Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

    (femfosec.com)
    1005 points femfosec | 14 comments | 28 Mar 21 18:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.605s | source | bottom
    Show context
    jxidjhdhdhdhfhf ◴[28 Mar 21 19:10 UTC] No.26613220[source]▶
    This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. The shitty part is that I'm pretty sure 99% of people are reasonable human beings but the media has to make it seem like that isn't the case so the risk equation changes. Similar to how kids used to roam around the neighborhood but now it's deemed too risky because the media makes it seem like there are murderers lurking around every corner.
    replies(14): >>26613585 #>>26613799 #>>26614012 #>>26614097 #>>26614153 #>>26614208 #>>26614300 #>>26614313 #>>26614525 #>>26614526 #>>26614533 #>>26614620 #>>26614665 #>>26614667 #
    idyio ◴[28 Mar 21 19:56 UTC] No.26613799[source]▶
    > people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy

    This supposed hierarchy of oppression, based on identity characteristics such as race, gender and sexuality, really is the biggest scam going.

    Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities, corruption, and abuse of power. Yet, identarians insist on shoehorning everything into their flawed worldview.

    The Black Lives Matter movement was a telling example of this - police brutality is indeed an ongoing problem in society, but it doesn't just apply to black people. It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing. Just look at how they treat homeless people, drug addicts, and so on, regardless of race.

    Another is celebrating people as tokens regardless of their actions. First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this? Rather reminds me of: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co90umqUsAAdgQI?format=jpg

    We would all do well to be critical of how identity politics is being used to mask the real root causes of oppression in our society. The so-called left wing of politics is the worst for this too, and I say this as a life-long leftist. Why make everything about identity; where has the traditional focus on class gone?

    replies(9): >>26613830 #>>26614026 #>>26614041 #>>26614319 #>>26614322 #>>26614458 #>>26614596 #>>26614630 #>>26615548 #
    1. blt ◴[28 Mar 21 20:43 UTC] No.26614322[source]▶
    But the Black Lives Matter movement never proclaimed that police brutality only applies to Black people.
    replies(3): >>26614455 #>>26614470 #>>26614660 #
    2. sidlls ◴[28 Mar 21 20:55 UTC] No.26614455[source]▶
    Consider that it's common for anyone who suggests the impoverished of any race are more susceptible to police violence to be quickly and roundly piled on for trying to erase race or for supposedly engaging in “pity poor whites” rhetoric. It doesn’t even matter if “and impoverished black people even more so” is included. The fact that one isn’t solely focused on the racial minority in this context is grounds enough for social scorn and ridicule.

    There is a very real problem with “oppression olympics” centered on racial identity, in this country.

    replies(1): >>26616142 #
    3. Thorentis ◴[28 Mar 21 20:56 UTC] No.26614470[source]▶
    The title kinda implies it.
    replies(1): >>26614547 #
    4. indeedmug ◴[28 Mar 21 21:03 UTC] No.26614547[source]▶
    I don't know why people keep adding "Only" in front of "Black Lives Matter".
    replies(4): >>26614730 #>>26614769 #>>26614770 #>>26614970 #
    5. geoduck14 ◴[28 Mar 21 21:15 UTC] No.26614660[source]▶
    Yes they did. And they actively targeted people who stood up for Asian lives or "All Lives Matter"
    replies(1): >>26615584 #
    6. mensetmanusman ◴[28 Mar 21 21:21 UTC] No.26614730{3}[source]▶
    I have heard conservatives get on board if the word ‘all’ is added before.
    7. zdragnar ◴[28 Mar 21 21:25 UTC] No.26614769{3}[source]▶
    Because proclaiming that all lives matter was interpreted often and publicly as racist against black people.
    8. buzzerbetrayed ◴[28 Mar 21 21:25 UTC] No.26614770{3}[source]▶
    Well you instantly become a white supremacism if you say "All Lives Matter" so you can't blame people for feeling like they're getting mixed signals.
    replies(1): >>26615621 #
    9. protomyth ◴[28 Mar 21 21:48 UTC] No.26614970{3}[source]▶
    Because when you point out the group that is MOST likely to be killed in a police encounter is Native Americans, you are branded a racist. https://lakota-prod.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/Nativ...
    10. mcguire ◴[28 Mar 21 22:55 UTC] No.26615584[source]▶
    All of the "All Lives Matter" people I've interacted with have been trying to minimize the problems.
    11. veridies ◴[28 Mar 21 23:00 UTC] No.26615621{4}[source]▶
    Because that catchphrase started in reaction to Black Lives Matter, and is used largely to signal opposition to the goal of constraining police actions. If people were holding All Lives Matter protests in opposition to police violence of all kinds, I doubt they'd get much flak; instead, they're protesting the idea that black lives matter.
    replies(1): >>26617106 #
    12. blt ◴[29 Mar 21 00:00 UTC] No.26616142[source]▶
    The statement

    > The impoverished of any race are more susceptible to police violence, and impoverished Black people even more so

    is true. But the statement

    > Black people of all economic classes are more susceptible to police violence

    is also true. There is no logical contradiction between the two. Therefore, when someone responds to the second statement with the first, their response carries the connotation that the first statement is somehow "more true". It implicitly minimizes the struggle of Black people.

    Not everyone who makes the first statement in response to the second intends minimize the struggle of Black people, but I think in the majority of cases that is exactly what they intend to do.

    replies(1): >>26616383 #
    13. sidlls ◴[29 Mar 21 00:28 UTC] No.26616383{3}[source]▶
    It's not even about making the statement in response, as you suggest.

    There is no contradiction between the two, but only one of them is considered socially acceptable in certain circles, these days, in any context. That's problematic.

    14. buzzerbetrayed ◴[29 Mar 21 02:31 UTC] No.26617106{5}[source]▶
    Just because you say it means something to those people, doesn’t mean it means that to them. You don’t get to choose the hidden meaning behind other peoples words, and you’re clearly giving them the least charitable interpretation