s are still flagging this post 
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: racismGood luck with that, reporter.
Yes, let’s fight prejudice by stereotyping a whole race, gender, and sexual orientation…
It’s concerning how much support these types of statements get.
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
–Dr. Martin Luther King Junior
MLK Jr., famous for talking about how much he loves white moderates right
He never stereotyped whites as a distinct singular identity that I can recall, it was always about their relation to maintaining inequality. One of his most impactful actions was convincing white and black unions to strike together, and that the fight for jobs and equality was one poor whites and blacks needed to share. In “The Other America” he constantly references poor white populations who share in the struggle.
MLK Jr never divided people by race like this, he thought that was one of the Three Evils plaguing American society.
MLK Jr, the guy that has that one quote about white moderates that gets paraded around constantly while 90% of his other words are completely ignored.
Good to see the true feelings of this community reflected in such quick fashion. ‘That one quote’ is a pretty lengthy diatribe, and it’s far from his only time. But the sick comeback makes white moderates feel better about themselves
“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to re-educate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn.”
“The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.”
“First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”.”
–Dr. Martin Luther King Junior
No no we don’t have to stereotype anyone.
Let’s just go straight to hunting them for sport
The men who are worried about being hunted for sport have been told too many times that that’s what should happen to them
I mean, if it did happen, would that be the worst thing?
“Yeah but they’re assholes, so it’s okay to actually murder them”
oh god this feels like Reddit all over again. they’re not hunting you! i promise
I very frequently find that very few people here grasp the concept of humor in any measurable way.
The point should be to bring everyone up, not pull others down, though
There aren’t a limited amount of rights that can only be handed out to be shared amongst people.
There are just rights and everyone should be entitled to them.
No shit, the only thing leftists want to pull down are systems of exploitation.
At the same time, privileged people will still sometimes feel a loss of something when you’re portioning out a finite resource. So if a particular group is 25% of the population and they were getting 75% of the pie before and now they’re getting 25% of the pie, that’s a loss. It’s a justified loss, but it’s still a loss.
That said, there are other things like rights that are not finite in any meaningful sense of the word. When someone is feeling a loss because an oppressed group gained rights, it’s usually because they’re an oppressive asshole.
That’s impossible since the point was a superficial elevation of their own interests.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.
Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.
I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that, but those don’t represent the entire movement and usually only pay lip service to the cause where it aligns with their personal beliefs. They should be ignored.
I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that
Those aren’t radicals; those are reactionary trolls who falsely claim allegiance to the movement in order to discredit it.
For a while it seemed like that minority owned the term “feminism”
There’s also a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ‘elite classes’ where they think that someone getting more means they get less. They literally cannot fathom someone getting welfare without it affecting them negatively. It’s one of the reasons why poor people still support Republicans.
a lot of women who call themselves feminist believe theyre superior to men instead of equal. most of those are very loud about it, so feminism turns into a term that describes that, even if the “real” meaning isn’t that.
“A lot?” No.
L O fucking L
Removed by mod
That’s well and good, but bringing everyone up needs to be done in consideration of lasting multigenerational harm from what has come previously, and areas where we as a people and nation continue to marginalize, underserve, and sometimes actively harm some segments of our population.
Folks who think those things should be ignored are not actually interested in bringing everyone up.
Yes! Let’s beat hate, by hating a different group…
Pointing out their whinging is hardly hate. Way to be a perfect example of the post, whether you’re a white dude or not.
“their” whining. Right, I’m the asshole for not liking language lumping a whole group of people into a bucket.
If you are ok with demonizing language like that, that’s on you. I want nothing to do with it.
You know, I really, really think you’re reading something into this that isn’t there. What, exactly, strikes you as hate here? What in this meme is “demonizing language”? It’s a joke pointing out that privileged people tend to panic and lash out when the people who have historically had fewer privileges than them start receiving help to level the playing field, as if life is some kind of zero-sum game and others being treated better suddenly means they’ll get treated worse. This is a well-recognized truth that applies broadly across privileged populations and has been remarked upon by many people through the years of building civil liberties for minorities of all stripes, and this meme is just poking a bit of fun at it. No one thinks that literally every single cishet white dude is panicking that they’ll be up against the wall if minorities ask to be treated better. I’m really confused at your apparently visceral reaction against this so-called “hate”.
If you are having trouble understanding simply replace cis white male, with any other group like gay black woman. Is it still funny and ok?
I don’t like to discriminate against races and sexes no matter where it’s coming from. And saying “it’s just a prank, bro” doesn’t make it ok.
There are plenty of ways to make a joke like this by actually targeting bigots.
My simple rule is: if it’s something you are born with it’s not ok to lump people together (race, sex, sexual orientation). If it’s something you chose, like political affiliation, etc then it’s all fair game.
They’re not being made fun of for being white cishet men. They’re being made fun of for being privileged and whinging about other people now receiving the rights to which they felt they alone were entitled. Being privileged is not something you are born with, it is something granted to you by an unjust society. Crying about others being granted rights as if it will affect them negatively is a choice they are making. This is not about them being cishet white dudes. It is about them choosing to resist progress because it might mean they don’t get treated like the super special kiddies our society has always treated them as.
That you are equating “haha these privileged people are overreacting to minorities no longer having boots on their necks” with “boo hoo, you’re saying all white cishet dudes are bad” tells me all I need to know. I won’t be able to change your mind, so have fun feeling persecuted 💜
I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
Related JAQing off opinion piece in The Guardian posted today: “Where are all the films about ‘whiteness’?” .
For those unfamiliar with the acronym, JAQ = “Just asking questions,” a bad faith tactic pushing an absurd narrative (e.g. “movies for white people are disappearing”) by pretending to ask innocent questions.
Direct quote, emphasis mine:
That’s why the final step towards true racial equality on screen is for whiteness to be cinematically named, described and dethroned from its “just human” position of cultural power. It’s time for white people to develop a cinema culture all of their own.
It’s riddled with white power talking points like this. This shit is really fucked up. It is irresponsible for a well-known major news source to publish shit like this, even with the “opinion” label attached. It’s basically right wing extremist (aka Nazi) recruitment propaganda.
I didn’t read the whole thing but I made it to your quote and I think their point is intended to be anti-racist. They are saying films have a sort of universal human experience or perspective or whatever you want to call it that’s been “white” by default but shouldn’t be.
This is also how I read it. I actually really appreciate attacking the idea of “white as default”. It’s kind of like how some gamers think representing anything besides the “default” demographic is “political”.
I think this is the more revealing excerpt:
This is the defining irony of white film-making. The more oblivious your film is to matters of race, the whiter it plays. Because whiteness is often exactly that: the freedom not to see race, even when it’s right there in front of you.
Basically, being aware of whiteness makes for less racist movies. There’s nothing wrong with white movies, but it’s wrong when white movies pretend they’re not white, but universal and default. The article concludes:
Instead, our twofold expectation should be this: 1) The industry affords more film-makers of colour the same creative freedoms and commercial opportunities that are now afforded white film-makers, and 2) That the film culture – including the film-makers themselves – develop the confidence, insight and language to discuss and dethrone white cinema.
This does not sound like racist dog-whistling or white supremacy to me.
I think a lot of equity arguments bug me because they often fail to address the real issue (at least in the workplace). It’s a matter of attitude, rather than parity/proportionality.
However much we hate it, the majority of people in a stem field will still seek a straight white man out when we look for authority/expertise. That isn’t because they are the greatest expert, or that they hold the highest accessible authority, but because it is an ingrained belief. That’s just wrong, on so very many levels, that I cannot even begin to express how stupid it is.
Some people have spotted this issue, but their solution is abhorrent - denigrate this group. Raise a generation that looks on this group with contempt, to at least remove the component of authority. It will solve the problem, but it will create a lot more down the line as it becomes the accepted solution. Shall we have a generational genetic lottery forever?
Oddly enough, I think the “blurring of gender lines” brought about by the trans movement might offer a more meaningful solution to some part of this problem, as it erases the categories themselves, rather than attempting to shift their position.
There is equity, and there is equality, and those are different things. I do think that forceful push to maintain percentages in various aspects of life to correspond to percentages of population often is actually unjust. For example, to insist that it should be strictly 50/50 percentage (or whatever it is) between men and women in all professions e.g. police, school teachers, etc. and actually stop hiring a particular gender until this 50/50 distribution is established is not good.
The little guy should be hurt in the 3rd panel as well for the sake of accuracy.
I find that equity tends to create the illusion of opportunity rather than providing the actual support needed to allow the disadvantaged parties to properly take advantage of the opportunities, thus backfiring and hurting all parties.
For example, giving college spots to those who are unable to pass the entry bar rather than giving them the actual support they need to pass the bar in the first place, which ends up with the disadvantaged parties falling behind and taking opportunities away from those who did pass the bar. In the end, nothing gets solved.
See Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.Justice is clearly the better option.
Perfect intersectionality is a goal, an ideal that we can be measured against, but there must be a transition to it because we are not there in many ways. Places holding themselves to a strict or impossible standard are probably hurting themselves in the short term, but I still think that it is a good goal to work toward.
Yes Stormy, we’re gonna hunt you for sport. You and the rest of the Pod 6 jerks.
It’s funny because extending rights to marginalized people does not by any means diminish the rights of the privileged.
“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.” - Malcolm X
I knew Lemmy was a good place, and then the sealab memes came.
Now it’s better.
Equal rights are a threat to hegemony. Losing hegemony is scary for the privileged, as it is status quo.
