prejudice is still bad! misandry/reverse racism doesn’t exist (full stop) but a black person could still be prejudice against white people, or a women could be prejudice again men. that doesn’t excuse it, but words and connotation matter.
What’s race based prejudice if it isn’t racism? You can’t just displace the original meaning and pretend the original never existed
Obviously it’s generally much more harmful in one direction, but acting like people aren’t all just people with the exact same biases, and acting as if which group has power over which isn’t something that has kept changing throughout the history of humanity, and acting as if all of human experience is homogeneous (that all people with the same labels have identical experience), is all nonsensical extremist horseshoe politics stuff.
When you hear people on your own side defend Apartheid but for opposing reasons, you gotta admit those people have gone too far off the deep end. Racist extreme right people push it because they believe people are inherently different and can’t integrate. Delusional extreme left people do it because “people of different status and power can’t mix without abuse” and so they abdicate from the responsibility to support coexistence and mutual understanding, and so they end up helping racists push their policies.
prejudice is still bad! misandry/reverse racism doesn’t exist (full stop) but a black person could still be prejudice against white people, or a women could be prejudice again men. that doesn’t excuse it, but words and connotation matter.
Yes, words and connotations matter which is why the whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they’re the only “correct” definition is so pointless . It is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she’s engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that’s all.
There were already terms for this - the word “systemic” was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn’t exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them - like seriously if you can’t even win them over then maybe your strategy sucks?).
It’s all the more tragic because this whole time feminist discourse could have been focusing on the actual problem of systemic misogyny and systemic racism instead of fighting linguistic battles that have all been conclusively lost.
prejudice is still bad! misandry/reverse racism doesn’t exist (full stop) but a black person could still be prejudice against white people, or a women could be prejudice again men. that doesn’t excuse it, but words and connotation matter.
What’s race based prejudice if it isn’t racism? You can’t just displace the original meaning and pretend the original never existed
Obviously it’s generally much more harmful in one direction, but acting like people aren’t all just people with the exact same biases, and acting as if which group has power over which isn’t something that has kept changing throughout the history of humanity, and acting as if all of human experience is homogeneous (that all people with the same labels have identical experience), is all nonsensical extremist horseshoe politics stuff.
When you hear people on your own side defend Apartheid but for opposing reasons, you gotta admit those people have gone too far off the deep end. Racist extreme right people push it because they believe people are inherently different and can’t integrate. Delusional extreme left people do it because “people of different status and power can’t mix without abuse” and so they abdicate from the responsibility to support coexistence and mutual understanding, and so they end up helping racists push their policies.
Who in this thread was defending Apartheid? That take seemed to of come out of nowhere!
Unfortunately I’ve seen real people argue stuff like “black and white people can’t mix”, and who thought that was a progressive belief
Yes, words and connotations matter which is why the whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they’re the only “correct” definition is so pointless . It is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she’s engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that’s all.
There were already terms for this - the word “systemic” was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn’t exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them - like seriously if you can’t even win them over then maybe your strategy sucks?).
It’s all the more tragic because this whole time feminist discourse could have been focusing on the actual problem of systemic misogyny and systemic racism instead of fighting linguistic battles that have all been conclusively lost.