I'm not sexist.

[Spider2024]

(Yes, I had to make that the thread title, because what I'm about to say is incorrectly going to make people assume that I'm sexist. Or maybe even racist.)

Why is it socially acceptable to put down one gender or race or group for the sake of elevating another gender or race or group? How is that not also a form of bigotry and discrimination?

[BorneAgain]

Since this thread has a decent chance of being locked soon, I just wanna say two things:

-Twitter trends do not represent the widespread opinions of most people around the world and are more often than not simply the temporary "in thing" created and perpetuated by a relatively small group of active online users.

-That's a pretty solid avatar you've got.

[Heartbreaker]

[Dub H]

Because it doesn't has the same impact as the opposite happening.

The effects ar emuch bigger when it is men being sexist to women because they are the ones "on top of society".

I agree it tis not right and all it does is create anger and bring people apart but it doesn't have the same impact.

[Mozenrath]

Do you get the blue shell in Mario Kart when you're in first place? No. Why not?

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

I mean, I generally agree with the sentiment, but if I understand this hashtag correctly, it seems to be more of a self-reflection on men, by men, for men, so I don't see it as "putting down one gender for the sake of elevating another gender".

Besides, it's f'ing Twitter, innit? It's not like it actually matters. So if this upsets you I suggest doing the only thing I find constructive to do with twitter: pretend it doesn't exist until it goes away.

[Spider2024]

Sept 1, 2019 9:19:29 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

I mean, I generally agree with the sentiment, but if I understand this hashtag correctly, it seems to be more of a self-reflection on men, by men, for men, so I don't see it as "putting down one gender for the sake of elevating another gender".

Besides, it's f'ing Twitter, innit? It's not like it actually matters. So if this upsets you I suggest doing the only thing I find constructive to do with twitter: pretend it doesn't exist until it goes away.

I should make it clear: That hashtag is just one example of this kind of thing. I've seen many of these messages on many platforms, both on online social media, and even in the real world. This hashtag today was the last straw I guess, and I had to finally pose my question that's been bothering me for a long time, I guess.

[Deleted]

Sept 1, 2019 9:19:09 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Do you get the blue shell in Mario Kart when you're in first place? No. Why not?

Because Mario Kart is filled with bullshit and rewards mediocrity and punishes those in front. What the hell do I want a trail of bananas for.

[Dub H]

Sept 1, 2019 9:26:33 GMT -5 @thickmcrunfast said:

Sept 1, 2019 9:19:09 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Do you get the blue shell in Mario Kart when you're in first place? No. Why not?

Because Mario Kart is filled with bullshit and rewards mediocrity and punishes those in front. What the hell do I want a trail of bananas for.

Just speaking seriously as game designer:
It is a rubber band mechanic of sorts. It would be incredibly hard for someone in the front to lose in mario kart as soon as they got a lead if they had access to all the same items.

So yes the design favors people that are behind but it is not simply as punishment or rewarding mediocrity.

And the trail of bananas is actually amazing to protect yourself from red shells.

[Deleted]

Sept 1, 2019 9:31:51 GMT -5 Dub H said:

Sept 1, 2019 9:26:33 GMT -5 @thickmcrunfast said:

Because Mario Kart is filled with bullshit and rewards mediocrity and punishes those in front. What the hell do I want a trail of bananas for.

Just speaking seriously as game designer:
It is a rubber band mechanic of sorts. It would be incredibly hard for someone in the front to lose in mario kart as soon as they got a lead if they had access to all the same items.

So yes the design favors people that are behind but it is not simply as punishment or rewarding mediocrity.

And the trail of bananas is actually amazing to protect yourself from red shells.

No I understand why it happens, I just hate rubber band mechanics in games based on competition.

[Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill]

Sept 1, 2019 9:19:09 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Do you get the blue shell in Mario Kart when you're in first place? No. Why not?

Of course you do. That way the prick who overtakes you gets an ass full of blue shell and you stay in the lead.

[HMARK Center]

I teach this topic each year in my civics and history classes: it boils down to who wields societal power or is granted certain societal privileges based on their identities, even privileges we might not be aware of.

There’s a reason women can’t be sexist against men in most societies, and why, for example, African Americans can’t be racist against white people in a nation like the US: when your sex or ethic group or whatever designation has, historically, written all the rules, shaped the major socio-economic institutions, and been arbiter of who gets access to what benefits and how easily they get them, then, surprise surprise, the dominant group tends to give preferential treatment to their own, or at least reserves harsher treatment for those considered part of the “out group”.

Consider the example of an urban area like Chicago; there are both white and black people there who are below the poverty line, yet black families are ten times more likely to live in poor neighborhoods than similarly poor white families are there. This is largely a result of generations of practices that prioritized white families when people were selling their nicer homes, or allowed white families better rates on rent, or gave white families better access to bank loans. That doesn’t mean it was all done maliciously (though plenty of it was at the time), but it doesn’t change what’s called the disparate impact of those policies: even the poorest whites in the area at least get some benefits that are routinely denied similarly poor blacks.

Ergo, when somebody says something like what you’re citing, the response a lot people would give to someone from the more privileged community is, harsh as it sounds, “suck it up, you’ll live”. Personally speaking, I suffer almost zero social, economic, or political negative consequences due to my sex (male) and my whiteness; if somebody wants to rag on white people or men, it’s really no skin off my back, my life won’t be impacted at all. Yet years of people shitting on women and ethnic or religious minorities has had MUCH larger negative repercussions, from the aforementioned racially charged housing and renting policies that still shape entire nations today to straight up lynchings and murders done on a pretty damn large scale.

To make it clear, people from traditionally oppressed or harmed communities can still be bigoted against members of the “in group”, but in order for it to be racism, sexism, or full-on discrimination it really needs institutional power or the rule of law behind it to reshape people’s lives for the worst based on nothing but the born identities.

...can you tell the school year’s about to start this week for me?

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Sept 1, 2019 10:44:48 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I teach this topic each year in my civics and history classes: it boils down to who wields societal power or is granted certain societal privileges based on their identities, even privileges we might not be aware of.

There’s a reason women can’t be sexist against men in most societies, and why, for example, African Americans can’t be racist against white people in a nation like the US: when your sex or ethic group or whatever designation has, historically, written all the rules, shaped the major socio-economic institutions, and been arbiter of who gets access to what benefits and how easily they get them, then, surprise surprise, the dominant group tends to give preferential treatment to their own, or at least reserves harsher treatment for those considered part of the “out group”.

Consider the example of an urban area like Chicago; there are both white and black people there who are below the poverty line, yet black families are ten times more likely to live in poor neighborhoods than similarly poor white families are there. This is largely a result of generations of practices that prioritized white families when people were selling their nicer homes, or allowed white families better rates on rent, or gave white families better access to bank loans. That doesn’t mean it was all done maliciously (though plenty of it was at the time), but it doesn’t change what’s called the disparate impact of those policies: even the poorest whites in the area at least get some benefits that are routinely denied similarly poor blacks.

Ergo, when somebody says something like what you’re citing, the response a lot people would give to someone from the more privileged community is, harsh as it sounds, “suck it up, you’ll live”. Personally speaking, I suffer almost zero social, economic, or political negative consequences due to my sex (male) and my whiteness; if somebody wants to rag on white people or men, it’s really no skin off my back, my life won’t be impacted at all. Yet years of people shitting on women and ethnic or religious minorities has had MUCH larger negative repercussions, from the aforementioned racially charged housing and renting policies that still shape entire nations today to straight up lynchings and murders done on a pretty damn large scale.

To make it clear, people from traditionally oppressed or harmed communities can still be bigoted against members of the “in group”, but in order for it to be racism, sexism, or full-on discrimination it really needs institutional power or the rule of law behind it to reshape people’s lives for the worst based on nothing but the born identities.

...can you tell the school year’s about to start this week for me?

I don't really understand how it's not discrimination if it's not institutional. Maybe something is going over my head, but as far as I'm aware, to treat some people with more or less respect depending on their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or lack of, etc... is the exact definition of discrimination. The belief that some "races" are superior to others is, by definition, racism no matter who does it. Similarly, the belief that one gender should be dominant is sexism no matter who says it.

Heck, if the argument is that it's only discrimination if it's institutional the rule of law, then by that logic, some homeless White dude yelling slurs at passing Black people isn't being racist because he holds no institutional or legal power. In fact, considering hate crimes are, well, crimes, wouldn't that mean that according to that definition, since they aren't supported by the law, they aren't racist/sexist/homophobic/etc?

Like, I get the argument that there's difference between institutionalized oppression and everyday oppression, it just seems like a really odd way to define it to me.

[I'm Team Bayley and Indi]

"My Homer is not a Communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a Communist...but he is NOT a porn star."

[Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill]

I'm not sexist but I hate the opposite gender.

[hassanchop]

That’s what Father Ted said see where that got him

[Kyn]

This is a land mine in thread form.

[Hit Girl]

People need to stop giving social media bollocks more attention and importance than it deserves.

[Kyn]

Sept 1, 2019 12:59:22 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

People need to stop giving social media bollocks more attention and importance than it deserves.

Agreed. I rage when newspapers quote tweets from Sue Blue of Buttf***, Indiana, like that's a legitimate form of journalism.

[Pushed to the Moon]

I think I'm cute
I'm not a sexist
I got the looks
That drive the girls wild