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

[Saelune]

And you wonder why I have the opinion of you that I do.

Actually i don't care anymore what your opinion of me is.

But just because you openly declared that you are not willing to behave in a civil manner, doesn't mean everyone else has to accommodate it.

I did cite the relevant parts of your statements. Everyone can read how the conversation went and that it certainly was not me making statements about foreign countries.

I am not willing to engage in submissive behavior just to appease bigoted and uncaring people who are perfectly fine with oppression as usual.

I am even more so unwilling to submit to uncivil people who call me uncivil while defending the first President to regularly swear and insult anyone and everyone.

I refuse to submit to hypocrites.

When I refuse to lie in the mud so people can walk on my back, you call me uncivil. I call it standing up for myself.

Your definition of civility is uncivil.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Also, I asked you to share the supposed ordering that Kyriarchy has. You failed to do so. Why am I not surprised.

Or, you ignored, or failed to understand, how I outlined the civil rights movements' (proto-)kyriarchal structure and organizational strategies. The civil rights movement recognized that with the existence of Jim Crow in the South, and inequity in property in the North, race was the primary position of privilege and directed its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Having achieved its policy goals for the most part and realizing income and wealth inequity was the next step towards racial justice, but also acknowledging classism was a shared struggle regardless of race, the movement revised its position to acknowledge class as the primary position of privilege and begun directing its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Then civil rights leaders started getting plugged, and that was the end of that for the time being.

Because you don't like my answer, or don't understand it, doesn't mean I failed to provide one. That's on you.

Complaining about for-profit activism is all fine and dandy, but you act like it's the only form of protest available.

Most prevalent form of protest with an hegemonic grip on activism in sum, and being inherently capitalist it is by definition anti-competitive, so indeed I feel quite justified in arguing it's monopolistic. Thank you very much.

Oh, people made killings? Cite your sources kindly.

I need to cite Sarsour, Mallory, et. al. have leveraged their position as founders and organizers of Women's March to work the paid lecture circuit? Or that Women's March merch has been a hot sales item for two years? Or, that celebrities such as Lauper, MILCK, and Springsteen have enjoyed renewed (or new) success in the wake of their support for Women's March?

Also, hate to break it to you, a protest that causes instant change, right now? Those are extremely rare.

Ah, the "we changed the conversation!" canard. No sale. Like "right side of history", this is a self-comforting mantra of failure designed to preclude introspection and the potential realization that maybe someone fucked up. Activists either incorporate and organize to direct action, or they fail, and the overwhelming preference of the past few decades is to self-destruct.

Frankly, let's take a quick look at recent victories Change.org has to offer. Paid maternity leave, cheaper insulin in Colorado, Google removing an app encouraging conversion therapy. And you're also ignoring activism done by non-profit groups such as the ACLU.

Oh for God's sake. As a former dues-paying member of the ACLU and activist on its behalf on the local, state, and national level for the better part of a decade, let me explain something to you.

The ACLU is an incorporated, not-for-profit, interest group. The ACLU fundraises and engages in campaign financing and ad-buys on the behalf of supported candidates, lobbies, organizes ballot referenda when applicable, liaises with other non-profs on shared issues, litigates, and supports court cases within its realm of interest but not argued by attorneys on behalf of the organization through amici. In other words, it actually does shit to directly influence policy-craft, and "awareness raising" is actually a minority of what it does. But at the same time, despite taking on a wide array of social issues, the ACLU remains laser-focused on a narrow set of interests: crafting a legal landscape that maximizes and preserves civil liberties as enumerated within, and emanating from, the Constitution and its amendments.

Which is what an interest group does. Interest groups are not social movements. Interest groups are formal institutions incorporated to effect public policy within a single interest, or a narrowly-focused set of interconnected interests. Interest groups may voice support for social movements when that movement's activities fall within that group's purview, and interest groups may incorporate out of social movements, but they are not the same (social movements are, at best, informal institutions).

Likewise, change.org is a tool. It is a petition aggregator. It isn't even a non-profit, in fact; it's a paid service administered and provided by Change.org, Inc. Non-profs, and activists, may use the services it provides, but it is not in and of itself a movement. Of the three links you shared, two petitions were posted by non-prof organizations and the third was by an individual, which was used by her teachers' union to build support for benefits already in negotiation.

Try not providing counter-examples to your own argument, please.

The only thing where that's even close to relevant is the fact that we are approaching Gilded Age era wealth disparity, but that's about it.

Okay, what part of "in some cases" do you not understand? That's exactly the case I have been alluding to for only the...what, last three posts? If it were only wealth disparity, you might have a point, but we're not just talking about wealth and income disparity. We're talking about food, water, drug, and air safety regulations; the rights of workers to organize, and occupational health and safety regulations; antitrust and anti-cartel regulations; trading and banking regulations; campaign finance and political corruption regulations; and those are just key salient social issues which I can name off the top of my head.

And if you believe for a nanosecond that we're not approaching Gilded Age levels of deregulation in any and all of the above-stated issues, you need to stop watching talking heads bitching about Russia and Trump tweets, and instead actually start paying attention to alphabet agencies' agendas since the Trump inauguration.

All of which, by the way, disproportionally impact historically-disadvantaged groups. Just in case you forgot Flint still has polluted water, or DAPL didn't get built. You might say "well there's your intersectionality! LOL!", but no: all intersectionality provides is a framework for identifying how institutional poverty, for example, impacts disparate groups of historically-disadvantaged peoples, such that even though it is a shared struggle different groups with different interests condemn themselves to infighting and failure. Which, as I've bent backwards to point out, is exactly what happens and why contemporary social movements fail.

Kyriarchy, on the other hand, at least provides a framework for identifying shared struggles and root causes, and targeting individual vectors of privilege to ameliorate those struggles. From there, organization and support-building can occur, and direct action to effect policy undertaken.

 

[Satinavian]

I am not willing to engage in submissive behavior just to appease bigoted and uncaring people who are perfectly fine with oppression as usual.

I am even more so unwilling to submit to uncivil people who call me uncivil while defending the first President to regularly swear and insult anyone and everyone.

I refuse to submit to hypocrites.

None of that does justify your behavior towards me in this thread.

"But Trump!" is a shallow argument even for shitty behavior against your local rightwingers but might work somewhat considering the absurd bipartisanship of the US. But it really falls flat as excuse for uncivil behavior when discussing with Nonamericans with an unfavorable opinion about Trump.

 

[Saelune]

Also, I asked you to share the supposed ordering that Kyriarchy has. You failed to do so. Why am I not surprised.

Or, you ignored, or failed to understand, how I outlined the civil rights movements' (proto-)kyriarchal structure and organizational strategies. The civil rights movement recognized that with the existence of Jim Crow in the South, and inequity in property in the North, race was the primary position of privilege and directed its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Having achieved its policy goals for the most part and realizing income and wealth inequity was the next step towards racial justice, but also acknowledging classism was a shared struggle regardless of race, the movement revised its position to acknowledge class as the primary position of privilege and begun directing its efforts towards policy results to fix that. Then civil rights leaders started getting plugged, and that was the end of that for the time being.

Because you don't like my answer, or don't understand it, doesn't mean I failed to provide one. That's on you.

Complaining about for-profit activism is all fine and dandy, but you act like it's the only form of protest available.

Most prevalent form of protest with an hegemonic grip on activism in sum, and being inherently capitalist it is by definition anti-competitive, so indeed I feel quite justified in arguing it's monopolistic. Thank you very much.

Oh, people made killings? Cite your sources kindly.

I need to cite Sarsour, Mallory, et. al. have leveraged their position as founders and organizers of Women's March to work the paid lecture circuit? Or that Women's March merch has been a hot sales item for two years? Or, that celebrities such as Lauper, MILCK, and Springsteen have enjoyed renewed (or new) success in the wake of their support for Women's March?

Also, hate to break it to you, a protest that causes instant change, right now? Those are extremely rare.

Ah, the "we changed the conversation!" canard. No sale. Like "right side of history", this is a self-comforting mantra of failure designed to preclude introspection and the potential realization that maybe someone fucked up. Activists either incorporate and organize to direct action, or they fail, and the overwhelming preference of the past few decades is to self-destruct.

Frankly, let's take a quick look at recent victories Change.org has to offer. Paid maternity leave, cheaper insulin in Colorado, Google removing an app encouraging conversion therapy. And you're also ignoring activism done by non-profit groups such as the ACLU.

Oh for God's sake. As a former dues-paying member of the ACLU and activist on its behalf on the local, state, and national level for the better part of a decade, let me explain something to you.

The ACLU is an incorporated, not-for-profit, interest group. The ACLU fundraises and engages in campaign financing and ad-buys on the behalf of supported candidates, lobbies, organizes ballot referenda when applicable, liaises with other non-profs on shared issues, litigates, and supports court cases within its realm of interest but not argued by attorneys on behalf of the organization through amici. In other words, it actually does shit to directly influence policy-craft, and "awareness raising" is actually a minority of what it does. But at the same time, despite taking on a wide array of social issues, the ACLU remains laser-focused on a narrow set of interests: crafting a legal landscape that maximizes and preserves civil liberties as enumerated within, and emanating from, the Constitution and its amendments.

Which is what an interest group does. Interest groups are not social movements. Interest groups are formal institutions incorporated to effect public policy within a single interest, or a narrowly-focused set of interconnected interests. Interest groups may voice support for social movements when that movement's activities fall within that group's purview, and interest groups may incorporate out of social movements, but they are not the same (social movements are, at best, informal institutions).

Likewise, change.org is a tool. It is a petition aggregator. It isn't even a non-profit, in fact; it's a paid service administered and provided by Change.org, Inc. Non-profs, and activists, may use the services it provides, but it is not in and of itself a movement. Of the three links you shared, two petitions were posted by non-prof organizations and the third was by an individual, which was used by her teachers' union to build support for benefits already in negotiation.

Try not providing counter-examples to your own argument, please.

The only thing where that's even close to relevant is the fact that we are approaching Gilded Age era wealth disparity, but that's about it.

Okay, what part of "in some cases" do you not understand? That's exactly the case I have been alluding to for only the...what, last three posts? If it were only wealth disparity, you might have a point, but we're not just talking about wealth and income disparity. We're talking about food, water, drug, and air safety regulations; the rights of workers to organize, and occupational health and safety regulations; antitrust and anti-cartel regulations; trading and banking regulations; campaign finance and political corruption regulations; and those are just key salient social issues which I can name off the top of my head.

And if you believe for a nanosecond that we're not approaching Gilded Age levels of deregulation in any and all of the above-stated issues, you need to stop watching talking heads bitching about Russia and Trump tweets, and instead actually start paying attention to alphabet agencies' agendas since the Trump inauguration.

All of which, by the way, disproportionally impact historically-disadvantaged groups. Just in case you forgot Flint still has polluted water, or DAPL didn't get built. You might say "well there's your intersectionality! LOL!", but no: all intersectionality provides is a framework for identifying how institutional poverty, for example, impacts disparate groups of historically-disadvantaged peoples, such that even though it is a shared struggle different groups with different interests condemn themselves to infighting and failure. Which, as I've bent backwards to point out, is exactly what happens and why contemporary social movements fail.

Kyriarchy, on the other hand, at least provides a framework for identifying shared struggles and root causes, and targeting individual vectors of privilege to ameliorate those struggles. From there, organization and support-building can occur, and direct action to effect policy undertaken.

Kyriarchy is to Intersectionality as All Lives Matter is to Black Lives Matter. As in a bunch of bullshit meant to silence people speaking up about injustice while trying to pretend to be 'better' than the people pointing out the injustice.

All Lives Matter is nice on paper, but it is used by racists who don't want to care about the problems black people face. You are using Kyriarchy as an excuse to deny the sexism of powerful men against women.

Anyways, a bunch of men in Alabama just made abortion illegal there.

 

[Saelune]

I am not willing to engage in submissive behavior just to appease bigoted and uncaring people who are perfectly fine with oppression as usual.

I am even more so unwilling to submit to uncivil people who call me uncivil while defending the first President to regularly swear and insult anyone and everyone.

I refuse to submit to hypocrites.

None of that does justify your behavior towards me in this thread.

"But Trump!" is a shallow argument even for shitty behavior against your local rightwingers but might work somewhat considering the absurd bipartisanship of the US. But it really falls flat as excuse for uncivil behavior when discussing with Nonamericans with an unfavorable opinion about Trump.

So what you're saying is, you're allowed to be uncivil to me for being uncivil to you, but I am not allowed to be uncivil to people who are uncivil to me?

I believe the term is 'hypocrite'.

 

[Satinavian]

So what you're saying is, you're allowed to be uncivil to me for being uncivil to you, but I am not allowed to be uncivil to people who are uncivil to me?

I believe the term is 'hypocrite'.

Nope, you can be uncivil to individuals who are uncivil towards you. That is perfectly fine. And cathartic.

It is just not helpful to convince them of anything. And you should not extend the lack of civility towards a whole group when a member of it insults you. Because every big enough group has idiots and attacking a whole group in response will be seen as unjustified by most.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

As for it being enlightened, well, i couldn't say because i am not really familiar with the realities in other countries. But considering how YOU describe the US, that might very well be true in comparison. I have never been to the US. But since visiting this forum, my opinion of it has dropped significantly. Because i am willing to listen instead of assuming that it would probably be more or less the same over there anyway.
Yes, still anecdotical evidence, but what Americans post here does not paint a pretty picture at all.

If anyone wonders if I am a geek, stay a while and listen.

If I had to break the countries down into Vampire the Masquerade Clans, I would say that Americans are Brujah [https://vtmb.fandom.com/wiki/Brujah].

The Brujah are one of the seven playable clans in Vampire: The Masquerade ? Bloodlines. The Brujah have a reputation as fierce warriors; their affinity for war is carried in their blood. Because their weakness is their rage, they are much more vulnerable to frenzy. Quick to anger and always passionate, they have been steadily regaining their position as a clan of lofty philosophers and activists, and are known for mysterious knowledge and power.

To put it in a non-asinine way, We're Rabble-rousers and we'll call out shit when we see it. Even if it's our own. Other countries don't really do that. I mean, the amount of Hate related Crime has just been on the upswing for years in England and Wales [https://www.statista.com/topics/3311/hate-crime-in-the-uk/]. I don't see that many UK members making posts about it. The number of Knife Offenses in UK during 2018 [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089] (39,818) and the Firearm incidents in America [https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/gun-deaths-2018-america-mass-shootings-suicide/] (56,887). For a population that's 5 times larger than the UK, those numbers are really close.

But if brought up, I feel most people would want to make it a conversation about the evils of guns instead of looking at the own backyard and thinking "... Yeah, might want to get on that before it gets out of hand...".

Everyone's fine with airing out America's dirty laundry. I'm fine with that as well. I'm all for transparency. But there's a lot I see when I read or watch the BBC that I don't see mirrored here. Every place sucks. It's just a matter of who is going to be upfront with it or not.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Ok, I'm going to be blunt. I find this conversation very unfulfilling, I'm tired of the naked hostility, responding to the ever-ballooning wall of text is becoming quite exhausting, and this is going nowhere. So I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

As in a bunch of bullshit meant to silence people speaking up about injustice while trying to pretend to be 'better' than the people pointing out the injustice.

Since the ACLU came up, let's go with this.

https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data

The national organization and its constituent state organizations, which house major cities with Terry stop policies, have campaigned against the practice since its inception and continue today. African-Americans, notably black male youths, are the most disproportionately profiled and targeted by the practice, and that's inarguable.

But, equal protection grounds aren't the ACLU's only (or even the biggest) reason and means of continuing to fight it. It's a due process issue. Meanwhile, the discriminatory nature of Terry stops towards African-Americans is only one argument among many (at the very least, Latin-Americans and Arab-Americans are also profiled) the ACLU levies against stop and frisk.

Is the ACLU a racist organization that doesn't care about the problems black people face, because their efforts against stop and frisk aren't all about African-Americans, and intended to end the practice as applies to African-Americans, or even non-caucasians in general? Is the ACLU guilty of 'meaning to silence people speaking up against injustice', or 'pretending to be better than [them]', in your own words? Does the ACLU's advocacy and efforts to end stop and frisk (or a ton of other issues) run contrary to BLM or its principles, or are they trying to contradict, compete with, or end BLM?

Or are you just trying to call me a racist and hoping beyond hope I won't call you out?

 

[Saelune]

So what you're saying is, you're allowed to be uncivil to me for being uncivil to you, but I am not allowed to be uncivil to people who are uncivil to me?

I believe the term is 'hypocrite'.

Nope, you can be uncivil to individuals who are uncivil towards you. That is perfectly fine. And cathartic.

It is just not helpful to convince them of anything. And you should not extend the lack of civility towards a whole group when a member of it insults you. Because every big enough group has idiots and attacking a whole group in response will be seen as unjustified by most.

Groups need to self-moderate their 'bad eggs' if they don't want to be associated with those 'bad eggs'. However when those groups are fundamentally a group of bad people, ie hate groups, then it is not wrong to assume everyone part of it is ya know, bad.

If the Republican Party doesn't want to be associated with people like oh, Donald Trump, THEN DONT MAKE HIM YOUR LEADER!


It depends on what makes the group a group. Obviously anyone can just like a show or movie and thus be part of a fandom, though fandoms should still discourage shitty behavior. The DnD community has been doing a good job of this, and thus I can trust many DnD groups to support LGBT people and diverse representation.

But to be say, a cop or a Republican? I mean, the police COULD properly police themselves, but they dont. They actively and intentionally protect their 'bad eggs', so it is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of all cops. And the Republican Party literally votes their leaders. For people to vote for someone is to say 'I agree with this person'. It is perfectly reasonable to judge the Republican party by its leadership. (Just as it is Democrats).

But you're just mad that I said sexism exists even though you claim to not see it.

 

[Saelune]

As in a bunch of bullshit meant to silence people speaking up about injustice while trying to pretend to be 'better' than the people pointing out the injustice.

Since the ACLU came up, let's go with this.

https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data

The national organization and its constituent state organizations, which house major cities with Terry stop policies, have campaigned against the practice since its inception and continue today. African-Americans, notably black male youths, are the most disproportionately profiled and targeted by the practice, and that's inarguable.

But, equal protection grounds aren't the ACLU's only (or even the biggest) reason and means of continuing to fight it. It's a due process issue. Meanwhile, the discriminatory nature of Terry stops towards African-Americans is only one argument among many (at the very least, Latin-Americans and Arab-Americans are also profiled) the ACLU levies against stop and frisk.

Is the ACLU a racist organization that doesn't care about the problems black people face, because their efforts against stop and frisk aren't all about African-Americans, and intended to end the practice as applies to African-Americans, or even non-caucasians in general? Is the ACLU guilty of 'meaning to silence people speaking up against injustice', or 'pretending to be better than [them]', in your own words? Does the ACLU's advocacy and efforts to end stop and frisk (or a ton of other issues) run contrary to BLM or its principles, or are they trying to contradict, compete with, or end BLM?

Or are you just trying to call me a racist and hoping beyond hope I won't call you out?

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

 

[Satinavian]

Groups need to self-moderate their 'bad eggs' if they don't want to be associated with those 'bad eggs'. However when those groups are fundamentally a group of bad people, ie hate groups, then it is not wrong to assume everyone part of it is ya know, bad.

Some groups can moderate themself, others can't. You need mechanisms to enforce stuff to moderate yourself. Most of the calls for self-moderation of e.g. Muslims are pretty stupid and that is also true for political movements where everyone can join.

As for the Republicans : You do have a point there. But not because of random Republican idiots insulting people, but because they made Trump president and make a lot of shitty laws and the majority of regular members support it.

As for cops ? Those have hirarchy and even mechanisms for oversight and sanctions. Sure, those really should selfmoderate and punish members behaving wrong. Which is another thing many countries do better than the US.

But you're just mad that I said sexism exists even though you claim to not see it.

I talked about the expectation of men paying for women in restaurants.

I won't say that sexism doesn't exist here. But it probably does take on different forms because of cultural differences and resulting differences in gender roles.

Now to actually nail down what those differences actually are and how the meaning of gender varies across borders is something that is of interest to me which is why i ask questions about concrete examples of gendered behavior elsewhere. Like men paying for women.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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

You're the one trying to equate acknowledgment of shared struggles, and organizing to effect policy to ameliorate those shared struggles, to racism and deliberate attempts to silence. Don't pretend that wasn't your intent likening it to All Lives Matter.

The ACLU, in this case (and others) behaves in a manner entirely consistent with the claims of "All Lives Matter" supporters. Stop and frisk is prima facie, universally, unjust; racial discrimination via stop and frisk is symptomatic of its underlying injustice, not causative.

Your claim is speech and action belies intent, so hold the ACLU to your own standards. Is the ACLU racist or not?

 

[Saelune]

Groups need to self-moderate their 'bad eggs' if they don't want to be associated with those 'bad eggs'. However when those groups are fundamentally a group of bad people, ie hate groups, then it is not wrong to assume everyone part of it is ya know, bad.

Some groups can moderate themself, others can't. You need mechanisms to enforce stuff to moderate yourself. Most of the calls for self-moderation of e.g. Muslims are pretty stupid and that is also true for political movements where everyone can join.

As for the Republicans : You do have a point there. But not because of random Republican idiots insulting people, but because they made Trump president and make a lot of shitty laws and the majority of regular members support it.

As for cops ? Those have hirarchy and even mechanisms for oversight and sanctions. Sure, those really should selfmoderate and punish members behaving wrong. Which is another thing many countries do better than the US.

But you're just mad that I said sexism exists even though you claim to not see it.

I talked about the expectation of men paying for women.

I won't say that sexism doesn't exist here. But it probably does take on different forms because of cultural differences and resulting differences in gender roles.

Now to actually nail down what those differences actually are and how the meaning of gender varies across borders is something that is of interest to me which is why i ask questions about concrete examples of gendered behavior elsewhere. Like men paying for women.

When I defend Muslims IN AMERICA, I am defending a religious minority. Islam is a terrible religion, as is Christianity. But Islams main critics are hypocritical Christians who pretend both religions don't have the same bigoted views and policies.

I assure you though, any Muslim, in America or otherwise who uses their faith to hate on LGBT people are bigots and horrible people. I just want religion to be treated EQUALLY. If they want me to condemn ALL Muslims, then I should be able to condemn ALL Christians, but I am not, so I wont let them do that to Muslims.

Their (police) hierarchy is made up of those bad cops who got into positions of power to defend other bad cops.

The expectations in America vs your country (still don't know which btw), but then you pretended we were never talking about America and criticized me for taking issue with this example of sexism. Now we're talking about being uncivil to groups who not only don't do anything to stop their members bad behavior, but actively encourage it. All this cause I pointed out the sexist cause of men paying for women at restaurants.

 

[Saelune]

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

You're the one trying to equate acknowledgment of shared struggles, and organizing to effect policy to ameliorate those shared struggles, to racism and deliberate attempts to silence. Don't pretend that wasn't your intent likening it to All Lives Matter.

The ACLU, in this case (and others) behaves in a manner entirely consistent with the claims of "All Lives Matter" supporters. Stop and frisk is prima facie, universally, unjust; racial discrimination via stop and frisk is symptomatic of its underlying injustice, not causative.

Your claim is speech and action belies intent, so hold the ACLU to your own standards. Is the ACLU racist or not?

I am saying your pushing of Kyriarchy is a misdirection meant to shut down actual discussion on sexism. Now you're throwing this ACLU racism strawman at me to refute a point I wasn't making.

Yes, 'All Lives Matter', that is the underlying point of all EQUAL RIGHTS movements, but it doesn't help to pretend certain groups aren't oppressed in certain specific ways that others are not. Acknowledging that black people have more trouble with cops doesn't mean that we cant acknowledge that women have more trouble dealing with equal work for equal pay, or that LGBT people deal with more trouble from religion.

When most people say 'All Lives Matter' what they are actually doing is virtue signaling to seem progressive while actually telling black people to shut up about their problems cause 'its racist to acknowledge that black people have different problems than whites'.

 

[Satinavian]

The expectations in America vs your country (still don't know which btw), but then you pretended we were never talking about America and criticized me for taking issue with this example of sexism. Now we're talking about being uncivil to groups who not only don't do anything to stop their members bad behavior, but actively encourage it. All this cause I pointed out the sexist cause of men paying for women at restaurants.

It is Germany. I thought you knew.

I did not critisize you for taking issue with this example of sexism. I would take issue with it too, even if that might be cultural intolerance against Americans. I asked you (and others) if this is really still a thing because it isn't here and hasn't been for decades and thus would be one of those rare concrete examples of gender roles differing between western countries.

When most people say 'All Lives Matter' what they are actually doing is virtue signaling to seem progressive while actually telling black people to shut up about their problems cause 'its racist to acknowledge that black people have different problems than whites'.

Not that i had too much contact with those guys, but i agree with your assessment.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I am saying your pushing of Kyriarchy is a misdirection meant to shut down actual discussion on sexism.

You might want to go re-read the OP, or the thread title, if you think this is a conversation about only sexism. The OP was specifically bemoaning abuse of the language of intersectionality to shut down, silence, and/or derail conversations about personal, or even shared, struggles.

Now you're throwing this ACLU racism strawman at me to refute a point I wasn't making.

Sure you weren't. Answer the question. Does the ACLU's focus on the nature of stop and frisk as a universal injustice make them racist?

...but it doesn't help to pretend certain groups aren't oppressed in certain specific ways that others are not...

Focusing only on how certain groups are oppressed in certain specific ways doesn't help, nor does focusing only on who may or may not be most disproportionately affected by a given injustice, and that's my entire goddamn point. At some point the rubber has to meet the road, people have to stop infighting, acknowledge shared struggles exist, and organize to eliminate them. Otherwise, not only does progress fail to happen, but in all likelihood society regresses...just like it has for the past thirty years.

 

[Saelune]

I am saying your pushing of Kyriarchy is a misdirection meant to shut down actual discussion on sexism.

You might want to go re-read the OP, or the thread title, if you think this is a conversation about only sexism. The OP was specifically bemoaning abuse of the language of intersectionality to shut down, silence, and/or derail conversations about personal, or even shared, struggles.

Now you're throwing this ACLU racism strawman at me to refute a point I wasn't making.

Sure you weren't. Answer the question. Does the ACLU's focus on the nature of stop and frisk as a universal injustice make them racist?

...but it doesn't help to pretend certain groups aren't oppressed in certain specific ways that others are not...

Focusing only on how certain groups are oppressed in certain specific ways doesn't help, nor does focusing only on who may or may not be most disproportionately affected by a given injustice, and that's my entire goddamn point. At some point the rubber has to meet the road, people have to stop infighting, acknowledge shared struggles exist, and organize to eliminate them. Otherwise, not only does progress fail to happen, but in all likelihood society regresses...just like it has for the past thirty years.

I was responding to YOUR constant use of 'kyriarchy' though and how you are using it to dismiss sexism and intersectionality. You are using kyriarchy to deny the problems of sexism against women.

I have pointed out your strawman, I am not going to throw myself upon it. Stop trying.

Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

 

[Saelune]

The expectations in America vs your country (still don't know which btw), but then you pretended we were never talking about America and criticized me for taking issue with this example of sexism. Now we're talking about being uncivil to groups who not only don't do anything to stop their members bad behavior, but actively encourage it. All this cause I pointed out the sexist cause of men paying for women at restaurants.

It is Germany. I thought you knew.

I did not critisize you for taking issue with this example of sexism. I would take issue with it too, even if that might be cultural intolerance against Americans. I asked you (and others) if this is really still a thing because it isn't here and hasn't been for decades and thus would be one of those rare concrete examples of gender roles differing between western countries.

When most people say 'All Lives Matter' what they are actually doing is virtue signaling to seem progressive while actually telling black people to shut up about their problems cause 'its racist to acknowledge that black people have different problems than whites'.

Not that i had too much contact with those guys, but i agree with your assessment.

My initial draft of my response went on a long-winded tangent, so I will try to just summarize.

The US is a big place, way too big to properly compare it to any single European country. Ultimately, you must view each US State as if its its own country.

I don't know a lot about modern Germany honestly. I do hear it is a rather progressive place though, and I hope that is true. I do not know Germany's history with paying for women's food, but I don't doubt it is perhaps more common in the world than you realize. Maybe I am wrong though, but if I am, only about the world, not the US. It is still a very common expectation in the US.

 

[RobertEHouse]

So is it the assumption that group X is just sooo pathetic that they need others to prop them up?. Would that also not be a discredit for all the Women, LGBTQ's Disabled etc who actually have businesses?.

No, it's an assumption that systematic societal disadvantages exist such as low socioeconomic status, class, and conscious or unconscious discrimination.

Racism is also the notion of believing others are incapable of helping themselves because of themselves.

Racism is things like repeated studies that show things like black people of identical qualifications being less likely to be invited to inerview or offered a job. I'm sure they'd be much more able to help themselves if they weren't three times more likely to have their CV binned because their name doesn't look suitably majority typical.

Take this doozy from a report: "Most German workers (52%) say that their manager's gender doesn't make a difference to them, but of those who have a preference, many more would prefer a male (34%) to a female (14%) boss." Yeah. You're not telling me that attitude isn't slipping into people's hiring preferences at least sometimes.

Maybe you don't have the "right" accent or different cultural reference points, that make it harder to fit in at your workplace. Or you didn't go to the right school and lack the same networking to pull strings and grease the wheels for you. Maybe you're unfortunate enough to be of child-bearing age and your prospective boss doesn't want to pay maternity leave. Maybe it's just you're in a demographic group than earns on average 30% less than others, which makes you disproportionately likely to be worse educated, less healthy and brought up in a less supportive social milieu. Or just that the police like to pull people like you over and slap punishments on you more, so you're more likely to be inconvenienced, fined, even criminalised.

We all know this stuff exists. Why pretend otherwise?

No one is pretending, I am a realist, the world does not owe you or I anything. No one is responsible to the way an individual feels and reacts except them. Our births are not a certainty into this world, it's only though knocking off other sperm that we live. The same with life in general we want control but that is an illusion, it does not exist.

We sometimes get a short stick but either you adapt or simply you don't. The problem with generalized is it based around a belief that a whole group is unable to do anything. Ignoring the fact that the LGBTQ was formed by none outsiders. Or the American Disability Act created by the will of those disabled. League of Women, BMAS and others were not created from outside help, thank you, we did it on our own because we are capable. Beliving we all need to be coddled by others because we are fragile is a insult.

You're German report also underlines a fundamental flaw in the way people understand information. It can be used to generalize all German men as bigots. In the unintelligent hands, label every German man as a racist simply because they are German and a man. Even with pool or error listed, people don't know how to take information. They used it to enforce stereotyping in the cause of justice labeling all German men as bigots.Not realizing, that the one man they called out on the street as bigot. Has high functioning Autism and worked with to help the LGBTQ come to light.

Stats are not supposed to be the end all solution, working in a Ad Agency we know this. The man and women on the street does take everything at face value. They get a simplified generalized version of what we see because they don't have the time. They believe every bit of stat posted online or in the newspaper. Yet, besides getting a lopsided view of the world they do more harm than good.
That is why every time I post about a report I give you guys several links for people to read. Not expecting all but 0.01% to actually read them. It is also one reason why "fake News" anti vaccine or snake oil cures spread people don't research or read anything else. They generalize their thinking based upon what one group says, they don't think. Not even understanding the terminology of what Racism is which a perspective to Generalization of a whole GROUP.