male. I have trouble connecting to Cap because I've never been patriotic, or served in the military, and generally I'm wary of "boyscout characters" in fiction (least in the MCU, I'll take Tony's snark before Cap's best you can be thing).* In contrast, I can connect to Carol more easily because I've often felt/feel isolated in part of a group (Starforce), and rarely been the most confident person in said group, so as cheesy as it is, the "I'm Just a Girl" sequence is fun, if nothing else. Can't comment on T'Challa since I haven't seen Black Panther, but point being, when I think of the character traits, skin colour and gender are rarely the things that come to mind.

*Though according to a "which Avenger are you?" quiz I'm actually most like Cap, so...yay?

I thought Captain Marvel was way better, but I seem to be in the minority, at least on this forum

Well, I'll second at least that I liked Captain Marvel. It's average, but still, enjoyable. Of the MCU films I've seen, it takes the #10 spot.

Hey, I'm all for well written LBGT characters. LBGT is not a character trait. Just don't expect that to connect with some audience who've never experienced anything like thier world view, especially when they automatically find it deplorable or evil. No amount of writing will ever get over that hurdle

Boy Erased.

Saw that last year, where a teen comes out as gay in his Christian family, which results in family breakdown, and he's forced to attend gay conversion therapy. Believe it or not, despite being not gay, and not Christian, I was able to empathize with the character because the writing/acting/context sold me on the emotional trauma. The ability to empathize in fiction and reality isn't dependent on shared experience.

Really not buying the idea that you need to be the same as a fictional character to connect with them. Like, if that was the case, I'd have never grown up reading Sonic comics because a) I'm not a hedgehog, and b) never been a good runner (flat feet, little bastards).

 

[Erttheking]

Bro, you have a tone policing fetish or something? I mean, you do you I guess XD.

Anyhow, the perfect is the enemy of the good. When the alternative to baby steps is no steps, rational people will rejoice at the baby steps. Gratitude is a value that ought matter more.

More a lack of tolerance against people who tell others how to deal with problems they've never suffered through in their entire life.

Also, we are not at good. We're barely even at ok. Telling people who are suffering actively at the moment, particularly someone whose group they belong to is actively being targeted by the current administration, and you're telling them they need to be more grateful?

You just don't get it. You don't get what these people are going through. They aren't in the mood to be grateful, and you telling them that they should be comes off as you just wanting them to complain less because they're bringing the mood down.

 

[Saelune]

Bro, you have a tone policing fetish or something? I mean, you do you I guess XD.

Anyhow, the perfect is the enemy of the good. When the alternative to baby steps is no steps, rational people will rejoice at the baby steps. Gratitude is a value that ought matter more.

More a lack of tolerance against people who tell others how to deal with problems they've never suffered through in their entire life.

Also, we are not at good. We're barely even at ok. Telling people who are suffering actively at the moment, particularly someone whose group they belong to is actively being targeted by the current administration, and you're telling them they need to be more grateful?

You just don't get it. You don't get what these people are going through. They aren't in the mood to be grateful, and you telling them that they should be comes off as you just wanting them to complain less because they're bringing the mood down.

Been trying to think of my own response to Dreiko, but I think I am just going to 'Ditto' this one.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I find it a bit funny that you think intersectionality is "unfalsifiable" when all you need to do...

I said it was unfalsifiable. Not only did you quote the text where I said it outright, you acknowledged that was the exact word I used in your own post. You took the time to write it yourself. Falsifiability is the capacity for a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be proven wrong through observation, contradiction, evidence, and experimentation, and is the bedrock of contemporary scientific -- social or natural -- thought. To the point that unfalsifiability is generally looked upon as the first, and predominant, sign of pseudo, bunk, or ideologically-driven science.

All you have done here is indicate a list of means by which you believe intersectionality can be verified. Verifiability is not the same as falsifiability.

So how did you prove intersectionality doesn't exist again?

The "theory" (dogma in my opinion) exists, that cannot be argued. This is a red herring argument. What I am arguing, is that I feel intersectionality is fallacious and should be discarded in favor of newer, better theories with practical application, which is generally how the scientific method -- again, natural or social -- works.

You didn't go into much detail into how it was wrong, you just said that it was wrong.

Actually, I argued:

1. Intersectionality as a theory has no capacity to yield solid policy proposals, nor direct or prioritize activism or direct action to achieve forthcoming policy goals. In fact, I'll add now, the confusing, subjective, and unstable state of activism that relies upon intersectionality as an underpinning principle prevents cohesion and meaningful direct action, even in the case of shared struggles with obvious policy goals. To support this argument, I used the example of the progressive stack and how inescapable, inherent, subjective value judgments contradict the stated goals of the practice with the potential to derail conversation.

2. The failings of the theory manifest themselves in the incapability of adherents to effectively communicate its merits, or maintain a rhetorical or practical adherence to it when challenged. Instead, when put to it, adherents fall back on positions and argumentation forms contradictory to the theory itself in its nominal defense.

3. Kyriarchy is a preferable theory, and should be adopted instead. In fact, the ideological positions and argumentation forms to which "intersectionalists" fall back when challenged, are actually much better explained and in stronger alignment to kyriarchy.

And it hasn't solved all equality problems, and racism still exists so I guess we should just throw everything Martin Luther King Jr. ever said in the bin because that's all way older than 30 years. Or maybe anger and frustration with a situation doesn't give you full reign to idly dismiss everything you dislike.

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Bro, you have a tone policing fetish or something? I mean, you do you I guess XD.

Anyhow, the perfect is the enemy of the good. When the alternative to baby steps is no steps, rational people will rejoice at the baby steps. Gratitude is a value that ought matter more.

More a lack of tolerance against people who tell others how to deal with problems they've never suffered through in their entire life.

Also, we are not at good. We're barely even at ok. Telling people who are suffering actively at the moment, particularly someone whose group they belong to is actively being targeted by the current administration, and you're telling them they need to be more grateful?

You just don't get it. You don't get what these people are going through. They aren't in the mood to be grateful, and you telling them that they should be comes off as you just wanting them to complain less because they're bringing the mood down.

The perfect being the enemy of the good means that by being dissatisfied by the lack of perfection you fail to even attain something barely good enough.

I agree that we're barely at ok, I just think you're not gonna get much improvement with your approach. I don't think tearing down everything we've achieved during a tirade makes more sense than being grateful while being cognizant of how much still needs to get done.

Not bringing the mood down and being grateful reinforces you, it makes you more able to deal with hardship. The knowledge that merely not having a life expectancy of 30 years puts you in a privileged 0.01% (or however small it is) of humans that have existed among the ages is useful in grounding you and putting your worries in the right perspective.

I don't think being aware of the context of our species and of the sheer magnitude of good fortune that is abound around us can ever be bad, even if it makes someone feel silly for complaining about their 21st century problems (just coined that, it's like first world problems but more encompassing).