Edit: I didn't actually think I'd need to put this here but unfortunately I think those kinds of people are here

Bigots are not welcome on my post and they are certainly not welcome on my post to co-opt it to spread bigotry

I am progressive myself and support human rights and LGBTQ+ people

top 92 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I put a poster up for a women/trans/non-binary inclusive group in an anarchist cafe, with their approval, only to get a literal essay from the cafe the next day about the miss-use of a word pertaining to our trans inclusivity. I can't recall what the "right" word was supposed to be, and the poster's verbiage was already researched/reviewed by trans people in the group. Due diligence was done.

Queue people leaving the group because we didn't feel it was necessary to print new posters. They felt we should be less hostile to "people taking the time to educate." Yeah, I made a few comments.

But you know what? I much prefer that to the kind of shit I had to deal with in conservative spaces. I worked on a couple political campaigns, had back room discussions where people don't "educate" when you're not one of them, they insult and back-stab you.

I can at least see the essay as an attempt to share knowledge, to include rather than exclude, even if it was from a place of self-importance and ignorance.

The friction I see in progressive spaces is usually about making things more equitable. It can be poorly thought out, but no one's perfect. I prefer flawed inclusivity to hostile exclusivity.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In American leftism there is a definite divide between black and white.

    For example second wave feminism is often thought of as Women seeking entry into the workplace, but at the same time black feminists were trying to leave the workforce and take care of their own kids.

    The labor movement has an explicitly racist history. A fact that Capitalists often took advantage of by leveraging black scabs who were often ineligible for union membership. Eugne Debs identified this as a problem with the socialist movement.

    I'm not saying that racism is common among today's lefties, just that white lefties are often ignorant of black American life and especially black radical thought and activism.

    If you are vexed by Bernie Sanders' struggle with black voters, you're probably not very familiar with this history.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Absolutely. No one hates the left more than slightly different brands of the left.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Pulling the cultural appropriation card too much perhaps? Especially for cultures they do not understand beyond surface level. Just because someone is wearing something from another culture, it doesn’t mean it’s being appropriated. Obviously negative appropriation exists especially for instances where it is being done for profit. The problem is sometimes some people are reactionary and are too quick to label something as such without looking into it first.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    I know there's like, actual cultural appropriation...but at this point I wish it never entered the cultural conversation at all tbh because I feel like it became weird bioessentialist shit. Like, just actively telling people what they're allowed to be interested in is based on genetics. Not to mention cases where mixed race people have been assaulted over perceived hair appropriation (the idea that you can tell what race people are by looking at them is monoracist.)

    At my most charitable, I think people are forgetting that most people aren't influencers or public figures?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I left a Discord server I really enjoyed being on because they absolutely lost the plot with cultural appropriation bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    On the not understanding cultures thing I think there was one time if I recall correctly where people got angry at a movie, TV show or media due to some misunderstanding it and assuming it was bigoted

    I don't even know if I'm remembering it correctly or not or if it even happened but the problem of misunderstanding cultures and assuming they are bigoted or are being bigoted is a very real problem

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    A frequent frustration is recursive guilt-by-association.

    "Yeah so okay we do align on everything however you refuse to denounce your friend who didn't really do anything but he is a fan of a controversial figure who also didn't really say or do much but they are friends with a bad person so... Get lost?"

    Another is translation based on the assumption that one's assumptions are universal.

    "You said you think Terry Davis was a technical genius for his OS. Honestly his work is nothing compared to a modern OS. I think so so therefore you must think so, and so you must mean something else. What you are really praising is his extremist christianity."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The latter one is more of a human trait. That's why basically every conservative will immediately suspect you pf something if you start badmouthing religions (at least their religion), even with totally accurate critique they happen to not know much about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago

    Yes. I've even seen progressive people being quite racist. Political beliefs don't always line up with how people act in everyday life.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yes, I have a friend who is extremely progressive but is still very much a slut shamer. She really looks down with disgust on women who like sex or have more boyfriends than she deems acceptable.

    She also shows bigotry against other groups of people. Although she would never in a million years look down on someone because of their skin colour, she absolutely takes on a tribalistic Us vs Them mentality for other reasons. An example is the war in Ukraine started by Russia. Did Russia start it? Yes. Is Putin evil? Yes. Are there many Russians who support this war? Yes. BUT... not every Russian person in the world is inherently evil, not all of them want this, many are victims trapped in a system that will literally throw them out the god damned window if they dissent. And my friend absolutely fucking hates Russians. All of them. No empathy about the nightmare situation so many of them are stuck in. It has gotten so bad that she has literally started to hate her chickens that are a Russian breed. She has started assigning negative human traits to them and is insisting that they are negative and bad because they are Russian chickens. It's honestly getting ridiculous.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Holy shit, I would unironically start trolling her... Give her chickens Jewish names so when she starts badmouthing them, she might have a clue she's just being a bigot, exactly like Nazis in that respect of, "everyone of a group I don't like is guilty".

    I'd start giving her nicknames of officers that stood over concentration camps if she continued.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Yes, I have a friend who is extremely progressive but is still very much a slut shamer. She really looks down with disgust on women who like sex or have more boyfriends than she deems acceptable.

    I had forgotten about this kind of problem and I absolutely hate it

    It reminds me of progressive people who want to ban anything lewd or sexual because it's a "problem"

    Or shaming women and LGBTQ+ people for liking sexual or lewd things and claiming it harms them, have these people even browsed the internet because there's a whole culture of women and LGBTQ+ people liking lewd and sexual stuff and even creating it

    I've even seen some progressive people shame LGBTQ+ and female creators of lewd and sexual content because it's "harmful"

    It's not just men who like and create lewd and sexual stuff

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    If you see a polite obviously rural person who has not said anything remotely questionable, a common comment is "but you probably wouldn't want to know their political opinion" or "you probably don't want their take on minorities or women". To be folksy is to guarantee progressives brand them as right wing racist sexist bigots.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    So it depends how you define progressive.

    As a PoC I have certainly witnessed racism from white, black and Hispanic liberals. At its worst the democratic party can feel like a clubhouse for non regressive white people and the largest minority groups in the country. No one else really has a seat at the table. Is that really progressive?

    I've moved on to assessing peoples worldview as either inclusionary or exclusionary. Unfortunately most people, left or right, have an exclusionary world view.

    Exclusionary here means a failure to acknowledge the universal sanctity of human dignity. Nearly everyone is focused on themselves or their group exclusively. Some in ways that are more harmful than others.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I have a lot of first hand experience with it via dating. In terms of outward Appearance and how I present I am an average looking straight cis white male. Mentally, in addition to being on the spectrum, that's not really how I identify or am wired though. If anything, I'm probably more lesbian based on who I seem to get along with and am attracted to, lol.

    As I am sure we are all (hopefully) aware there are a lot of men with very problematic behaviors (which is an entire other complex topic). As a result, within the liberal sphere I exist in it is very socially acceptable to shit on or otherwise have a negative bias against people that present like I do in a way that would not be acceptable if it were against another social group because of what they are.

    I have had a number of interactions and conversations where my point of view/input/feelings/etc. were more or less dismissed or ignored by women when if I were a woman saying the exact same thing it wouldn't be. I have also had people flat out say "that's a very man thing to say" as a when what I am saying conflicts with their world view or how they feel and they can't engage with it logically anymore.

    Please note, I am leaving a ton of intricate context out of the above to try and avoid having to write a novel. I understand why women have the bias/reaction towards men who present like I do, and why it's necessary. In the examples I am thinking of, these are women who know me, not strangers or randos. When discussing things I do my absolute best to have conversations in good faith and on the merits/logic of what is being said.

    I don't like pulling the autism card or saying that's just how I feel, but I find that people are so unused to interacting with someone like me, rather than engage in the nuance of my experience and how it very much contradicts their world view, it's much easier for them to find a reason to be dismissive of it. I also realize that from a third party perspective without any context my autistic behavior is indistinguishable from gas lighting.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I refrained from talking about the gender role thing because per the post title it didn't seem like a prejudice perse, even if related. It's also a topic I always try and preface with stating that although the symptoms might be fairly plane and apparent the cause is very complex and nuanced and a result of a lot of different societal pressures and influences. Partially because it is very easy to paint someone talking about it as a red pill misogynist if that nuance is ignored. I also try and point out that this ultimately isn't a gender issue or any other tribalism type thing, but merely a result of human nature. People are shitty sometimes. That's universal.

    In my experience, there are a lot of women that are very vocal about equity and equality, especially in relationships. However it's often fairly unidirectional. For example they want their partner to be able to do things like cook, laundry, dishes, etc (which I can do, I think that's part of being a well rounded person), but they don't have much interest in learning how to do the traditionally male coded household tasks. Or they don't want to be the one to approach and ask me out, I always have to be the one to pursue. Similarly in the bedroom I have never met a woman who is dominant or willing to try, despite the fact that I am very switchy.

    In talking to these people and pointing out how their personal desires and behavior don't align with their actual decisions and behavior they often default to, that's just my personal preference.

    That's nice, but who cares? It's not fair to have it both ways and ultimately feels like another form of pulling the ladder up behind them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is there supposed to be some equivalence between being politically progressive and not being discriminatory?

    The way I see it is we're all equal opportunity assholes, it's just the context that differs. Ones politics does not make one a paragon of virtue.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Generally being more aware of something means less ignorant behavior like discrimination. Not a guarantee, but if someone is smart enough to understand racism they should be able to grasp sexisim and so on.

    Again, not a guarantee and there are plenty of people who are progressive about a limited number of topics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Purity testing.

    If you don't align with the party narrative 100%, down to the atom, then you're basically maga.

    I don't think people realize this is a major factor that drives people away from progressive politics.

    When a conservative meets someone more conservative, they bitch about liberals. When a leftist meets someone more left than them they compete with each other to see who's most "pure."

    This is a major problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    As a trans but Closeted person myself I hate when non trans allies speak over us for us without letting us actually speak and allies of other minorities speaking over the minorities they claim to support in the first place without letting that minority be involved is an actual problem

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I'm progressively discriminating. Everyone is equally annoying and I hate you all. 😁

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (39 children)

    Constantly. Usually it takes the form of reducing topics to binary choices and/or purity tests.

    • "You're either with me or against me / You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
      • Where "part of the solution" means doing exactly, and only exactly what they think you should be doing.
    • "If you don't satisfy all of my impossible requirements, you're as bad as a nazi"
    • "We only agree on 99 out of 100 things, so clearly you're not to be trusted"
    • etc
  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (32 children)

    i really have never encountered someone like this.

    unless the 'purity test' is being anti genocide or pro trans rights. you know, basic fundamental shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don't see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.

    If someone asks me if I'm anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don't actually expect I'm personally participating or countering it in any way.

    Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It's better to be specific.

    Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    you somehow ignored the entire point of his statement, then turned his statement around and basically stated the same thing then attacked him with it

    anyway lol at anyone that would be concerned with the low bar of ‘don’t support genocide’ as a purity test

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I think there's every right to concern when we take that to the extent of "If you dont let the candidate who's worse for the genocide win and thereby set back every other issue including the trans rights we also purity test over, then you're pro genocide". There's a right way to do that shit and harm reduction is worthwhile

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You're all making generalities out of assumptions here...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Their purity test: You must not deny genocide.

    What you heard their purity test was: They must accept that any and all genocides that I think exist are real and a big problem.

    Again, you fucking morons are inferring things that aren't there just to try and be witty, while utterly missing the point...

    Congratulations on failing your reading comprehension test.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    You've got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.

    The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.

    Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn't how it works, that isn't how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn't lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If they turn it in to a white genocide problem, then you already have your answer: They don't care about minorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    What does minorities have to do with this?

    Armenian's were a majority. The Fur people of Darfur are a majority in their region. Palestinians are a majority.

    Genocide is a method often used in converting a majority to a minority.

    I agree with your endpoint that those people don't care, but I think if you told someone like that that they don't care about minorities I think you would be confirming their thoughts not convincing them away from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    No shit. Nowhere did I say you'd convince a bigot with these arguments, especially bigots as committed to the bit as Israelis...

    BTW, if you think Palestinians are a majority in relation to Israel and the other nations involved in that conflict, ESPECIALLY in power, then you are only exemplifying your lack of understanding of how the real world works.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    By world population, whites ARE a minority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.

    That actually has a really simple answer, the right age is the one that the person and their doctors/medical professionals consider age appropriate for that individual. It isn't up to society to restrict that decision. That is before the fact that medical professionals with direct experience with the person will have the best opinions on the topic.

    This is also true for every single medical decision. Also true for every decision that doesn't directly harm someone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (9 children)

    I can't imagine thinking any medical procedure has a simple answer, especially anything that permanently alters you.

    Medical professionals are people, sometimes they make the right choice, sometimes the wrong choice. There are people who shop for the wrong answer, and also people who get the wrong answer and live in suffering. It is important to question things and have a discourse.

    If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon... I don't think I could just jump on board with that call.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I'm not convinced you understand what transitioning means. You can start transitioning without any medical intervention, and pretty much every trans person does socially transition before medical treatment because there's really no alternative. When a younger person starts medical treatment, it will consist of puberty blockers. That's it. Fully reversible, no known long-term side-effects, been used for 50 years for cis kids with precocious puberty. Suggesting that's in any way equivalent to someone permanently deafening themselves is pretty disgusting, it's typical terf bullshit and you should really think twice about whatever led you to that opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    The simple answer is that it is nobody's business but the patient and the medical professionals.

    A surgeon would not remove someone's hearing for misophonia. They took an oath to do no harm and the vast, vast majority of medical professionals take that seriously on a personal level before getting into licensing and other requirements to practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    The reasonable debate is at what age is that allowed. I do not think that has an easy answer other than legal age of majority for the country you are a citizen of. I think that the problem is there are harder answers than that worth seriously considering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This is like saying there needs to be a minimum age for ADHD medications or birth control. Doctors are not giving minors sex changes all willy nilly and the procedures that they do provide like hormone suppression are proven safe, effective, and reversible.

    Why does the general public or politicians need to pick an age for medical care that doesn't involve them and doesn't harm anyone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Because I don't think a 2 year old should be given Adderall without a parent knowing?

    I personally am pretty open minded about these things, I was able to get birth control with my partner when I was 15 without her Catholic parents knowing. That was very important, but I recognize that if we were 10 it maybe becomes a different conversation involving parents.

    You might say a parent could be included but you also have cases of divorced parents where one parent is for and another is against and there is a question of if the childs opinions are theirs or their parents. What age should the child be able to make the call? 15? 10? 5?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Because I don't think a 2 year old should be given Adderall without a parent knowing?

    What a totally reasonable and not completely fictional scenario that shows you are discussing in good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When one divorced parent gets their toddler prescribed Adderall without the other parent being informed. AAP recommends against it for ages 3 (not 2 but 3) to 5 but it is allowed.

    I'm not saying I even have an opinion on this, but I do think if someone said they think 3 is too young to take Adderall I think that doesn't automatically tell me they are anti medicine or a bad person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Parental involvement in medical decisions is a completely different topic than medical treatment by age.

    The AAP, which STRONGLY recommends against medication has a consensus of medical professionals that medication might be necessary in very specific situations, is the best group of knowledgeable people to make that call. Definitely more qualified than some random person who just looks at numbers and thinks society or politicians would make a better call than medical professionals who use evidence based practices.

    I'm not saying I even have an opinion on this, but I do think if someone said they think 3 is too young to take Adderall I think that doesn't automatically tell me they are anti medicine or a bad person.

    That is an opinion, and saying they less qualified to decide on appropriate ages doesn't mean they are anti-medicine or a bad person unless they try to make laws that keep medical professionals from providing evidence based health care.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon… I don’t think I could just jump on board with that call.

    Comparing having your ears removed to transitioning is kind of concerning. This parallel makes it seem like you believe being trans is a disability.

    Trans people also do not just one day go and have life-altering surgery. It is a long and arduous process with ups and downs, if you prevented your 16 year old from beginning that process the likelihood is that you will end up with a very resentful and distant adult child in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You should just be forward with which perceived genocide you don't qualify as a genocide so that people can decide whether there's an validity to what you're saying. Which genocides are we purity testing over that aren't really genocides?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I need the right to take hormones, but I dont need the right to take my dick to the ladiesz bathroom. Does this make me a Nazi?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    This logic implies that you would be comfortable with an almost-fully transitioned trans male using the female toilets. They are 6'1", well built, bearded and indistinguishable from a cis male, but they still have a vagina and therefore since we are allocating toilets on genitalia, they must use the female toilets.

    No it doesn't make you a Nazi to say what you just said, but I do think you are worrying about things that really are not an issue.

    Stopping trans females from using female toilets does not prevent straight cis men from sneaking inside to do something nefarious -- you know, the demographic that is by far the most likely to sexaully assault someone?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    There are thick, uncrossable lines, and there are a lot of people who don't mind crossing them. You cannot compromise with a bigot. You cannot find common ground with a person who would subjugate you, or someone who sees you as less than human.

    We can have disagreements about many political issues, but when you are standing next to pedophiles, rapists, fascists, and bigots, you shouldn't be surprised to be called a Nazi.

    So the question becomes, what is the test of "purity"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Bull, and I cannot emphasize this enough, shit. Everyone is not a little bit bigoted. That's something bigots tell themselves when rationalizing their own prejudices. You should probably take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Their example of bigots was racists and nazis plus pedos (which isn't bigotry but universally frowned upon). They did NOT say, "any and all bigots, even of minor things".

    Why are you trying to make them say something they did not say?

    You are part of the problem. When someone says, "I like pancakes", what they SPECIFICALLY DID NOT SAY is, "I hate waffles".

    Similarly, when someone says, "you cannot compromize with nazis and bigots", what they DID NOT say was, "any concervative deserves the death penalty". Why do you read it as such?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    "Progressive" describes a position, not a person. A person can be many things. A person can hold contradictory viewpoints, and fully believe two incompatible thoughts at the same time. It's tragically naive to assume that people are rational or consistent.

    Can a person think they are progressive and also be a bigot? Of course a person can. Everybody is the hero in their own story.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've seen liberal POCs say racist shit about White people more times than I can count.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I would also say that the idea of changing the definition of racism to mean that you cannot be racist toward a white person is also inherently racist. You could say, "person X is oppressed by people Y, so I understand why they are racist" but that doesn't mean that they aren't racist, or that it's okay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Oh, yeah, I've heard that line plenty of times. I agree, it's just a convoluted argument to mask anti-White racism. Funnily enough, I've seen plenty of White people say it. Sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    I'm Asian. If I do anything well in life it's because of privilege not because I worked 2 jobs while attending community college schooling and doing nothing else for myself other than to be at a better place. My effort feels completely and utterly dismissed by some of these people. They refuse to acknowledge my effort at all and instead they keep trying to dig deeper to find reasons why I'm "privileged".

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Good examples from others but I also want to bring up microaggressions. Basically, small things that add up, like a white woman gripping her bag tightly when a black man enters an elevator, or a white man crossing the street because a Latino guy is approaching who looks a little "gangy." Usually they aren't that progressive (e.g. they support diversity but critical race theory is a bridge too far).

    That said, prejudice is something we all have and is part of human nature. It protects us historically from things like snakes and spiders who may not be venomous but on the off chance they are, better safe than sorry. Prejudice leads to stereotypes, stereotypes lead to discrimination. Conscious effort is needed to overcome that, and progressives do that better than not but no one is fully immune to your natural instincts.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    A lot of microaggressions are assumed to be about one thing but are actually something else. Maybe the white woman clutched her purse because he was a man. Maybe she was just moving it closer in a tight space. Maybe he reminded her of someone specific. Sure, it is probably race and if the same person does it multiple times it could be confirmed. And yes, it is totally reasonable for a black man to see a bunch of white women clutching purses and assume there is a pattern even if not every single one was due to racism.

    Microaggressions are one of those things that are real while also frequently misread because it is impossible to infer intent from a single vague action. Better to assume the minority/oppressed group is right, and if accused of something in error just let it go.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Just head on over to the FuckCars community. Tons of ableism in there to witness.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, that's generally the issue with a 'Fuck' mentality.

    Not "YayTransit" or something, but just relentless bemoaning cars and all who dare to use them. Such a community approach may serve the circle-jerk of those in agreement, but doesn't really do anything to change the status quo closer to what they want.

    Walkable stuff is nice, as is transit as it works so I'm on board for improvements to make that more feasible, but it's kind of off putting the way they counduct themselves a good amount of the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Assuming everyone lives in a city where the weather is mild, the distances to things are short, there is reliable public transportation, and has significant infrastructure in place for walking/biking. Also assuming that everyone using a car instead of biking/walking is just being lazy, without spending a second to consider the elderly or infirm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Assuming everyone lives in a city where the weather is mild, the distances to things are short, there is reliable public transportation, and has significant infrastructure in place for walking/biking

    Could you elaborate about what you mean here? It appears to me as if the people participating in fuck cars are more bemoaning the lack of these things. The people frequenting that comm will be the first to complain that the vast majority of Americans have abysmal choices for non-automobile transportation.

    Also assuming that everyone using a car instead of biking/walking is just being lazy, without spending a second to consider the elderly or infirm

    This, I just simply dont see in that comm. I feel like the people in fuck cars comm would be the first ones to argue that the elderly and infirm are oftentimes the first ones to suffer due to lack of good public transportation options. Casting the fuck cars community as ableist and ignorant to the struggles of the disabled seems unfair - given how the mass transit community are some of the primary champions of low floor trams, paratransit, accessible stations with elevators, designated priority seating, etc...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago*

    I've disagreed with the whole fuck cars movement because it introduces more problems that are absolutely not worth having and they are ignorant of a lot of things

    I'm also introverted and autistic and I like having my alone space when I need it, I don't hate interacting with people but I only like interacting with people when I feel like it

    Cars allow for that alone time where I can he alone when I want to and getting rid of cars and having to be forced to ride public transport would make that worser

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›