fight over the definition of the word privilege. C’mon, let’s just ditch the word, ferchrissakes! Keep the concept, call it something more relatable!
I think it’s naive to believe whatever terminology you use as an alternative wouldn’t eventually end up with the same stigma.
The people who interpret it as “masculinity is toxic” aren’t doing it because they have a hearing disability, they interpret it that way as a means to justify their own beliefs.
The same goes for your example of “evil homosexuals”. Anyone who is blaming all homosexuals for something does not have to modify them with the term evil for you to know they are being a bigot.
I don’t think it’s people fighting for social justice who get unreasonably attached to words. I think that describes the people who feign an inability to utilize context or reason when they hear them.
Sure, as somebody pointed out above, any social justice term will be attacked and tarred by well-funded right-wing think tanks. But let’s not give 'em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, “privilege” and “toxic masculinity” do just that. This example actually bolsters my point: The people using “evil homosexuals” don’t need to add the “evil,” because they’re bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use “toxic masculinity” don’t need to add the “toxic,” because they’re bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic. (No, I don’t actually believe that, but lots of people seem to.)
But let’s not give 'em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, “privilege” and “toxic masculinity” do just that.
Because the well funded rightwing think tanks have already tarred them…
people using “evil homosexuals” don’t need to add the “evil,” because they’re bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use “toxic masculinity” don’t need to add the “toxic,” because they’re bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic.
I use toxic masculinity and I don’t think masculinity is inherently toxic?
And I don’t think a significant amount of people think masculinity by itself is toxic by itself. Otherwise everyone would be force femming their husbands, or hating any trans men choosing to express themselves.
The only people who seem to be interpreting toxic masculinity as an implication of masculinity as a whole are people who seem to think all maledom is under siege.
I disclaimed explicitly that I don’t believe that speakers who use the phrase “toxic masculinity” believe that masculinity per se is toxic, but clarified that the issue is whether listeners interpret it that way (based on the pattern established by known bigots). And indeed, while I was writing, somebody else left a comment that does indeed interpret it that way.
Nah. Many, many people who come from inside that peivilege are being naive. To think they’re trying to defend the privilege itself is exactly the problem coming from outside the blinders.
The “evil homosexuals” comment is trying to elucidate you to that reality for crying out loud, but noooo, you just want to make yourself feel better by pretending your choice of words cannot be perceived the same way…
From someone who grew up conservative and now hates conservative values… Your attitude is part of the problem.
Failure to communicate is a two way street, and you arguing the exact same phrasing is somehow magically not problematic from your side while being problematic from the other is exactly the issue OC’s talking about.
It is the exact same phrasing that others someone. Stop being OK with creating in groups and out groups by such simple terms as “white” or “homosexual”. Both forms of othering is bad communication unless you want to other and alienate. If you want to other someone simply living their life, especially over differences they didn’t even ask for, then you’re still part of the problem.
Nah. Many, many people who come from inside that peivilege are being naive. To think they’re trying to defend the privilege itself is exactly the problem coming from outside the blinders.
Eh, I would say there are some people who are naive enough to not realize their own privileges. However, that itself is only possible because there are whole media systems coaching the reflective defense of their privilege in the first place.
The “evil homosexuals” comment is trying to elucidate you to that reality for crying out loud, but noooo, you just want to make yourself feel better by pretending your choice of words cannot be perceived the same way…
Lol, I was just remarking on how the modification of words with negative descriptors doesn’t reallyatter when the ideas behind the concept were bigoted to begin with.
Your attitude is part of the problem.
Yes, it’s the actions of people of color who made us this way… I’ve heard that before.
Failure to communicate is a two way street, and you arguing the exact same phrasing is somehow magically not problematic from your side while being problematic from the other is exactly the issue OC’s talking about.
I don’t really see how I am…? My whole point was that if we stopped using terms that bigoted people dislike and made up new ones, the new words would just end up being disliked by bigoted people.
Stop being OK with creating in groups and out groups by such simple terms as “white” or “homosexual”.
First of all… I can’t “other” white people as a whole, I’m not powerful enough to innact systemic racial programs, nor would I want to. The term white privilege is used to describe the systemic advantages white people have enacted over hundreds of years in this country.
Secondly… Nothing I said can be interpreted as attempting to “other” homosexuals? The only time I refreced homosexuals was when I said someone willing to use a sentence that includes “evil homosexuals” wouldn’t be made better by removing the “evil” part. For a hyperbolic example if I said “the evil homosexuals did 9/11” wouldn’t be made better if I just said “the homosexuals did 9/11”.
. If you want to other someone simply living their life, especially over differences they didn’t even ask for, then you’re still part of the problem.
Something tells me you didn’t stray too far away from your conservative upbringing…
I might not have white privilege, but I am still privileged when compared to the rest of the world, and I have no qualms about recognizing that. Anyone living in a rich nation is privileged when compared to the vast majority of the world that suffers in poverty. I didn’t ask for that, but I still recognize it as a problem that we need to address.
Maybe you are feeling a little insecure, and maybe that’s a problem you should think about?
I think it’s naive to believe whatever terminology you use as an alternative wouldn’t eventually end up with the same stigma.
The people who interpret it as “masculinity is toxic” aren’t doing it because they have a hearing disability, they interpret it that way as a means to justify their own beliefs.
The same goes for your example of “evil homosexuals”. Anyone who is blaming all homosexuals for something does not have to modify them with the term evil for you to know they are being a bigot.
I don’t think it’s people fighting for social justice who get unreasonably attached to words. I think that describes the people who feign an inability to utilize context or reason when they hear them.
Sure, as somebody pointed out above, any social justice term will be attacked and tarred by well-funded right-wing think tanks. But let’s not give 'em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, “privilege” and “toxic masculinity” do just that. This example actually bolsters my point: The people using “evil homosexuals” don’t need to add the “evil,” because they’re bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use “toxic masculinity” don’t need to add the “toxic,” because they’re bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic. (No, I don’t actually believe that, but lots of people seem to.)
Because the well funded rightwing think tanks have already tarred them…
I use toxic masculinity and I don’t think masculinity is inherently toxic?
And I don’t think a significant amount of people think masculinity by itself is toxic by itself. Otherwise everyone would be force femming their husbands, or hating any trans men choosing to express themselves.
The only people who seem to be interpreting toxic masculinity as an implication of masculinity as a whole are people who seem to think all maledom is under siege.
If you’re going to misrepresent my words, there’s no point in continuing a discussion.
How did I misconstrue your statement?
It wasn’t a dog whistle
I disclaimed explicitly that I don’t believe that speakers who use the phrase “toxic masculinity” believe that masculinity per se is toxic, but clarified that the issue is whether listeners interpret it that way (based on the pattern established by known bigots). And indeed, while I was writing, somebody else left a comment that does indeed interpret it that way.
And did I accuse you of doing so?
Yes, lemmy has a pretty established history of harboring a lot of misogynistic users which do not reflect the thoughts of everyday normal people.
I don’t think we should be moderating our own behavior to satisfy people acting in bad faith or to the temper of bigots.
Yeah there’s no magic word choices that make good communicating automatic or guaranteed.
Bad faith pretends otherwise, for cover.
But that does not imply that all word choices are equal.
Yeah, some are privileged.
Nah. Many, many people who come from inside that peivilege are being naive. To think they’re trying to defend the privilege itself is exactly the problem coming from outside the blinders.
The “evil homosexuals” comment is trying to elucidate you to that reality for crying out loud, but noooo, you just want to make yourself feel better by pretending your choice of words cannot be perceived the same way…
From someone who grew up conservative and now hates conservative values… Your attitude is part of the problem.
Failure to communicate is a two way street, and you arguing the exact same phrasing is somehow magically not problematic from your side while being problematic from the other is exactly the issue OC’s talking about.
It is the exact same phrasing that others someone. Stop being OK with creating in groups and out groups by such simple terms as “white” or “homosexual”. Both forms of othering is bad communication unless you want to other and alienate. If you want to other someone simply living their life, especially over differences they didn’t even ask for, then you’re still part of the problem.
Eh, I would say there are some people who are naive enough to not realize their own privileges. However, that itself is only possible because there are whole media systems coaching the reflective defense of their privilege in the first place.
Lol, I was just remarking on how the modification of words with negative descriptors doesn’t reallyatter when the ideas behind the concept were bigoted to begin with.
Yes, it’s the actions of people of color who made us this way… I’ve heard that before.
I don’t really see how I am…? My whole point was that if we stopped using terms that bigoted people dislike and made up new ones, the new words would just end up being disliked by bigoted people.
First of all… I can’t “other” white people as a whole, I’m not powerful enough to innact systemic racial programs, nor would I want to. The term white privilege is used to describe the systemic advantages white people have enacted over hundreds of years in this country.
Secondly… Nothing I said can be interpreted as attempting to “other” homosexuals? The only time I refreced homosexuals was when I said someone willing to use a sentence that includes “evil homosexuals” wouldn’t be made better by removing the “evil” part. For a hyperbolic example if I said “the evil homosexuals did 9/11” wouldn’t be made better if I just said “the homosexuals did 9/11”.
Something tells me you didn’t stray too far away from your conservative upbringing…
I might not have white privilege, but I am still privileged when compared to the rest of the world, and I have no qualms about recognizing that. Anyone living in a rich nation is privileged when compared to the vast majority of the world that suffers in poverty. I didn’t ask for that, but I still recognize it as a problem that we need to address.
Maybe you are feeling a little insecure, and maybe that’s a problem you should think about?
I always knew who really did 9/11