Comment on [deleted]
loudwhisper@infosec.pub 3 weeks agoCan you please then elaborate on what the following means, according to your interpretation?
Women and minority only spaces exist because white men as a group have historically discriminated against them
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It means that white men have discriminated against them, yes, but it doesn’t rule out the possibility that white women have discriminated against black groups or that black men have discriminated against women groups.
loudwhisper@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
No it doesn’t exclude that, but it also unnecessarily mixes racial with gender discrimination, and in a general statement like that is odd to do that. The intention I perceived was to link the creation of spaces that women (or minorities) require to white men discrimination only, which is absurd in my opinion.
To make a similar example, saying “gay people need their spaces, because they are historically discriminated by black women” doesn’t “exclude” that also men discriminate them, or that also white women do, but I hope you can see what an odd statement that is, and if someone would find it misogynistic or racist, I think they would be right.
Thinking maliciously, I would say that’s the classic way for a white guy (the commenter stated that about himself) to make a statement that is less controversial because it only “accuses” their own demographic and the most acceptable demographic to critique.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Maybe stop doing that.
loudwhisper@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
The rest of the critique remains nevertheless.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Your example doesn’t really match up because you only mentioned one group and the group shares no logical overlap with the called-out demographic.
I interpreted the original statement as shorthand for white people discriminating against black people and men discriminating against women. Your reading is more grammatically accurate, but less charitable. Given your final paragraph I would encourage you to be more charitable with your interpretations.
loudwhisper@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
Fair enough.
However, OP stood by his statement:
So I guess your interpretation was too generous, mine slightly too strict.