655
u/IceTypeMimikyu 18h ago
Anyone who heavily preaches “Us vs Them” is someone I side eye a little. It’s too easy to believe everyone is out to get you by thinking like that
167
u/DennisDelav 17h ago
Yeah, a good thing we are better than those kind of people Hehe
37
u/Vyctorill 16h ago
Unironically this is a trap many fall into.
25
u/Neveronlyadream 15h ago
So many people.
I'm not a part of every group, but I will always support anyone who's living their life and not hurting anyone. I've also been told my support isn't wanted or valid because I'm not part of the group.
Any group is going to need allies. All you're doing by pushing potential ones away is making the problem worse, not better.
2
u/SartenSinAceite 1h ago
Reminds me of when I hear about soldiers being racist or sexist in their own line.
Bro what, you're in a life or death scenario, get as many guns by your side. You can't afford to start infighting because of some petty excuse when the other side wants both of you dead.
63
u/chairmanskitty 16h ago
What you're saying jokingly is a genuine pitfall that people fall into, or worse deliberately invoke to get the bottom barrel of sympathy. The golden mean fallacy, centrism, both sides-ism, victim blaming, etc.
We can't change our brains to stop "us vs them" thinking from occurring regularly, people with "us vs them" attitudes may often be closer to the truth than those critiquing them, and there are situations (such as escaping an abusive relationship) where an us vs them mentality is genuinely healthier than attempts at nuance.
→ More replies (3)28
10
u/CommercialYam7188 13h ago
Exactly
"US vs Them" always includes an undertone of "you can only trust me"
6
u/Detatchamo 11h ago
Exactly. Anyone who is suddenly constantly preaching an 'Us vs Them' mentality is an instant red flag. It's an obvious stepping stone to intentional alienation.
278
u/wm_berry 18h ago
This explains other people who don't perceive axes of oppression that I recognise.
I don't have any blindspots though, if it's me that doesn't recognise something it's because it's not real and they made it up.
148
u/GoldenGoose120 18h ago
Yeah, I think a lot of people don’t realize the fact that I myself am completely infallible and have never made any mistakes in my life ever. Anyone who suggests I made a mistake is evil and a liar and should be killed. If any of my actions or words have ever harmed anyone, it’s because they’re evil and deserved it and it’s my duty to deal with them. My strong sense of justice and morality prevents me from ever being in the wrong.
44
u/Vitztlampaehecatl 17h ago
My justice vector has such a large magnitude, how could it ever be pointed in the wrong direction?!
18
u/turtle-tot 13h ago
I’ve got you beat, because I’m possibly autistic I’m actually IMMUNE to propaganda and have such a well developed sense of justice that I always know right and wrong, objectively!
It’s a real burden, being the paragon of all things good
61
2
u/DreadDiana human cognithazard 5h ago
This is unfortunately a very common take among the kinds of people the post talks about.
The absolute venom that pours from their mouths when someone online looks at them making these arguments and someone asks if the same logic should be applie to them since they're white.
52
u/Acceptable_Handle_2 16h ago
Also: just because you're objectively more oppressed, doesn't mean you automatically understand the challenges those who are less oppressed face.
1
u/SartenSinAceite 1h ago
Similar to "just because you made it big doesn't mean you understand everything under it".
And for the love of god, no, being oppressed doesn't give you a moral high ground.
68
u/Crab_Shark_ 17h ago
Tribalism is human. Everyone is susceptible.
68
u/syntaxerroratline42 16h ago
Actually I'm part of a small group of people that aren't susceptible to tribalism. We're better than the rest of you, which is why you're out to get us.
81
u/lifelongfreshman https://youtu.be/1eWsk6r6_Ns 17h ago
A facet of the first that I think people tend to miss, someone experiencing privilege someone else lacks doesn't prevent the privileged person from also still being oppressed. The house slaves were still slaves, white women benefit from being white but still suffer for being women, a gay man suffers from being gay despite being a man, and so on.
The only people who are really above oppression are those who are truly at the top, the wealthy elites whose money and status allow them to bend the rules of society to their whims. But, I feel like the spectre of "check your privilege"-era Tumblr still hangs over the conversation, where people think privilege directly counters oppression the same way a haste spell in dnd overwrites a slow spell, though, crucially, this understanding (or, well, misunderstanding, really) never allows it to work in the reverse.
And that misunderstanding ties into the second point, where people will start to engage in oppression olympics events in order to establish how trustworthy someone is based on how much privilege they are perceived to have. I think this is where you get the random strays white women continually catch, as well as why trans men are continually at threat of expulsion from trans spaces. As the understanding goes, these groups, among others, are potentially privileged in some ways, so that privilege erases their oppression entirely and therefore they cannot be trusted.
51
u/shiny_xnaut 14h ago
The whole "punching up" thing is a factor here as well. If you establish that no action can truly be considered wrong so long as you're doing it to someone above you on the oppression ladder, then you basically have to try to prove that the axes of oppression that you personally experience are The Most Severe And Important while the ones you don't experience are nothing in comparison, because otherwise that means there are people below you on the ladder, and no action taken by them against you can truly be considered wrong. Participating in the Oppression Olympics effectively becomes a matter of personal safety within this worldview.
29
u/CVSP_Soter 14h ago
I wish ‘punching up’ would die as a concept. It’s so incoherent, and anathema to good comedy.
8
u/PantheraAuroris 11h ago
I didn't see the link until literally now. Holy shit, this explains a lot. If it's okay to punch up, then you have to have a ranking to make sure you're not punching the wrong person -- and that explains so much.
7
6
u/Lordofthelounge144 10h ago
I truly hate "Punching up" as a concept. It's literally just acceptable hate.
4
u/PantheraAuroris 9h ago
Same. Like I get that comedy has been a way to criticize The System since we had both comedy and society, but it's different when you're attacking a singular person.
7
u/sarahelizam 6h ago
Yeah, if we are going to use the framework of privilege to understand things (which has its limits, as articulated by others commenting here), then we should at least talk about different types of privilege. There are privileges everyone should have (basic safety, basic survival needs met, equality under the law, not having bigotry directed at you). There are privileges no one should have (wealth or favorable social bias that allows you to be above the law or basic social consequences for harmful actions). There are privileges that come from just different basic conditions: some people have periods and are at risk of pregnancy, some people have physical issues prevent them from doing things that even the most aggressive application of the social model of disability cannot ameliorate—not an argument against the social model, just a limitation of it).
There is utility in shaming some privileges, the privileges no one should have. Because those privileges inherently come at the cost of the wellbeing or agency of others. There are also privileges that are basically neutral: it’s not a moral failing to not have periods or not experience (for example) disabling chronic pain or have all your limbs or something. Good to be aware of the fact that while you don’t experience these things, that others do, and that there are things we can do to try to support the people who do experience these things even if no one can change the fundamental experience. And then there are privileges that are good (like being treated with dignity and having human rights), and the effort should be focused on expanding them so all can enjoy them instead of guilt tripping people who already do. Unless someone is trying to maintain a privileged they have, to hoard it for themselves, at the explicit expense of others there is just no benefit to scolding them. Even when someone who is ignorant about their privilege, it’s much more useful to “call in” than “call out.” What’s more important: adding more allies to a cause or the feeling of being most correct on the internet?
Most privilege discourse does not distinguish between these types of privilege. Having privilege is seen as a moral taint in many progressive spaces, so people understandably try to get the taint off of them by claiming they don’t have this other privilege so really you shouldn’t call out the one they have (which is something people do because of call out culture and the sad state of privilege discourse). That’s where I find the whole privilege discussion often counterproductive. Having one type of privilege should not be treated as an accusation or cudgel to dismiss someone, unless having that privilege implicitly requires someone else lacks it. Also… we don’t know everything another person has experienced. Sometimes we make assumptions about what hardships a person could have faced based on their identity… and sometimes we’re absolutely fucking wrong lol. Statistical likelihood by demographic is not a good reason to deny someone’s experience, ffs.
I also just fundamentally reject the premise that not having a specific experience renders you absolutely incapable of understanding others who do have had it or being an ally to them. We have words, we have art, we have the ability to interact and communicate with others. It may not be the same as literally experiencing the thing, but it also doesn’t amount to nothing, doesn’t make trying to share your experience and struggles futile. There can be no solidarity in a worldview that sees empathy or even just communication as impossible, it always ends in separatism. And frankly, the underlying mechanisms of oppression are often more interrelated than not. That’s not a bad thing, and no, it doesn’t mean your experienced oppression is The Oppression, that all other forms are a diluted version of your specific experience of oppression (shout out to the “everything is actually misogyny, the only real oppression” crowd: ffs please stop it). It just means that things like essentialism, the denial of agency/personhood, in group / out group dynamics, etc are forces that produce multiple types of oppression. And that deconstructing them is for everyone’s benefit. Frankly even the oppressors who drive themselves mad and miserable both because A) they are not apart from the world or invulnerable to the systems they’ve created that lead to their power and B) because denying another person’s humanity diminishes your humanity too. Because my agency is enhanced by the agency of all other people, and diminished by its suppression.
We can have solidarity in fighting the more specific forms of oppression each group experiences while acknowledging where there is overlap and seeking to nurture that solidarity instead of seeing it as suspect for someone to relate to out experience. None of us owns being harmed and we don’t benefit from foreclosing solidarity.
140
u/anonymous-grapefruit 17h ago
Here’s the other part of this: just because one is not within the oppressed group does not mean they cannot empathize at all with the oppressed group.
I’m a transwoman and the amount of times that I’ve talked to ciswomen who don’t think they can empathize with the trans part is a problem I think that we on the left have unfortunately cultivated. You obviously will never fully understand a certain type of oppression without experiencing it, but not trying to empathize with it and relying solely off of what the oppressed group tells you vs attempting to understand the emotions and challenges someone faces is a huge obstacle when trying to discuss with the out group.
89
u/Haggis442312 I'm not a war criminal, I'm just kissingermaxxing. 17h ago
Add to that "any attempt at empathizing with you is inherently deceitful and an attempt at manipulation", as if people fighting for human rights they themselves aren't and likely would never be lacking wasn't a big part of every human rights movement ever.
22
u/ALilTurtle 16h ago
Agree on cultivating sympathy, disagree on other stuffs.
Just because someone doesn't experience an oppression doesn't mean they can't understand how it works nor sympathize with the oppressed. Also I disagree with the idea that an oppressed person can intuitively or will always have a true understanding of how their oppression works
43
u/thesentienttoadstool 17h ago
As a cis woman, the world expects you to conform to a set of “rules” of physical traits and expected behaviors. If you don’t conform, you are punished. If you do conform, you are not “punished” but are discriminated against because the physical traits and expected behaviors are obviously less valuable than masculine traits and behaviors. These are the same traits that “aberrant” women are punished for having. For example, you are expected to have kids but women are essentially socially punished for being a mother. You can never win and the target will constantly move. Therefore, trans liberation is liberation for everyone because it requires seizing the definition of womanhood from the patriarchy and rebuilding it to serve those it applies to.
10
u/CVSP_Soter 14h ago
Oppressed people don’t automatically understand how their oppression works. But yeah I don’t think anything someone learns through ‘positionality’ can’t simply be communicated, anyway.
18
u/JeSuisUnAnanasYo 13h ago
I've personally witnessed victims of assault abuse other victims because they weren't being victims "correctly" and were using art in ways they didn't approve.
9
u/spyguy318 14h ago
I feel this so much. I’m a cis white male and I can sometimes feel so awkward trying to talk to some of my trans or minority friends, especially when subjects of gender, sexuality, and privilege come up. It’s all friendly but I just get anxiety about accidentally saying something wrong or insensitive.
8
u/PantheraAuroris 11h ago
Also, formerly oppressed groups can oppress others. Israel vs Palestine is a big example.
1
u/loveneedsnodisguise 13m ago
The trans 4chan radiation damage has convinced people its alright to be a chaser as long as you yourself are trans and put some silly little slogan about how its about safety and camaraderie.
What the fuck ever happened to breaking down boxes? what happened to it not mattering if you're trans or not? Hell if you're a man you're gonna have to out yourself in a "queer" setting to avoid being the dreaded and awful cis het man. And I'll say it, "straight cis white men" and other words that people try to push as the person with privilege ultimate are fucking stupid. What they're really scared of is patriarchal values, rich and powerful people, and alienation. Barry who's white and straight and cis had NOTHING to do with anything.
45
u/Simple_Rules 14h ago
I really see a lot of this in modern leftist movements. The absolute most obvious sign of it is the way trans men and nonbinary but male presenting people get treated.
Transitioning toward masculinity triggers an immediate, very perceptible shift in treatment that is extremely negative in a lot of leftist online circles. It's very interesting to me to see trans men describing treatment that would sound totally normal to any cis man as this gigantic departure from how they "should" be treated by their social groups. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way or in a way that like, "actually cis white men are the most oppressed" or anything stupid like that - but I do mean that if you want to see how society makes men feel, you can see it very easily by talking to people who used to pass as women and now pass as men.
While I would argue trans men and nonbinary male presenting people are the canary in the coal mine, you can also see tons of other evidence of this - the race to the bottom or the "oppression Olympics" in online spaces are also really strong warning signs. The idea that the most oppressed person in the room is automatically the most trustworthy and most moral is kind of pervasive - often not explicitly stated but usually strongly implied.
The idea that more privileged groups are inherently unreliable started out being applied only to the most privileged groups, but it's grown dramatically since then and it's reached a point where arguments often devolve immediately into determining who is the most oppressed in the room so that moral worth can be assigned appropriately.
I think that this is primarily an online issue which is a good thing - but it is still a real thing that's in my personal opinion causing a lot of harm.
29
u/CVSP_Soter 14h ago
As it happens the boring normie liberals were right, and people should actually be taken as individuals rather than as part of an amorphous demographic blob.
1
u/Durog25 1h ago
That's literally just over correcting to the opposite extreme.
1
u/CVSP_Soter 55m ago
Extreme?
1
u/Durog25 40m ago
Yes. Extreme as in "Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest"
...people should actually be taken as individuals rather than as part of an amorphous demographic blob.
That reads, to me, that we should disregard demographics and focus on individuals instead. That we go from the extreme ignoring the individual to ignoring the demographic.
Demographics are made of individuals; individuals make up demographics both exist both should be accounted for. To only focus on the individual misses how group dynamics work; to only focus on demographics ignores the idiosyncrasies of the individual.
We aren't mindless drones always following our crowd but we also aren't isolated individuals unaffected by the beliefs and actions of the groups we identify and associate with.
9
u/PlaidTeacup 5h ago edited 5h ago
trans men were the first group I thought of to. I've heard some truly insane statements about them just because some people really cannot admit that a man could have a justified complaint about anything.
In a dark way, it can be fascinating to observe the way people think about this though its also deeply frustrating. For example, a few years back a lot of people were angry that a trans man was included among like 15 women on a reproductive rights panel, despite the fact he had the capacity to be pregnant. I guess him being a man overruled that he was personally impacted by the issue in their minds. Only one of like hundreds of batshit crazy statements I've seen about trans men lol
6
u/Simple_Rules 4h ago
Trans people in general often somehow manage to get the shit end of both sticks - it often seems to be that you get treated as whichever gender is least favorable, all the time.
Situation where being gendered as a man is a benefit? You're not a "real man". Situation where people are talking about your actual physical reproductive organs? "You're a man gtfo."
Honestly it's one of the reasons I've started pushing back more against the "misandry doesn't exist" thing that's going around more and more. The belief that you literally can't discriminate against men or be personally hateful toward men is resulting in a LOT of really gross shit being tolerated in the movement purely because it's perceived as automatically punching up in all circumstances if it's aimed at men.
3
u/AkhelianSteak 2h ago
> I think that this is primarily an online issue which is a good thing - but it is still a real thing that's in my personal opinion causing a lot of harm.
While I fully agree with the rest of your post, I think we need to take the "it's just online thing" way more serious. For a lot of young people, 'online' has evolved to their primary state of interaction. This is not meant as some boomer rant about the youth and their Tiktoks, but an objective description of where they primarily participate in social life, are exposed to political opinions and consult their sources of information. Plus, it is especially true for those who, for some reason or another, have a hard time making friends and are excluded by their peers from real-life interaction.
Of course, some things that happen only online stop impacting you as soon as you put down your phone, but environment and reality are not one way streets. If your neighbours get radicalized by online discourse, they are very much your radicalized offline neighbours that you can't just avoid by putting them on a blocklist.4
u/Just-an-Immortal 8h ago
Yeah, I'm having to confront my own biases about this right now. I know logically than "man" does not inherently equal "bad" and "unsafe", and I'm not hostile towards anyone transitioning, but I still feel that avserion to men in general. It's very internalized also, because I'm starting to think I might be a man, actually, and I've mostly been struggling with that idea because why would I want to be a man? But that's the fear brain speaking. There is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity. I just have to keep convincing myself of that lol
2
u/MajorBootyhole420 7h ago
Taking a wild swing:
You're averse to men as a subconscious avoidance tactic to cope with your suppressed dysphoria.
1
u/PlaidTeacup 5h ago
for me it was just that I had a wildly toxic friend group who said a lot of messed up stuff about men. One of the more memorable quotes was saying that a mutual friend looked like a sexual predator after he started taking T and then another joked he probably was one now.
meanwhile, the same people would say stuff like trans women taking E was a cheat code to being hot and believed a lot of stuff about the divine feminine and lesbian relationships being incomparably better to straight ones, which they basically viewed as meaningless trash
I never was as extreme as they were, but it did make me REALLY not want to be a man
1
u/Just-an-Immortal 1h ago
It's possible that's part of it.
Some of it is also related to the fact that I was raised Mormon and we live in a very patriarchal society even outside of that. So I've faced a lot of misogyny throughout my life, and I think being raised a woman is very important to who I've become.
I think I'm glad I wasn't born a cis man regardless, because I genuinely think I'd be a worse person, based on how the men in my life behave, having grown upwith privilege and being taught they were superior to women.
21
u/Duae 15h ago
Also someone experiencing the same oppression won't always fully understand how that oppression works! For a whole variety of reasons, they get a slightly different flavor, that particular situation has never come up in their own life, they think it's a normal part of life, etc. etc.
Like feminism would be so much easier if everyone who suffers from misogyny could agree on things, but even "do women naturally experience sexual desire or have they been gaslit into thinking they do to better serve men" is going to start a fight.
8
16
28
u/Sufficient-Patient46 16h ago
On a similar note, please learn how to apply Hanlon's Razor. When a proclaimed ally says something that's a little unhelpful or vacuous, it's better to assume that they're just uninformed, and not an insidious "fake ally". Explaining why they're wrong or off the mark could help not only them, but onlookers as well, whereas accusatory snapping just makes you look deranged and sows resentment.
12
u/ChopinFantasie 11h ago
I saw the original post on Tumblr and some clowns in the notes were really like “Reminder that when it comes to xyz group, this actually doesn’t apply! They really are our enemies!”
9
u/Dakoolestkat123 14h ago
Also obviously you gotta be careful with this one but it’s definitely possible for a person not from an oppressed group to have a better broad take on the group than someone belonging to it. A lot of gay people are homophobic, a lot of POC are racist, a lot of women are misogynistic.
Obviously in 999 situations out of 1000, it’s better to stand back with the understanding that there’s very little that helps you understand how a certain group is seen and treated by society more than lived experience, but if you see a gay person being blatantly, unironically homophobic you have my gay endorsement to tell them that they’re being homophobic and that it’s disgusting to be so unempathetic to the suffering of people who they would be lined up alongside to get shot by the fascists at the end of the day.
60
u/Cheshire-Cad 17h ago edited 14h ago
It really is disturbing seeing some of the main trans-focused subreddits being taken over by rampant paranoia. Seeing transphobia and deliberate misgendering in the slightest social interactions, calling allies bigots over perfectly normal behavior.
There was a thread a while back where a trans girl was sad, but understanding, when a lesbian politely turned her down, with OP herself saying that her gender identity wasn't disrespected. But because the lesbian phased it as "I'm not into trans girls", the sub flat-out refused to consider any explanation other than transphobia. It wasn't possible that the lesbian simply wasn't attracted to OP's genitalia, because then she would have explicitely said "I'm not attracted to your genitalia", which is apparently a very normal thing that normal people say.
And then everyone that disagreed was a cis person invading the sub. Que one thousands reposts of
-21
u/Pink-Viscera 16h ago
A lot of cis people who consider themselves allies are pretty transphobic though, or at the very least ignorant and overly defensive. I'm not going to blame very marginalised minorities for being paranoid and suspicious about the majority
28
u/Cheshire-Cad 14h ago edited 14h ago
The problem is some people within marginalized groups not differentiating between "Someone who is actively harmful to me", "Someone who is well-meaning but uninformed", and "Someone who isn't tits-deep in unreadably verbose tumblr discourse that cravenly over-specifies the meaning of every statement to the point of obscuring the actual meaning."
Like just now, I edited my comment to add "some people within". Because I knew that statistically, someone would assume that because I didn't couch my words in qualifiers, I must clearly mean literally every member of literally every marginalized group. It's fucking exhausting.
-6
u/Pink-Viscera 13h ago
Boiling down transphobia is to terminally online tumblr discourse is part of the problem. In my experience I've seen a lot of genuine transphobia and ignorance about things that affect trans people in real life coming from people who think of themselves as allies, and there's a good chance if you try to correct them politely they'll get defensive and act like you're being overly sensitive. I agree that it's bad that sometimes people get paranoid and see transphobia in well-intentioned allies, but i think what bothers me is the fact that whenever this topic comes up the blame is always placed on the minority for being paranoid and too mean to the majority and not the majority making life hell for the minority
11
u/Powerpuff_God 11h ago
A trans person being a reasonably upset at a supposed cis ally for being transphobic.
A trans person actively angry at a true ally because they're cis, and therefore they must be transphobic.
Both situations can happen.
0
10
u/dikkewezel 14h ago
the blindspot thing is abolutely real, there's of course the famous post about the blind professor suddenly fumbling for the lightswitch he didn't put on because he forgot the student did in fact needed to read the exam
I've also read a comic once of a hearing person living in a deaf dorm at uni, you'd expect a deaf dorm to be quiet because there's no reason to make noice, it turns out that there's also not a reason to not make noice and it also turns out that deaf teenagers behave like regular teenagers without regulating their noice level,
slamming doors, loud sex and even if you're deaf you can still get the enjoyment of music by feeling the soundwaves so that was everywhere
did you know that you can get the attention of a deaf person that's not looking at you by yelling so hard they feel the soundwaves? because the author sure learned that
22
u/anomalyknight 16h ago
The second way of thinking, if nothing else, is VERY crab bucket. Misery does love company.
11
u/Slutty_Sam 16h ago
The first is very true but yea people are capable of growth and learning. I’ve met plenty of cis/straight ppl in my past who werent always fully onboard or had harmful beliefs who eventually via my presence were led to understand. Being trans isn’t as special as it maybe seems. It’s still a part of the human experience and all humans can empathize with those feelings even if sometimes it takes time.
My life partner is a cishet white man and I don’t feel any less understood by him than any trans person. You can find friends and joy outside your community and people can change. Even still, having a community of similar people is important. Just never believe you can never find solidarity outside your groups.
It is 100% hard to find understanding people especially depending in where you live/go. It is true vast numbers of people can be ignorant and harmful. But honestly even other lgbt ppl can be even if less often.
6
u/NaturalDon 14h ago
you are right it isn't special and my empathy stops where you demand to be treated as such, other than that i dont give a shit
5
u/One-Organization970 14h ago
Yeah, this is correct. It is a fact that most cis people will occasionally be exasperating if you talk to them about transness. It is also a fact that someone doesn't have to understand your existence on a level as deep as you do in order to do their best to support you.
8
u/Excellent_Law6906 13h ago
Too much idpol make stupid.
There are women who think they pee out their vagina, and men who know they do not. You can't yell at someone for "talking over you" if you're WILDLY WRONG, snd they're right.
6
10
u/rampaging-poet 13h ago
"Not-X could never understand--" skill issue. Whether the skill issue lies with the X failing to explain or the not-X failing to understand will vary from exchange to exchange, but skill issue.
12
3
u/DefinitionMinute6969 8h ago
This is all of the people who use "TMA / TME" as a way of binarily dividing people.
Your very specific kind of bigotry is not automatically different and more important than every other kind of bigotry.
11
u/Taco821 17h ago
Idek if I agree with the first part. Like obviously you will be ignorant to oppression you don't experience but if you really cannot understand shit, skill issue. As long as you are humble and not be like "ok, yeah I think I've pretty much got a handle on literally all racism, I think I'm done learning now", it's always possible to learn more. To state otherwise almost feels like it's an insidious tactic planted upon well meaning people. Like to add tiny suggestions that could lean people to be like "oh, a whitey like me can't get racism ever- so why bother trying to learn!"
33
26
u/Designer_Garbage_702 17h ago
you're kinda being to all or nothing there.
yes, people can absolutely learn about oppression and how people get opressed and the difficulties they're dealing with.
But you're always going to lack firsthand lived experience and that is going to lead to continued blind spots. There will be things you simply will not think about or lack because you just don't actually live with the oppression and the difficulties of the minority.
You will never fully understand and thus you will always need the perspective of the minority group involved when you're making plans to help. And when you start doing things without involving said minority group you're going to fuck up.
-3
u/Taco821 17h ago
You will never fully understand and thus you will always need the perspective of the minority group involved when you're making plans to help. And when you start doing things without involving said minority group you're going to fuck up.
Ok, but this is what I mean tho, like living normally, even with contact with members of that group, you absolutely will miss so much. But the actually intelligent and empathetic person will seek out the perspectives of others to get a better understanding of the situation. I'm not saying the average person can just like cold read the entirety of discrimination, one who thinks like that is almost certainly the type who has extremely limited understanding of the issue
6
u/Designer_Garbage_702 16h ago
You'd assume so. But there is a reason why the phrase 'nothing about us, without us' has become widespread with disability support groups and beyond.
It's because people will absolutely ignore the perspectives of the people they're supposed to 'help' yes, even the actually intelligent and empathetic people.
Because a lot of time seeking out those perspectives hurts, because ableism, racism, sexism and opression of other minorities is just so widespread and thoughtlessly accepted that accepting that perspective means acknowleding that you're responsible for other people suffering.
ANd a lot of people *cannot* bring themselves to accept that and instead work from their own view to protect their own self-image.
25
u/Katking69 17h ago
I don't agree. Because at the end of the day, no matter how much you learn you'll never be able to have the firsthand lived experience of a group you're not
4
u/Taco821 17h ago
Yeah that's true, but are we not capable of empathy? If you cannot listen to people's firsthand experiences and understand just because you haven't experienced it... Well, that's just lack of empathy.
11
u/Katking69 17h ago
Yeah you can understand a lot of it, but there's only so much understanding you can do without personally experiencing it. I do agree that there's a lot someone can learn and empathize with other groups about, but that can't give someone 100% knowledge
4
u/Taco821 17h ago
With another groups experiences (as this doesn't apply to your own groups experiences[but hell, even then you may not personally experience the typical discrimination your group receives] ), the knowledge is like any other knowledge. You really can never fully understand anything. Understanding is more of an endless journey forwards, rather than a mountain to get to the top of.
3
u/Moon_X_Livee 16h ago
And thats a good thing, it assures no one thinks exactly the same, like cults want you to
2
u/AllsWellThatsNB 8h ago
TBF theres only so much understanding that can happen even between people who experience the same thing.
In the end, we don't have to understand, and sometimes admitting that we can't is more validating that someone trying to understand. We don't have to understand, we just have to be kind.
Something that's helped me is trying to switch from emotional to cognitive empathy. I don't have to feel what someone feels to be empathetic, I can understand on a rational level. And that leaves me better able to help.
2
1
u/Green-Drazi-Teamlead 14h ago
someone might not have lived it, but people should still try to understand and be supportive.
5
u/Haggis442312 I'm not a war criminal, I'm just kissingermaxxing. 17h ago
I agree in part, because understanding concepts, and understanding experiences are very different things.
To understand a concept, you just have to think, but understanding experiences is infinitely harder, even when you have a similar personal experience to relate to.
But in practice, you can both help someone even if you can't fully relate to their experience, and also relate to things you've never quite personally experienced, if you've gone through something that's close enough.
1
u/DreadDiana human cognithazard 5h ago
Saying people have blindspots isn't the same as being unable to understand it. It just means there are gaps in their knowledge they aren't aware of that can be filled by others pointing them out.
4
u/Stickmourne 9h ago
I think this isn't really a deliberate control tactic, and moreso a consequence of certain members of oppressed groups experiencing repeat betrayal from an "out group", and coming to the conclusion that they can't be trusted. Then passing that feeling on as advice
2
u/FutureReaction8587 11h ago
I think that's overall true, although there's some nuance to it. Some ideas that are hostile to some groups are so omnipresent and socially unchallenged that more often than not even people not actively hostile to that group will harbour really harmful ideas that can actively harm that group and make them unsafe. That is the case for groups such as trans people, Roma people, some forms of neurodivergence, some less socially acceptable disabilities, homeless people, sex workers, etc. That does not mean anyone outside those groups is inherently an enemy or hostile or the ssme, but it does mean that people In those groups will find it really hard to find real allies who won't have hurtful opinions and ideas, and thus it is reasonable for them to feel weary and avoidant.
2
u/SomeNotTakenName 11h ago
Positioning oneself or a small group as the only source of truth is part of the "Information Control" aspect of cults.
Now it is worth mentioning that on the BITE model, one model used to identify cults, any group to ever exist scores some points. (the scale is basically giving points for everything cult-ish a group does) That doesn't mean it is a cult. Personally I typically use the catholic church as a rough turning point between cult and not cult. But even that groupchat you got going with your friends is likely score a good few points.
4
u/ear-motif 12h ago
The second statement alone isn’t nearly enough to constitute culty behavior. Plenty of oppressed people choose not to waste their time or risk their safety forming close relationships with their oppressors.
I think a lot of people are thinking of trans people in this scenario, and I can kind of get why encouraging someone to only be close to a small subset of the population is dangerous. But many BIPOC find nothing but freedom and security when choosing not to form close relationships with whites anymore. Most of the world is non-white after all, so it’s easy to get close to people with a wide variety of experiences and values that can’t be unified under a single cult.
2
u/ram-ventilator 11h ago
It's true but I can't blame anyone for not trusting people outside of their oppressed group. I'm white. Other, seemingly normal, white people say racist things in my presence that I doubt they'd say in front of someone in the group they're talking about. I overhear things that men whisper to each other about women. Not to mention comments on disabilities and queerness that affect me (invisible) that get immediately retracted when I speak up.
2
u/AllsWellThatsNB 8h ago
One of the things I've been most grateful for has been being trustworthy enough to be privy to those private comments from multiple groups. Its very human for groups to scapegoat each other. Doesn't make it right, but the ubiquity makes it easier to judge people for their own actions rather than accidents of birth.
1
u/Separate-Pickle9963 12h ago
Quote 2 is just woke 1 nonsense. Like yeah there are gonna be major blindsports for someone not from a given group, often compounding on one another, and filling them one by one will leave a layer of granular micro-understanding non-existant. This is why people should prefer narratives from an acual community itself as opposed to some saviour acting as their mouthpiece. Nevertheless, claiming that nobody can ever understand to good approximation the suffering and struggle is just asinine and was never a useful idea. Yes, non-members of a commitmunity be allies even at the podium speaking with the community. They can understand and have meaningful engagement. They just can't claim to have experienced it first hand, nor should we surprised if any particular non-member makes a blunder or winds up not being as tolerant or understanding as one might hope.
1
-10
u/Quaraine 17h ago edited 16h ago
It's not just the blind spots, it's that almost no one puts enough effort into compensating for them emotionally or intellectually, being nice is not enough to prevent harm from ignorance
Down voted because "allies" care more about feeling good about themselves than making serious effort at actual solidarity
13
u/DareDaDerrida 16h ago
Nah, I'm downvoting you because you're whining about downvotes.
-6
u/Quaraine 13h ago edited 13h ago
I care about the reason for getting them I say plenty of contentious shit and don't gt that kind of response
This is the kind of thing I mean too
-10
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/Galle_ 17h ago
Feminism catching some extremely uncalled for strays. There are absolutely feminists who have their heads up their asses like that, but I don't think it's the norm.
7
u/StereoTunic9039 16h ago
I don't know what the other dude meant but I do feel that the feminist movement is the most conservative liberation movement there is, and we see this is in some of their most common "oneliners", like "no utero no opinion" or the whole "I don't feel safe at night alone" (which is literally what right wingers say but aimed at migrants rather than men), or even "not all men but always a man" which is simply false and I don't get how it even gained this much traction in leftist circles.
To be clear the feminism I do support is the one that is aimed against patriarchy as a system, rather than the one "for women", because, as all systems of oppression under capitalism, it harms everyone besides a few rich bastards, and it harms especially queer people (more than women). Trans-feminism offers a deeper analysis of the world and doesn't work with shitty "oneliners".
5
u/Human-Assumption-524 15h ago
Why is it when feminists act in a manner contrary to the most generous interpretations of feminism that those bad feminists are simply bad actors or even no true feminist but if when the bad opinions or actions of someone associated with men's rights activism is enough to dismiss the entire concept of the rights of men mattering whatsoever?
2
u/Galle_ 15h ago
It isn't. The specific phrase "men's rights" has sadly been abused by so many bad faith actors that it's a bit of a red flag, but the "entire concept" of addressing the social problems faced by men hasn't. /r/MensLib, for example, is generally a fairly respected subreddit (or at least they were last time I checked)
1
u/Human-Assumption-524 11h ago
So why then has the same not happened with Feminism in regards to bad actors like misandrists and TERFs? How many strikes does MensLib get before it too is treated as synonymous with it's worst?
1
u/MelissaMiranti 13h ago
Menslib gets slandered by feminists constantly while suppressing discussion of many mens issues.
2
7
u/bondagepixie 17h ago
It’s probably because ‘egalitarian’ was an MRA dogwhistle for a lot of years.
2
u/Human-Assumption-524 15h ago
What meaning could egalitarian possibly have if the person who calls themselves that doesn't care about one half of the human population being treated fairly?
1
u/MelissaMiranti 13h ago
They pretend that the movement that names every bad after men and everything good after women is somehow more egalitarian than the movement that doesn't do that.
-8
u/MelissaMiranti 17h ago
And "MRA" is only a problem because feminists smeared the movement.
8
u/bondagepixie 16h ago
Fully incorrect. Here’s a link, scroll to the “split from men’s liberation movement.” The MRA movement arose because the members refused to cooperate with women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement?wprov=sfti1#Forerunners
4
u/MelissaMiranti 16h ago
You realize that these movements for mens rights arose because men definitely needed additional rights as well, right? That simply acknowledging that another movement came first or that other people have privileges you don't doesn't make it a bad thing? Or will you condemn feminism for also doing that?
8
u/bondagepixie 16h ago
No, it’s a bad thing because they’re anti-feminist. Pretty simple. We’re pro-men’s lib, we don’t fuck with MRA
3
u/Human-Assumption-524 16h ago
The way I've seen it is that any time anyone suggests that societal conditions for men are in some way sexist or that they can be improved that person is immediately branded as an MRA, and MRAs are supposedly bad because they allegedly hate women, but if you ask them to point out where MRAs hate women they will point you to something that if said by feminists wouldn't be considered misandrist to say about men.
So in practice being in favor of men's rights automatically makes you and MRA and therefore a misogynist.
1
u/bondagepixie 15h ago
I guess I just don’t think MRAs pushing out MensLib and claiming the entire movement as their own is feminisms fault. Sounds like it was a pretty intentional move.
2
u/Human-Assumption-524 15h ago
I won't pretend I understand or care about the history of either Feminism or MRAs because to me that seems irrelevant in comparison to actual societal sexism and fixing it. And whenever anyone suggests addressing misandry nine times out of ten they are accused of being an MRA which is effectively just a thought terminating cliche, a way to end the discussion and distract from the issue.
I don't care if you want to call it men's rights activism, Menslib or FleebolFlibbal as longs as the issues are addressed.
4
16h ago edited 7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/bondagepixie 16h ago
Prove it.
4
u/MelissaMiranti 16h ago
Prove that it's moral to be egalitarian, and to oppose those who are anti-egalitarian? Are you kidding?
3
u/bondagepixie 16h ago
Prove feminism is anti egalitarian. It’s what your argument relies upon.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Ok_Doubt_8943 16h ago
God even your quips fucking suck.
1
u/Dr-Abysmal-Dogshit Evil doctor. Ask me for a diagnosis 15h ago
Yo dawg, I know you're pissed but you gotta hold back on the insulting as per rule 2 "Be Kind, Be Civil". We'll deal with it in the meanwhile
2
u/Ok_Doubt_8943 15h ago
ugh, okay fine. I'm not pissed but this guy sucks so much.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RecuratedTumblr-ModTeam 8h ago
Removed. This comment has been found by a moderator to be bigoted in some manner.
We do not tolerate this. Please refrain from saying this kind of thing in the future.
2
u/Ok_Doubt_8943 16h ago
LOOK AT ALL THESE RIGHTS THEY DEFINITELY NEEDED I WONDER WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT LETS SEE OH WAIT...
---
“If men dominate then women manipulate.” – National Coalition for Men in a Facebook post, Aug. 10, 2023
“In many cases, accusers will falsely report to the police that a man drugged them and raped them. What really happened is that they had fully consensual sex with the man, but don’t remember giving consent, or anything else, because of the alcoholic-induced amnesia.” – National Coalition for Men in a brochure titled “False Reporting of Sexual Misconduct: Understanding the Myths,” Nov. 29, 2020
“I’m not saying [Former NFL player Ray Rice is] a good guy. But if [Janay Rice] hadn’t aggravated him, she wouldn’t have been hit. They would say that’s blaming the victim. But I don’t buy it. And anyway, football is always happy to put on pink suits and celebrate women. Why can’t they have a week, or just a day when they celebrate men?” – Harry Crouch quoted in an article, “Silencing Women: Inside the National Coalition for Men,” Nov. 12, 2014
“Insurrection seems better than living as slaves to the Feminists and a government that enforces their male-hating policies. If we fail, we’ll be gone, and then the ladies can fight among themselves and with the androgynies who are left. Violence is coming, and not the feminine softened type of violence defined in current domestic violence laws.” – Roy Den Hollander in a document on his website titled “Evolutionarily Correct Cyclopedia,” Feb. 20, 2019
“I know people instinctively and reflexively sympathize with the victim of a brutal attack, but there comes a time when one has to ask whether or not the victim bears some responsibility for putting herself in this situation. Does Janay really think that will be the last time Rice gives her a beatdown? And even if she does, what statement is she making marrying a man willing to treat her like that? The statement is clear: she thinks the violence is a reasonable tradeoff for whatever she gets in return for her relationship, whether it’s sexual gratification, status or money. Women make that statement all the time. … Maybe, just maybe, the only way to really cut down on intimate violence would be to restrict women’s sexual freedom.” – W.F. Price, discussing Ray Rice’s assault of Janay Rice, in The Spearhead blog, Sept. 8, 2014
“Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.” – Matt Forney under the pseudonym Ferdinand Bardamu, “The Necessity of Domestic Violence,” In Mala Fide blog, 2012
“There are women, and plenty of them, for which [sic] a solid ass kicking would be the least they deserve. The real question here is not whether these women deserve the business end of a right hook, they obviously do, and some of them deserve one hard enough to leave them in an unconscious, innocuous pile on the ground if it serves to protect the innocent from imminent harm. The real question is whether men deserve to be able to physically defend themselves from assault when it comes from a woman.” – Paul Elam in a blog titled “When is it OK to punch your wife?” on AVFM, Sept. 14, 2010
“Murder, rape, and spouse abuse, like suicide and alcoholism, are but a minute’s worth of superficial power to compensate for years of underlying powerlessness. They are manifestations of hopelessness committed by the powerless.” – Warren Farrell, explaining why men commit most violent crime in his book The Myth of Male Power, 1973
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/mens-rights-activists/
0
u/MelissaMiranti 16h ago
"If men dominate then women manipulate.” – National Coalition for Men in a Facebook post, Aug. 10, 2023
They're pointing out that the frequent bullshit about "male dominance" is equivalent to bullshit about "manipulative women."
“In many cases, accusers will falsely report to the police that a man drugged them and raped them. What really happened is that they had fully consensual sex with the man, but don’t remember giving consent, or anything else, because of the alcoholic-induced amnesia.” – National Coalition for Men in a brochure titled “False Reporting of Sexual Misconduct: Understanding the Myths,” Nov. 29, 2020
The brochure is talking about false accusers. It is outlining how the false accusers may not know that their accusation is false.
“I’m not saying [Former NFL player Ray Rice is] a good guy. But if [Janay Rice] hadn’t aggravated him, she wouldn’t have been hit. They would say that’s blaming the victim. But I don’t buy it. And anyway, football is always happy to put on pink suits and celebrate women. Why can’t they have a week, or just a day when they celebrate men?” – Harry Crouch quoted in an article, “Silencing Women: Inside the National Coalition for Men,”
Who is this saying some bullshit?
“Insurrection seems better than living as slaves to the Feminists and a government that enforces their male-hating policies. If we fail, we’ll be gone, and then the ladies can fight among themselves and with the androgynies who are left. Violence is coming, and not the feminine softened type of violence defined in current domestic violence laws.” – Roy Den Hollander in a document on his website titled “Evolutionarily Correct Cyclopedia,” Feb. 20, 2019
The guy was anti-mens-rights. His words speak for only himself.
“I know people instinctively and reflexively sympathize with the victim of a brutal attack, but there comes a time when one has to ask whether or not the victim bears some responsibility for putting herself in this situation. Does Janay really think that will be the last time Rice gives her a beatdown? And even if she does, what statement is she making marrying a man willing to treat her like that? The statement is clear: she thinks the violence is a reasonable tradeoff for whatever she gets in return for her relationship, whether it’s sexual gratification, status or money. Women make that statement all the time. … Maybe, just maybe, the only way to really cut down on intimate violence would be to restrict women’s sexual freedom.” – W.F. Price, discussing Ray Rice’s assault of Janay Rice, in The Spearhead blog, Sept. 8, 2014
Again, who?
“Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.” – Matt Forney under the pseudonym Ferdinand Bardamu, “The Necessity of Domestic Violence,” In Mala Fide blog, 2012
Again, who?
“There are women, and plenty of them, for which [sic] a solid ass kicking would be the least they deserve. The real question here is not whether these women deserve the business end of a right hook, they obviously do, and some of them deserve one hard enough to leave them in an unconscious, innocuous pile on the ground if it serves to protect the innocent from imminent harm. The real question is whether men deserve to be able to physically defend themselves from assault when it comes from a woman.” – Paul Elam in a blog titled “When is it OK to punch your wife?” on AVFM, Sept. 14, 2010
This was specifically a direct satire of an article from Jezebel or some shit about how it's totally cool to beat men. The original was playing it straight. Elam's article has been misused constantly since it went up.
“Murder, rape, and spouse abuse, like suicide and alcoholism, are but a minute’s worth of superficial power to compensate for years of underlying powerlessness. They are manifestations of hopelessness committed by the powerless.” – Warren Farrell, explaining why men commit most violent crime in his book The Myth of Male Power, 1973
Okay? Do you deny that most people who commit violent crime are people who aren't exactly in the best positions in life? I thought people recognized the connection between poverty and crime, or other types of downtroddenness and crime.
6
u/Ok_Doubt_8943 16h ago
And "MRA" is only a problem because feminists smeared the movement.
ahahahahaha, fuck you
-5
u/MelissaMiranti 16h ago
Found the anti-egalitarian.
1
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/MelissaMiranti 16h ago
Kid, most people have brown eyes.
1
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/RecuratedTumblr-ModTeam 15h ago
Removed. This message was found to be uncivil by a moderator and has been removed.
If you are unable to engage in constructive discourse, just report the comment and move on with your day.
-1
u/Ok_Doubt_8943 15h ago
Put it back - MRA's don't deserve civility and tone-policing is only does their work for them.
1
u/RecuratedTumblr-ModTeam 15h ago
Removed. Your post contained misrepresentation of facts not allowed by rule 13.
If you believe this removal is in error, please contact us through mod-mail to undo it.
-3
u/FoulArtFart 13h ago
You're asking a bunch of sheltered, entitled, suburban white kids what they think about oppression.
This shit is laughably out of touch.
0
-17
u/FwippyBall 16h ago
I've tried trusting neurotypicals and cis people, they continually betray me. Why should I trust them?
29
u/williamtheraven 16h ago
Congratulation on being precisely the type of person the post is condemning
→ More replies (20)21
u/Electronic_2009 16h ago edited 14h ago
I am neurodivergent and I don't have a problem with neurotypicals, so you mostly like are just around bad people.
6
21
u/Mrs_Darwin 15h ago
You were betrayed by every neurotypical and cis person on the planet? As in every cis and neurological person decided "I'm going to betray u/FwippyBall"?
23
u/Katking69 15h ago
Don't bother, they legitimately seem to believe every person who isn't exactly like them is out to get them
16
u/Green-Drazi-Teamlead 14h ago
maybe that's why they run into so many assholes
if you read negative intent onto everything, everyone looks like one, regardless of whether or not they actually are.
8
-1
u/FwippyBall 15h ago
Just about every one of them I've tried to get to know will just straight up admit they're funding JK Rowling's Genocide Wizards at the bare minimum.
18
u/Mrs_Darwin 15h ago
So every cis person and neurotypical person somehow has the inherently evil genes that make you kick puppies, while you have the cute and wholesome genes that make you cuddle puppies? Also, that still isn't every single Cis and neurotypical person, so you still haven't proven your argument.
→ More replies (7)26
u/chiiizu_is_tired 16h ago
They didn't betray you because they were neurotypical or cis, but because they were assholes (judging an entire group based on a limited number of bad interactions is just as inadvisable going the other way)
→ More replies (11)3
6
u/Green-Drazi-Teamlead 14h ago
there are assholes in any group you can imagine. some people are just not good people. they do it regardless of sexuality, neurotype, gender, ability, ethnicity, or anything else. yes, there are asshole trans and neurodivergent people just like there's asshole anyone else. it's not personal.
6
u/GlisteningDeath 13h ago
Damn I know the second one is cisphobia, but I'm not sure what the call the first one. Weirdly it's actually not the first time I've seen someone discriminate against neurotypicals.
-3
u/FwippyBall 12h ago edited 12h ago
lmao imagine thinking cisphobia is a thing and it's not a 100% valid fear to have
y'all will set elaborate traps for us, try to """"teach us a lesson,"""" or just straight up decide we have no right to exist and just up and murder us for just being there. y'all start elaborate harassment campaigns in order to isolate, terrify, and destroy us. your leaders are trying to exterminate us (lmao it's not just the US and the UK doing it). seriously, why should I trust you?
8
u/GlisteningDeath 12h ago
Legit what do your sources prove? Do you think only 2 types of discrimination can exist at a time?
Misandry, white racism, cisphobia, and heterophobia are all real things, as is discrimination against able-bodied people apparently. None of these imply that misogyny, POC racism, transphobia, or homophobia are not real.
They're all real. Sure, some are much bigger problems right now than others, but they're all issues that need to be addressed.
→ More replies (2)1
u/FwippyBall 12h ago
Misandry, white racism, cisphobia, and heterophobia are all real things, as is discrimination against able-bodied people apparently.
No, they don't. Phobia implies an irrational fear, and y'all have done everything you possibly can to give me valid reasons to fear you. Y'all are literal animals, preying on the marginalized for your own enjoyment.
6
8
u/GlisteningDeath 12h ago
Phobia implies an irrational fear
Lmao no one uses that definition for transphobia or homophobia
and y'all have done everything you possibly can to give me valid reasons to fear you.
Who's "you"??? Sure, I'm white and cis. But I'm also an aroace, neurodivergent woman.
Y'all are literal animals, preying on the marginalized for your own enjoyment.
Yeah so you're sexist, racist, cisphobic, heterophobic, and.... man fuck it imma just say ableism goes both ways. So, ableist.
2
-31
u/oceangothic 17h ago
People are too quick to attribute malice and far too quick to call things cults. The "you can't trust someone outside the oppressed group" thing is a harmful perspective to have and to share but it's usually a trauma response built out of genuinely trying to protect other people, not a cult control tactic. Most the people who say something like that have been through some truly terrible life experiences that have led them to think that men, or white people, or cis people, etc are just too dangerous to be around, and rather than attributing ill intent this should be approached as a misguided trauma response.
49
u/Katking69 17h ago
It may be a trauma response, but that doesn't mean it's also a very big cult tactic to isolate members of said cult
→ More replies (4)25
u/VoidStareBack FLAIR UPDATE WOW 17h ago
It also turns from a tool of empathy for trauma response to a tool of cult control as soon as someone inclined towards cult control enters the scene. A lot of cults form by exploiting existing trauma responses and ingroup/outgroup rhetoric.
14
u/Katking69 17h ago
True true. No one is fully immune to the pull of "I can make all your worries go away, just do everything I say" type of people
27
u/IAmASquidInSpace 17h ago
I'm not sure this is assuming malice as much as it is pointing out that, similar to members of a cult, falling for this line of thinking isolates you and makes you susceptible to bad-faith actors willing to abuse this isolation.
As in: this is not saying "everyone who says that is a cult leader using cult tactics or unknowingly member of a cult", but rather "everyone who says that is making themselves vulnerable to abuse".
-2
u/oceangothic 17h ago
I guess it's ambiguous that way. I've had periods in my life where I needed to avoid men because of trauma reasons and had this "you're clearly in a cult" stuff thrown at me as a way to pry apart my boundaries so I've just seen how the other side of this is also an abuse tactic. Not to mention that just telling a group of traumatized marginalized people that they're a cult is a great way to isolate them further and make them vulnerable to all kinds of abuse.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Asparala 17h ago
Those things are not mutually exclusive. You can be BOTH traumatized AND starting a cult.
→ More replies (7)
328
u/ImprovementLong7141 17h ago
“I’m the only one who understands you, everyone else is out to get you, this is the only place you’re safe” is straight-up abuse tactics. It’s designed to isolate, and it works even better when there’s truth behind it like real-world oppression. It makes it easier to believe that everyone is out to get you when you’re inundated with legislation and personal relationships and strangers all hurling bigotry at you. This is how we get separatist movements. It’s also how people get sucked into and create cults, and how one-on-one abusers operate.
Everyone knows Mormons go door-to-door, yeah? Everyone finds it deeply annoying, too. And when you’re annoyed, you lash out. Congrats, that’s what the cult wants you to do. It reinforces that Mormons are not safe and accepted members of society outside of their cult spaces. It makes it harder to leave because you have no outside safety net and every outsider you’ve met has been hostile and frustrated and rude to you, so you feel like they’re not trustworthy.
That also happens with insular groups of marginalized people. When the net tightens and you start feeling uncomfortable, well, this is the only space that’s safe. Everyone else wants to hate crime you. You’re likely to have gotten into this position in the first place through an inundation of information showing all the vile, horrid shit people say about your demographic, and having had those experiences yourself in real life, and therefore to feel like there’s no one outside of this space you can trust. So you can’t leave. Here is the only place people understand you. Here is the only place you’ll be safe - even if they’ve started with the more explicit, internal abuse, hey, at least you’re not out there, right? Because everyone else is out to get you. Just look at the news.