• tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • H4rdStyl3z@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

        • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m not even sure the radicals want that. Anger is an appropriate response to oppression. Vengeance is an extreme form of that but I doubt anyone that isn’t truly damaged would be okay with it.

    • galoisghost@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others. It’s like a race to these people - who’s winning isn’t based on how close to the goal they are, it’s based on how far ahead of the competitors they are. People who have everything they need often see others getting to that same point as competitors catching up, and, seeing that they are not advancing themselves, they feel that they need to prevent that in order to maintain their lead. It’s meant to be everyone working together, but few see it that way, especially among the current “winners.”

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others.

        Some people are that way, but not “people generally.”

      • runswithjedi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s just a recognition that life isn’t a zero sum game. Everyone benefits when the worst off in society attain improved circumstances.

            • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              This is a flawed method of thinking though, there are plenty of factors that go into what you think. If you’re aware of and trying to avoid a negative stereotype, you’re just as likely to fall into the “he doth protest too much” as someone who demonstrates that stereotype.

  • MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

    • dvoraqs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

    • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      A great point! I feel like the overarching end goal is a meritocracy - people are rewarded for their talents and hard work. I’d wager most people agree with this goal.

      The problem becomes disentangling history and circumstance from our ability to measure talent and hard work. The only way we know to break some social norms that hinder a true meritocracy is to unfairly manipulate the playing field in the short term, which in itself does not follow a meritocracy.

      I think there are a few main obstacles:

      1. Perceived talent and hard work that was actually the result of circumstance - those that think the system is currently working and therefore their position is justified.
      2. Lack of acceptance that the goal is long term / generational. Those that are unwilling to accept a temporary ‘manipulated meritocracy’ in the short term that would allow a better one in the future.
  • kellyaster@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I know Ellis Henican has a whole ass career that isn’t voice acting, but it kills me we only ever got him as Stormy Waters and nothing else. He’s got such a great voice!