this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
65 points (98.5% liked)

Don’t You Know Who I Am?

3809 readers
1 users here now

Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.

Acceptable examples include:

Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.

The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

Rules:

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
  4. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  5. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
  6. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  7. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  8. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  9. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ZaroniPepperoni@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

So if a female biologist who wrote a PHD thesis on the origins of RNA overheard some men talking about the origins of life and when the women wants to chime in because she is a subject matter expert, the men tell her they "don't need a black woman's explanation". And after being told this she is in the wrong for venting online? Please. Your just as sexist as the people you claim to be opposed to.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

You cannot in good faith compare people who have suffered because if their skin color to those who have not, when talking about situations where skin color comes up.

Are both situations racist by pure definition? Sure. Just like punching a man and punching a child are both punching. One is much more wrong.

[–] GONADS125@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Fuck all that noise...

One racially motivated act (say hitting someone because of their skin color) is not any more or less racist depending on the race of the victim. If you believe that, it is by definition a racist value you're holding.

There's a difference when it comes to contextual, social and historical factors. Like the word cracker is insensitive but doesn't carry the hateful connotations and discrimination that the N-word possesses.

But anyone trying to say it's more or less appropriate to hate on any single group is just demonstrating their own implicit and explicit racial biases.

[–] Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s reductive to take that as saying “it’s more appropriate to hate on white people”. They worded it a bit poorly imo but the analogy they’re responding to is still crappy. There isn’t an issue of black women assuming white men don’t know the origins of RNA, but there is an issue of men assuming women don’t know anything about “nerdy” things like film. Obviously they assumed wrong with Ed Solomon, but the analogy is still in bad faith because it’s wouldn’t be for the same reason.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This specific situation described in this post is an issue of "women assuming that the man offering his take on a subject was ignorant about it and driven by machism" (as that's exactly what they accused him off when they called his offer one of "mansplaining").

(In fact what makes this a bit of a story is that rather than just saying "No thanks", they instead explicitly accused him of offering an ignorant opinion driven by sexist)

Surelly both the "men assuming women don’t know anything about 'nerdy' things like film" and "women assuming that men offering their own take on a subject are ignorant and driven by sexism" are equally wrong?!

How is instantly presuming such bad things about other people purelly on the basis of the number of Y chromossomes they were born with, less sexist if its acting/voicing prejudice (quite literally: they prejudged the other person) from XX persons towards XY persons than if it is from XY persons towards XX persons?

It's kinda the whole point of this whole comment thread: prejudice is prejudice and its discriminatory to excuse it for some people but not for others purelly on the bases of some having being born with certain characteristics and the others not.

[–] Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’re making a lot of assumptions about what I said. It doesn’t excuse it, I directly said they were wrong in this instance. My comment was directed towards the absurd comparison of women incorrectly assuming a white guy was mansplaining and a black woman who knows about the origins of RNA being dismissed. It’s really ignorant to equate the widespread, discriminatory assumption of women and black people being stupid and uneducated to two women not giving credit to the MIB writer lol. The former affects your education, livelihood, and career and the latter is funny at best and manufactured rage at worst. They are not at all equivalent.

I just want to clarify this again because this is just a Reddit-tier mentality that’s super brain dead: just because I’m saying this guy isn’t a tragic victim doesn’t mean I’m a crazy radical feminist that hates men.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)