One of my most favorite and most unproductive things to do is argue on the Internet with people, and I know it’s so, but it feels productive in the sense that I better understand why I feel the way I do. Occasionally, I much later change my mind when I recall some argument without first remembering which side of it I was on.
One of the worst ever to get involved in is abortion because it is not the sort of thing that will resolve in common understanding. I used to wear a T-shirt I made that said ‘LEGALIZE ABORTION’ because that was the joke. It would be like a shirt that said, ‘BAN MARIJUANA’. Back then, both already were common policy and said nothing more than STATUS QUO.
But recently, I engaged with someone on Twitter on the subject of reproductive autonomy and made many mistakes but (of course) don’t feel that I was wrong.
The major mistake I made was not recognizing how the person I talked to had latched on to an age that was not rationally important to what I was saying but definitely was viscerally: 10-year-olds should have access to long-lasting contraceptives. Really, I meant anyone with internal reproductive systems should be able to have access to it as soon as they begin puberty and are at risk of becoming pregnant. But the person I talked to fixated on the example age, and I should have given them an off-ramp so their automatic emotional defenses could lower.
The second mistake was to allow any snideness or attack to creep in to what I said. To have a productive discussion with anyone, you can’t call into question their motives, even if their motives have changed throughout the conversation.
Beyond that, what follows won’t be decisive or much use to anyone else, and I’m sure many have had it before, but I was surprised by how quickly someone went from believing that unborn lives were preeminent to finding reasons to prefer everything else.
Continue reading “A rare Internet discussion where both sides prove their point”
Lorenzen Wright’s ex-wife Sherra Wright arrested in California, charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy
Bitches ain’t shit
I don’t understand why people are reacting so negatively to people disagreeing with these sorts of comments.
Empirically, women are five times as likely to be victims of intimate partner violence like simple assault, sexual assault, and aggravated assault than men are.
Murder, specifically, is nearly as stark:
In 2007 intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides in the U.S. The total estimated number of intimate partner homicide victims in 2007 was 2,340, including 1,640 females and 700 males.
I had trouble finding the detailed data for the FBI’s more recent Uniform Crime Report, but this is a pattern that holds true year after year.
‘Bitches ain’t shit’ ain’t just a meme, a joke, or commiseration: It’s a widespread idea that gets women abused and killed in the thousands each year. Continue reading “Ironic misogyny is a lot less ironic than misogynistic”
Not all diversity is good diversity.
It’s like you heard someone say, ‘This smoothie is a mix of powdered glass and fruit’ and you felt the need to say, ‘Not all fruit is fresh fruit’.
Actually, that’s not what I meant.
What I meant was hiring somebody from Saudi Arabia, praising yourself on diversity, then finding out they hate women and LGBT people.
Not all diversity is good diversity — there are plenty of people who come from diverse backgrounds who are bigoted as all hell.
As contemporary events seem to make more apparent by the hour, I don’t think one needs to scour as remote a place as Riyadh to find examples of those things.
The pews of rural Iowa and suburban Houston often underwhelm in their diversity though remaining overblessed in their capacity for hatred of vulnerable groups.
If I say some ‘diversity is bad because it may contain religious bigots’, and to make that meaningful I use it as an excuse to oppose diversity, it’s more likely I’m upset with the diversity or foreignness of them than the bigotry they may share with domestic homogeneous folk. Continue reading “‘America: a dangerous blend of diversity and racism’”
They [Jewish people] benefit from the same institutional racism as white people, hold the same position of privilege, and—actually—look down on all gentiles, yet every time you mention this you’re instantly painted as anti-Semitic.
Jewish people are considered white people, but Jewish people can also experience anti-Semitism. Just as a white, gay man can be called white, he can also be harassed for being gay. The issue is entirely contextual.
I don’t think there are many Jews who would claim they have it worse in America than black people.
Adding to this, in the United States, ‘whiteness’ is a concept that expands and contracts as needed, always at the exclusion and in opposition to people identified as ‘black’. Italians and Greeks and Slavs are white now when, 100 years ago, to be white was explicitly in opposition to those groups.
Those groups have been allowed to escape from targeted discrimination and, in fact, now benefit from it.
Continue reading “‘Why are white people hated but Jewish people aren’t?’”
Just wondering why Robert E Lee can’t be an American hero for owning slaves despite literally everyone owning slaves at the time
While we all can safely circle jerk around Alexander the Great and Plato and Julius Caesar who all owned the fuck out of shit tons of slaves.
Better take down every statue of Augustus Caesar in Italy because he owned slaves.
The Confederates sought to found a nation whose explicit cornerstone was the moral equivalent of institutional prepubescent rape.
Continue reading “‘Why do we judge Confederates on the morality of slavery but not figures of the classical era?’”
Masculinity is a default or orthodoxy like whiteness or straightness or, in the southern United States, evangelical Christianity. It’s a standard you’re measured against that at best can be complete but is easily made incomplete.
American orthodoxy is based on one-drop rules.
Continue reading “‘Why is masculinity so fragile?’”
Just remain silent and understand you’re actually the empowered one.
I mean, maybe it’s actually this. To some extent, I understand that the underlying message is that “these people are angry” and that the use of “white male” as a scapegoat is just “the easiest tangible target for anger.”
However, when I feel specifically targeted, I can’t help but feel like it is in my personal self-interest to actively undermine movements that use this sort of rhetoric.
Assume for a moment reincarnation does exist and when you die, you’ll be reborn as a human again.
Without any guarantee of what your demographic characteristics would be, what sort of society would you want to live in?
Continue reading “‘As a white male, how can I be sympathetic to movements that demonize my being?’”