What I have learned from the Internet re: discussions of social oppression and privilege

[YoungDemCA]

Just some observations that I have, based on the "logic" of some...

It is worse to be called a sexist, than it is to experience sexism.

It is worse to be called a racist, than it is to experience racism.

It is worse to be called an anti-poor elitist, than it is to experience anti-poor elitism.

It is worse to be called a bigoted asshole, than it is to experience bigoted assholeism.

It is worse to be called on your bullying and shaming tactics, than it is to experience bullying and shaming.

It is worse to be called on your privilege (or even to point out that you have privilege), than it is to be socially oppressed and disenfranchised.

and finally,

It is worse to feel guilt about your privileged social position, than it is to be a member of a non-privilged (read: oppressed) group.

One has to conclude, therefore, that wealthy, straight, white men are the REAL victims of society!

[ismnotwasm]

1. Funny

Those are exactly the same conclusions I got!

Excellent post

[xulamaude]

2. Only because they are not

wealthy enough, straight enough and white enough.

Some other dude has more.

Never mind everybody else on the slopes of Shit Hill.

[smirkymonkey]

28. +1000

Whiners!

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Please step forward ... You have won the internet for the day. n/t

[seabeyond]

5. i think so too strong. yes indeed.

wavin' your way. you all have had it pretty damn rough the last handful of days, too, on du. wowsers, huh.

[redqueen]

14. +1

[seabeyond]

4. that is very very good. nt

[BainsBane]

6. I might add

It is worse to talk about rape apology than to be raped or to argue an accused rapist shouldn't have to face charges.
It is worse to talk about misogyny than engage in misogyny.

Why? People feel they should be able to express any view that denies the human rights of others without being called on it. They insist their views not be challenged. They insist that you ignore any argument they don't explicitly make. So if they argue some guy was "set up" by "b...s," that's okay. What's not okay is to say that treats women as inferior, indeed, less than human. If someone doesn't explicitly say "I don't care about women," it's not okay to point out that their entire analysis excludes women, rape victims, etc. . from consideration as equal human beings worthy of respect.

It's okay to argue rape really isn't much of a problem, that women lie, and that rape prevention PSA's "harangue" and "punish men," but it's not okay to point out that fits a textbook definition of rape apology. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_apology http://everydayvictimblaming.com/news/debunking-some-of-the-myths-around-rape/
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/five_easy_steps_for_becoming_a_rape_apologist/

Also, if you mention the existence of rape apology, that means you have called indviduals rape apologists, even if you were not addressing them and didn't even know of their existence when you discussed a problem. Talking about the existence of rape apology is of course far more serious than directly calling someone an "authoritarian stooge" for the MIC, a fascist, crazy, a feminazi, a nazi, a "Maoist," "right-wing", or a "misandrist troll with a dark agenda."

It's okay to call someone crazy, a b...h, a w...e, a s....t, a c....t, but it's not okay to call that sexist. Sexist is a woman calling another woman "dear" rather than a "crazy . . . liar." Misogyny is talking about how misogyny is manifested, not its actual practice. Bigotry is the responsibility of organizations like the NAACP and sexism the fault of NOW and feminists like moi, not by men who insist EEOC laws are invalid, equal pay for equal work is a non-issue, or that the truly oppressed in life are men, especially upper-middle class white men. You know, if only Mitt had been born in Mexico, he'd be president now. It's the exact same attitude.

This is of course an observation of the intertubes generally and not anyone on this site.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Oh ...

where to start; but it would just detract from a great post.

But I gotta ask one question and make one observation ...

Question -

In this sentence:

It's okay to call someone crazy, a b...h, a w...e, a s....t, a c....t,

I got the first and last words; but the middle two ...?

Observation -

Bigotry is the responsibility of organizations like the NAACP

As of yesterday (or maybe the day before) ... this is no longer the case in DU.

[seabeyond]

10. i got number two. a prostitute. nt

[seabeyond]

11. oh... three is the guys go to. slut. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Doh ...

Never was any good at crossword puzzles! I think I've completed 2 in my life.

[seabeyond]

13. lol. it is kinda fun trying to figure it out. nt

[BainsBane]

16. Yeah, I wasn't careful about the spaces I used.

One is a term for a sex worker and the other a term used to shame a woman who likes sex or dresses in way someone disapproves of.

As for the part about the NAACP, look at my post in ATA, the second follow up to Skinner's reply. I'm not sure what changed yesterday or the day before, but the person who made that claim is still an active member.

[xulamaude]

15. Well added. And too true. nt

[MrScorpio]

7. That's excellent assessment nt

[passiveporcupine]

9. After reading another thread where someone is gleeful

about being treated special for being a smoker...I'd have to add, it's worse to be ostracized for being a smoker than to die from illness caused by cigarette smoke.

[Duppers]

17. +100

Those people kill this ex-smoker

[BainsBane]

18. Case in point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4176116

[ismnotwasm]

19. Lord lord

We have some sensitive types don't we?

Love that song

[seabeyond]

20. the only thing would be throwing the porn in there, and that referenced another thread or two. but,

you are right on. it is once again.... they can state, we can not rebuke. though. because of you. i did re read the Op and instead of addressing the case, i extended the conversation out to what he was saying in the post about our young men opting out.

[BainsBane]

21. He talked about porn. That's what I was responding to.

The alerters comments: personal attacks from this member continues.
Jurors comments: none.

Where is the personal attack? I wrote it in the third person.
Meanwhile, the OP attacks all women.

Whatever. I no longer care.

[seabeyond]

22. i htought he had. but re reading i didnt see it. will look again. but, when i first saw the hide

i htought he had and that was what you were referencing. then.... it was so beyond a bogus. and ya. perfectly addressing the OP, in exactly the usage he did, and then getting a hide is crap. skinner wont care. will say it is on you. regardless how much sense it does not make. or how there is no way we can predict what is allowed or not.

[seabeyond]

23. gotcha. porn argument was not in Op. was in the post you actually addressed. i knew i had read it

yes. you addressed what he wrote, and you were hidden. yes.

[redqueen]

24. Weakness. Cowardliness. They can't take scrutiny of what they say.

Song choice was perfect, btw.

[seabeyond]

25. that is it. we are told that is what we are suppose to do. but when we do, we are punished and

blamed for doing exactly what we are told we are suppose to do.

ironic, that

[smirkymonkey]

27. +1000

[Enthusiast]

26. Kicked and Recommended for the fucking truth...................nt