This is the News!

[Fortnight]

Nowhere is friendly any more. The right is hating on the left, the left is hating on the right, the middle are labelled as whichever the 'other' side is. Could we all please stop hating.

When writing something, take a moment to mentally search & replace your text with the opposing version of each relevant term... white/black, straight/gay, cis/trans, male/female, left/right, etc, and re-read. If you'd be offended at that version, then what you've written is offensive.

Nowhere is friendly any more. 

[Richard]

Except this forum!

[Fortnight]

[JayzusB.Christ]

Except this forum!

Aye, there's the odd spat of course, but for a pack of comic nerds we're surprisingly non-toxic.

[Vector14]

Except this forum!

Aye, there's the odd spat of course, but for a pack of comic nerds we're surprisingly non-toxic.

This is the first and only forum I've ever posted on with any regularity, because of this basically. Most other places on the internet seem like they would be stressful to engage with.

[Jim_Campbell]

for a pack of comic nerds we're surprisingly non-toxic.

Sez you, fuck-face.

[Vector14]

for a pack of comic nerds we're surprisingly non-toxic.

Sez you, fuck-face.

Stress level increasing...

[JayzusB.Christ]

for a pack of comic nerds we're surprisingly non-toxic.

Sez you, fuck-face.

 

[Funt Solo]

When writing something, take a moment to mentally search & replace your text with the opposing version of each relevant term... white/black, straight/gay, cis/trans, male/female, left/right, etc, and re-read. If you'd be offended at that version, then what you've written is offensive.

Lots of love and all, but this is leaning into false equivalency - but then the entire left/right divide is an over-simplification (I agree). I suppose what I'm trying to say is that white and black aren't equal, and because they're not, one can validly complain about the inequality. The phrase "black lives matter" does not mean the same thing as "white lives matter", because of the context we live in.

[Fortnight]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that white and black aren't equal, and because they're not, one can validly complain about the inequality. The phrase "black lives matter" does not mean the same thing as "white lives matter", because of the context we live in.

I agree with this. My exasperation comes from how this past inequality is handled now. The past differences are irrelevant to the remedy - or at least to what isn't the remedy. You can't fight bigotry against one group with bigotry against the "opposite" group. Racist aggressions (micro or not) against black people, for example, can't be negated with racism against white people. (And, please, let's not be a group who thinks it's not possible to be racist against white people.)  All you end up with is more racism, regardless of the past inequalities between the two groups, and increased us-and-them thinking and 'othering.'
Constant pointing out "white people" as being a problem, when the problem is prejudice based on skin colour regardless of what that colour is, is still racism. Where and who the racism is coming from and directed to is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[The Legendary Shark]

I find it a good exercise to replace any catch-all nouns in a headline (immigrants, asylum seekers, Catholics, Americans, etc.) with the word "humans" and see if it still makes sense. 

I agree with Funt that the left/right paradigm is an oversimplification - but I would go further and say that it is so simple as to be virtually useless except as a tool for social control. For example, one side might want higher taxes and the other side might want lower taxes but neither side questions the legitimacy of or alternatives to taxation. Each side rests on the fundamental assumption that whichever prevails assumes power over everyone. Governments actually act as a buffer between the ruling/owning classes and the masses. In order to keep the status quo in place, governments divide into left and right wings to present to the public, so we can squabble over how we'd best like to be oppressed and exploited.

I know, I know. Shut up, Sharky.

[Funt Solo]

Responding to Fortnight:

I find it easier to navigate this argument when I think of the current debate around trans identity being played out noisily in the media. Don't faint! Reason: I think that JK Rowling hates men. I have sympathy for feminism (I even think of myself as a feminist), but when people make blanket statements about men (e.g. "typical man") it gets my hackles up. Rowling seems to be saying that because trans women were (probably) born with male junk, that they're inescapably men, and ergo not to be trusted. She's a misandrist - and she can mostly keep that under wraps, but fails utterly when she gets into her "wolf in sheep's clothing" mindset.

It's a difficult argument to make in public, though. The thing is, that violence against women by men is very real - and very prolific. So, her hatred is grounded in a lived reality.

[Fortnight]

I find it easier to navigate this argument when I think of the current debate around trans identity being played out noisily in the media. [snip for brevity!] The thing is, that violence against women by men is very real - and very prolific. So, her hatred is grounded in a lived reality.

Again I agree, although I don't really have an opinion on JKR as I've spent almost zero time reading about the matter and I don't think I can judge anything based on the murmurings drifting in on the wind on the rare occasions that I have the metaphorical window open.

But regarding your last paragraph, what usually gets overlooked (switching from racism to your violence-against-women illustration for a moment) is that, whilst it's true that the vast majority of violence against women is conducted by men, and it's also true that the vast majority of violence against men is conducted by men, and that the amount of violence against women outweighs that of violence against men (hope you're keeping up with this!), it's not true to say that "men are the problem". The problem must be something else because not all men exhibit violence against women or men. You might as well say that in the matter of terrorism, the problem is "Muslims" (equally untrue).

To couch this in a black/white illustration again, it's true that white people have perpetrated injustices of many kinds against black people, but to say that only white people have done this is untrue, and to say that all white people have done this is equally untrue. If you identify the problem as "white people" then you've misidentified the problem. Any plan to deal with it is going to be misdirected, and be ineffective at best, and at worst cause a good deal more harm.

I wish people would identify the issue correctly before harm is done by shooting the wrong target.

[Funt Solo]

Well, yes. I hope it was clear from my post upthread that I'm not anti-farmer. Nor do I believe that all farmers think in a uniform manner. Or that they're all white. Or that the white ones are all supremacists.

There is something that makes *most* folk in large cities in the US not vote for Trump. And there is something that makes *most* folk in rural areas in the US vote for Trump.

[Fortnight]

I think it's probably mostly to do with a) the concerns that Trump addresses, and his non-politician origins, are in sync with rural dwellers and their sympathies. And that the population is more dispersed. In cities there are more interactions with others, and those interactions are more significant to an individual's own life. More opportunity to fall into a clique, and less room to defy the mainstream or suffer ostracisation (which is more of a nightmare for a close community). So if it becomes "trendy" (pardon the sledgehammer of a term) to think one way, thinking another way comes at a price. Doesn't happen so much in the rural areas.
Also, the things that Trump doesn't seem to give a poo about (social care and other typically left issues) are more important in a densely populated area.