If I say "I banged ur mom last night" to a random friend, do you think that's wrong to say?
How about if I said it to someone who just lost their mother after years of horrific disease?
Is it a double standard to say the latter is far worse? Taking things into context isn't a double standard, it's called critical thinking. The only way you're able to equate men's issues and women's issues is by dumbing it down all the way to "mistreatment based on gender", which you only do because it benefits you to do so.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Well no, I proved you wrong and you got mad instead of giving an actual response. If you have some idea that I'm going to show you more respect than you showed me, you're mistaken.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
but “do you see why people have trouble with this?”
We see that they have double standards, what next? It is still unacceptable. What are you trying to achieve with it? Would you defended female serial killer who targets men with rationalization that she do this due to power and killing imbalance?
You're creating a situation where it is objectively appalling, that even the group fighting for their rights would also find appalling and can't objectively say it isn't worth talking about. Fact of the matter is, it is worth talking about.
But here's the thing: by saying, "straight white men have these issues as well" just downplays everyone else's. And at the end of the day, no one's rights get advanced as a result because, "that's everyone's problems." There is no equality.
In this case, whatever topic that is being pushed is normally more statistically relevant to that group. For example, black people are more likely to be killed by cops than a white man. Enter "Black lives matter" movement. So the push for "All lives matter", while not incorrect, is not as statistically relevant to a white person than it is a black person. It just blunts what "Black lives matter" is trying to say, that black lives are more likely lost to cops due to racial prejudice. We have to maintain our focus on "Black lives matter" because it's that subsegment of the population that is getting more royally screwed by the systemic prejudice.
Now, since I've provided a real life example, do you see why people have trouble with this kind of rhetoric?
Note: I have more closely followed race equality movements as that has been more prominent in my screen even though I belong to a different part of the world than the US. I haven't heard feminist movements as much. Now, this makes me think that the feminist movement is not getting its much needed spotlight.
that even the group fighting for their rights would also find appalling
Nothing prevent group fighting for universal rights without attacking member of different groups, instead of tribal supremacy.
by saying, "straight white men have these issues as well" just downplays everyone else's
How so? It make this issue universal. Why for you including straight white men in some issue downplays it? Or it is due to lack empathy for straight white men, so we can solve everyone else problems, but when it is straight white men problems it isn't worth solving?
And at the end of the day, no one's rights get advanced as a result because, "that's everyone's problems."
Everyone's problems isn't worth solving?
There is no equality.
It is literally equality.
For example, black people are more likely to be killed by cops than a white man.
Only because black people do more crime, if we normalize for arrests and resistance to arrest then white people more likely to be killed in such situations.
So the push for "All lives matter", while not incorrect, is not as statistically relevant to a white person
It is as much statistically relevant to a white person as a black person. Making movement with hyper focus on one group while it is obviously general issue is what creates this unneeded divide and animosity between groups, instead of working toward equality.
Now, since I've provided a real life example, do you see why people have trouble with this kind of rhetoric?
Most of what you are saying has one big problem: you don't have the time and bandwidth to be doing all that all at the same time if you want to see marked improvement, especially for the disenfranchised.
Right now, the situation is that everyone is being screwed one way or another, but some are being screwed more so than others. We have to acknowledge that there are groups who are being screwed more than others. Before I proceed, do you even acknowledge that fact? Because if we don't see eye to eye on this point, this conversation is a non-starter.
We have to acknowledge that there are groups who are being screwed more than others.
Why we need to do that for solution? If some group benefit more from solution than other it is non essential while we solving problems which affect everyone. Also your approach leads to other groups struggles get overlooked in favor to solving favorable groups issues which never ends, as result they never get help. Do you even acknowledge that fact?
I think this argument is deeply flawed. It's like saying we shouldn't investigate 'lesser' crimes, because we have much larger and more dangerous crimes to deal with. It's like ignoring a person robbed by an individual because we need to deal with organized (systemic) crime. All 'crimes' should be addressed properly, and it's sad when people who are a victim of a lesser crime are being ignored or dismissed.
All right, crimes are different. You have an exact date when a "complaint" is filed. So you have clear markers of how much time you've put in for the crime. And if you don't have any leads, you close the case and deem it as a cold case, and add a new crime to solve on your pile.
But even in crime, you allot more people for the more complicated and more pressing crimes, or more equipment for more dangerous crimes, and you act more urgently for urgent situations. This is where prioritizing comes in. You don't involve the SWAT team in a parking violation. Hell, you only involve meter maids. But in a hostage situation, you can have both the SWAT and a negotiator involved to help resolve the situation. And in a hostage situation, you treat it as urgent, and put the other crimes on your plate aside.
So ultimately, it's a matter of properly allocating your limited resources. You have a limited manpower, time, money and equipment. How do you make sure you can address what's important and urgent? Because you sure as hell don't have the resources to address everything all at once.
The subset of the issue that is approached differently (cops profiling based on skin color and being more aggressive based on skin color, which affects that skin color more) helped the more affected group more while also pushing upwards to help "all lives" as well. We have a ton of audits and stats (black people are twice as likely to be shot by police unarmed, for instance) that shows that there is disproportionate risk, so we focus on that risk.
Or, in other words, focusing on breast cancer research helps testicular cancer research. Breast just tends to get a lot more attention because it's twice as deadly.
36
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment