• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            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.

    • Pokethat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a brown person. It doesn’t matter what color you are. Someone’s race shouldn’t matter at all when comparing how fucked up something is unless it’s directly culturally relevant.

      A white guy vs black woman RNA paper writing PhD being told gtfo is equally offensive. Race only matter like if you told the white guy vs black woman something like a joke about picking cotton or the white guy a joke about him fucking his sister.

      Telling someone “you don’t matter / you are the enemy” for over a decade and to millions of people is how an actual white nationalist movement became a thing. You can only tell people how horrible and evil they are until they start to believe in it.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What if that person is white of Jewish origin? Or Irish? Heck, I know a Lebanese guy who’s whiter than me and has red hair…

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mocking a culture that has been abused because of their culture (Jews) is worse than mocking a culture that has not been abused for their culture (Karens). But mocking white looking people for being white isn’t the same as their culture. It matters what you mock.

        Don’t punch down. It’s not more complicated than that. And if you’re not sure if you’re punching down, don’t punch.