Post 536335 by 0x40@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by 0x40@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #534953 by noelle@elekk.xyz
2018-10-14T16:28:31Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
When women make a broad generalization about men*, stop before you reply "but not all men".We know.There are two options:1) Make the broad generalization. Some men will have to stop and self-examine to see if they actually perform the behavior being criticized. Self-examination is good.2) Specify "some men". This gives men who DO perform the behavior the excuse to say "well they don't mean ME". Enabling failure to self-examine is bad. h/t @gingerrroot and @c0debabe for the thought1/2
(DIR) Post #534956 by noelle@elekk.xyz
2018-10-14T16:29:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
* This applies to any less-privileged group generalizing about a more-privileged group. "Not all white people", "not all straight people", "not all cis people", etc. - this applies to you too.2/2
(DIR) Post #535724 by 22Decembre@mamot.fr
2018-10-14T17:28:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle @gingerrroot @c0debabe Would be cool also to remember some people (men included) have low self-esteem and this kind of thought does not help. Rather self harm in a mental way.
(DIR) Post #535869 by noelle@elekk.xyz
2018-10-14T17:40:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@22Decembre @gingerrroot @c0debabe Every time, SOMEONE comes up with an excuse to argue against oppressed groups speaking out against their oppressors. It never fails. "Some hypothetical person might have low self-esteem and you might make them sad" is a new one on me, though.
(DIR) Post #535888 by c0debabe@harpy.life
2018-10-14T17:42:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle @22Decembre @gingerrroot hi I'm trying extract my foot from my mouth ... Please untag me
(DIR) Post #535931 by noelle@elekk.xyz
2018-10-14T17:45:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@c0debabe sorry :( <3
(DIR) Post #535953 by balrogboogie@ceilidh.space
2018-10-14T17:46:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle yea, seriously, this is pretty egregious. really not a good take @22Decembre
(DIR) Post #536335 by 0x40@mastodon.social
2018-10-14T18:15:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle @gingerrroot @c0debabe If you know you're not targeting all X'es but fail to specify this, it stands to reason any X will feel accused and go on the defense. Why is that considered unreasonable? I mean. If a post is drawing a narrative that anyone X'ish is probably guilty of something, I'd argue that is the wrong way to fight segregation. I think it'd be more constructive to stop forcing all asholes into categories. Myself included. (1/2)
(DIR) Post #536386 by noelle@elekk.xyz
2018-10-14T18:19:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@0x40 Before you go on with 2/2, I really strongly encourage you to re-read what I actually wrote instead of posting a kneejerk reaction like you're doing. The explanation for the questions you're asking is in the post. It's not even subtle.
(DIR) Post #536601 by 0x40@mastodon.social
2018-10-14T18:31:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle I obviously misjudged you from the openness and seemingly humanitarian angle of your original post. Good luck and good night.
(DIR) Post #537731 by lara@mond-basis.eu
2018-10-14T19:49:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle thanks, yes!Also, depending on the topic, marginalized people sometimes have to assume that any given man/white person/… performs the behaviour, because not assuming that can be very dangerous.
(DIR) Post #541385 by keiyakins@elekk.xyz
2018-10-14T23:59:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle I'm not sure that formulation is a good idea. It's very, very easy to respond "Well why doesn't that apply when talking about _unprivileged_group_?"
(DIR) Post #545838 by yesbait@bsd.network
2018-10-15T07:02:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle I do not think this is a good approach. Believing in diversity and that every human is unique, I will always dismiss a statement starting with "All men..." as obviously false. To trigger self-examination, starting with something like "Most men - so probably you -..." seems to do a better job.
(DIR) Post #546907 by fnord@chaos.social
2018-10-15T08:48:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@noelle @gingerrroot @c0debabe At first I thought "good point", but upon further consideration, I can't help but feeling that this won't work as intended, but instead has the effect of radicalizing a discussion that would rather need more people on all sides actually willing to talk to eachother.