Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.
Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.
To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.
I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.
I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.
I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching.
I… don’t even know what to say to this. I’m just gonna roll past this one.
the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious,
It isn’t. It’s not a fallacy. Nor is it wrong.
I’m not picking on you because you disagree with the core intent of the person you responded to, I’m picking on you because you’re doing—I hope unintentionally—the reverse-racism bit. You are placating people who are abusing our cultural sympathy for bigotries to avoid acknowledging something that makes them uncomfortable.
I promise you, there were a lot of white people in 1960s US that would whine about how all this discussion of segregated schools and drinking fountains was just to make white people feel bad. They still do it today! Ron Desantis in Florida, schools there are not allowed to keep books on slavery. Why? Because those books are “racist.” To whom? Allegedly, white people. Men, as a category, do the same thing about rape.
You cannot talk about slavery in the US without talking about white people. You cannot talk about white people without making generalizations. Racism works through generalizations. The same is true for men and sexism. You cannot talk about rape culture without talking about men. There is no logical contradiction here; they’re intrinsically linked to the subject.
the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves
Safeguard themselves from what? I’m issuing this as a challenge to you: what do they have to be afraid of? Like, in a sentence, how do you explain it?
should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony
I want to disagree with you because you’re doing nerd shit, which is, generally speaking, really unapproachable for people. But I don’t even know what framing you’re suggesting, so I’m willing to hear it.
I get the impression you benefit from extra clarity, so to that end: I know what patriarchal hegemony is, I don’t understand the framing. If your explanation amounts to replacing the word ‘men’ with ‘patriarchy’, I’m going to be a little bit upset.
Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.
Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.
To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.
I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.
I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.
I… don’t even know what to say to this. I’m just gonna roll past this one.
It isn’t. It’s not a fallacy. Nor is it wrong.
I’m not picking on you because you disagree with the core intent of the person you responded to, I’m picking on you because you’re doing—I hope unintentionally—the reverse-racism bit. You are placating people who are abusing our cultural sympathy for bigotries to avoid acknowledging something that makes them uncomfortable.
I promise you, there were a lot of white people in 1960s US that would whine about how all this discussion of segregated schools and drinking fountains was just to make white people feel bad. They still do it today! Ron Desantis in Florida, schools there are not allowed to keep books on slavery. Why? Because those books are “racist.” To whom? Allegedly, white people. Men, as a category, do the same thing about rape.
You cannot talk about slavery in the US without talking about white people. You cannot talk about white people without making generalizations. Racism works through generalizations. The same is true for men and sexism. You cannot talk about rape culture without talking about men. There is no logical contradiction here; they’re intrinsically linked to the subject.
Safeguard themselves from what? I’m issuing this as a challenge to you: what do they have to be afraid of? Like, in a sentence, how do you explain it?
I want to disagree with you because you’re doing nerd shit, which is, generally speaking, really unapproachable for people. But I don’t even know what framing you’re suggesting, so I’m willing to hear it.
I get the impression you benefit from extra clarity, so to that end: I know what patriarchal hegemony is, I don’t understand the framing. If your explanation amounts to replacing the word ‘men’ with ‘patriarchy’, I’m going to be a little bit upset.