You must log in or # to comment.
Hey, I’m all for ending the divisiveness when everyone else is.
Anarchists are alt-left and should be treated as such. :)
This isn’t an anarchist comic, it has nothing to do with anarchism.
I prefer Cthulhu’s position.
No lives matter, and that’s a fact.
I mean, it has been applied as a way to divide, like when Bernie proposed all sorts of policies to help the poor and mainstream media ran with “but what does Bernie do specifically for poor black people?”
That’s not to say there aren’t such specific concerns, but it wasn’t like Hillary was doing any better in that regard. It was solely used as a way to make Bernie look less progressive. So instead we got Trump with the simple and straightforward “make america great again”.
Fighting a war on multiple fronts is a great way to stretch your resources thin and muddy the strategy.
Bernie didn’t lose by focusing on black people, he lost because the entire DNC apparatus worked against him.
Neither of you are wrong.
That was my point, the DNC and their mainstream media buddies said that he didn’t focus enough on issues facing specifically black people. That was one of many attacks they made against him.
stupid comic for liberal types - please understand that you standing up as an autistic black feminist with one leg and a penchant for grapefruits does not result in significant change for society. yes, you exist, the world is full of wealthy evil, lets do something about that instead of talking about ourselves.
Okay rightie, go have a cry.
This right here. This is when you realize you’re arguing with a idiot and don’t continue.
A call to arms for everyone to unite against the oligarchy.
“Okay rightie”
Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples makes you a rightie, yeah.
Doubly so when you spout AllLivesMatter trash like “we’re all indigenous to Earth” to ignore colonialism.
Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples
This is like saying that someone wanting to end all poverty is ignoring and discriminating against the single poorest person.
Stop acting like these things are zero-sum. It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.
It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.
This may be shocking to learn, but different peoples have different issues. A one size fits all approach is not the solution.
You’re equivocating, for no reason, being equally sympathetic to an injustice regardless of the demographics of the victim in any given instance, with treating every case as if it’s identical.
Those are completely unrelated things.
P.S. You ‘may be shocked to learn’ that starting a comment like that just makes you sound like a sanctimonious jerk.
If you ignore that different demographics face different issues and that they are valid in bringing them up, and argue against that, you’re right wing trash as far as I’m concerned. Knowing that makes someone like that think I’m a sanctimonious jerk is only a compliment.
Seems you lack the comprehension that deciding not to over-expose a symptom but rather treat the disease is not the same as ignoring. Unity is better than division (a very right-wing concept, right?).
Seems like you also lack humour.
If you want unity stop ignoring peoples issues. Discrimination doesn’t come from any one factor.
And fuck off with “humour” another typical right wing take - “its just a joke bro”.
You’re doing nothing but baiting and trolling this whole post. Why don’t you take your anger out in a healthy way and go for a jog or something. A worthy block if I ever saw one. Get helpful or get out.
Oh please, defending intersectionality from chuds is not baiting or trolling
Don Quixote, the windmills are over there.
Intersectionality being a subsection of feminism is like a library being subsection of a book. It doesn’t make sense.
Intersectionality covers a much, much broader set of discrimination, and discrimination of women is just one side. Putting it under the umbrella of feminism is as random as putting it under, say, trans rights movement. Yes, there are specific issues on the intersection of gender, race, or age, or disability, but they are relevant not only for women. There are issues specific of black men, young trans people, etc.
When it’s all framed under feminism, it’s not clear where discriminated men and nonbinary people stand in all of this. Some people claim feminism is about everyone, and so there’s already something that works. Others reasonably state feminism is about women pretty much by definition. Put it together, and you’ll see how discriminated men and nonbinary folks are casually thrown out of a conversation and support net that has somehow put one specific issue in its center.
Who is saying it is only under feminism?
I truly thought the comment was referring to this comic, since the dialogue seems to imply that the second group is ‘trying to further divide and create a sub section’.
In close to all sources and conversations I had, intersectionality is seen as part of feminism or being “under the umbrella” of feminism. Here it was brought up in the context of feminism, so I decided to throw in my two cents.
However, if it’s just about intersectionality of women and black discrimination, then I completely see the message and can agree with it. Some issues need to be tackled specifically, and it doesn’t automatically mean hostility or leaving out. We should be mindful of that in all contexts.
The one colonists hate the most:
indigenous lives matter.It’s always ironic to see non-native Americans talk about stopping illegal immigration, like hahaha it’s not so funny now is it.
It’s not ironic at all. If someone steals X, it’s not ironic for them to not want that X stolen from them; it actually aligns perfectly with their previous mindset: ‘I want to have this’.
Tell them to give the land back and they lose their shit.
I don’t understand what “give the land back” means. Would you mind explaining it?
There are a lot of poor, oppressed people who live on land their ancestors didn’t own. In the US, all Black people and most native Americans don’t live within 1000 km of where their ancestors lived 600 years ago. So when land is given back, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do natives become landlords? Is there ethnic cleansing? Or is it only land where people don’t reside? Also, many native cultures didn’t even have land ownership, so how do you give land back without forcing them into a western mould?
We could just abolish private property rights and accept that no individual or corporation can own land. That would be my preferred solution.
How does that function in practice? Doesn’t that just immediately turn into a stupid bullshit version of mad max?
Commons - land maintained by the people in common - are a very common thing in non-capitalist societies. People in medieval England used to tend their animals on common land and get pissed at people who let their animals graze too much, eventually kicking them out by force if they continued to act selfishly.
Basically, acting selfishly is treated as a crime. Breaking into someone’s home to sleep there when there is a vacant home available is selfish. Taking all the computers from the public library to earn respect in the next village over is selfish. Meanwhile doing good is appreciated and means others will do good to you in turn, but by default people are considered deserving of all basic necessities.
You might get a Mad Max scenario if you magically get unguarded commons by fiat. But we live in capitalism where the commons are looted into non-existence by default. For an anticapitalist movement to be successful, it has to guard and maintain its own commons against capitalism, compared to which Mad Maxoids are child’s play. If we live in a society where private property can be abolished, we live in a society where the commons can be guarded.
How do you enforce it? How do you prevent enforcers from seizing power if they have a monopoly on violence?
Why would it? Private property only refers to land, we can just centrally manage land use through some system that’s fairer than capitalism. It seems like really quite a minor change compared to what I usually advocate for tbh
You lost me at “centrally manage.” That never works out.
Yeah the current system we have is working perfectly let’s never change it because change is scary
You would have to overthrow capitalism first. Which would be quite the task in the good old USA.
We need to do that anyways, Capitalism inevitably leads to fascism.
It means that it’s up to the natives. It sucks for the descendants of settlers, but the alternative, that the descendants of the people it was stolen from keep being oppressed is worse. The natives get to say what happens on their land, and withholding stewardship until there is an alternative that the settlers agree to is perpetuating oppression. Land back means land back.
I know it’s up to the natives, that’s why I’m asking. Because if they choose to build an oppressive system then those with power within the new system are the new oppressors to fight, and it would be nice to avoid that.
Yeah forget about sending those squatters back to Europe. We don’t fucking want them.
Oof, but then we’re stuck with them!
That’s kind of why I like the casino model. Local tribes put here have been buying their land back bit by bit and the casino goers gladly shovel money at them.
I just wish we could rope corporate entities into it. Imagine if casino losses could be a corporate tax writeoff. C-suites would be stumbling onto the floor with the company cards. The overnight wealth distribution would be staggering.
Gambling is a hugely exploitative industry which predominantly negatively impacts the poorest and most vulnerable. Casinos are also a dying business model.
But we’re all indigenous to Earth.
Please don’t remind me.
Most people want equality, justice, freedom and peace for all. I choose to believe that, at least.
It’s a very difficult thing to just fight the entire state of the world, instead it’s a much more achievable (and realistic) thing to fight for what affects your immediate group. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Except the entire state of the world is what’s responsible for the problems of your immediate group. When you focus on your immediate group you’re not only merely treating a symptom, but you’re also suggesting your problems are somehow more important than another group’s problems.
What’s worse is that people of a specific group will literally say their problems are more important, and then proceed to create a stereotype of another group to blame all those problems on. The struggle then moves away from real problems and then becomes all about defeating some sort of perceived enemy. A process which only achieves dividing us further.
A lot of the world’s problems, both socially and economically, come from the same handful of sources that are continuing to thrive, unchecked, while we fight amongst ourselves. Remove those sources and you will have solved the lion’s share of the problems your group shares, as well as the problems other groups have.
I don’t disagree you, the world at large has broken systems, either by design or neglect.
Now, although I also agree with that fighting only personal causes is treating a symptom and not the root cause, you’re hand waving the very real problem of motivation. People are tribal by nature, and will want to protect themselves and those around them.
As for removing that “handful of sources” at the top? Which sources are those, and how do you fix them?
Reading between the lines here, you’re essentially saying “see these deeply entrenched systems that have been perpetuated for hundreds/thousands of years? Just remove them.” - It’s not that simple by design.
Again, my point was that I do not fault people for putting their efforts into personal causes, not that this was the best way to solve the world’s problems at large.
The issue is turning around and attacking others trying to fight for what they fight for.
Intersectionality requires supporting each other.
Say it louder for the people in the back
The issue that:
Most people
Are not you, and that a large percentage of the ruling classes do not want:
equality, justice, freedom and peace
Otherwise inequality, injustice, slavery, and war wouldn’t exist. So we, the just indigenous liberators for peace have to fight against them lest we live by their oppressions.
I’m dumb, is the point the guy is wrong or that the white woman is wrong?
I wouldn’t see it as being right or wrong. Both white folks in the comic would benefit from a broadening of perspective is all.
The white guy doesn’t understand why a unique space is needed for women and gets an explanation.
The white lady doesn’t understand why a unique space is needed for black women and gets an explanation.
Anyone with a cursory understanding of history, particularly modern colonial history, where Europeans and their descendants actively dabbled in propoganda/a worldview that white = human and nonwhite = non/subhuman (culminating in Nazism) would understand this but our education system often avoids these difficult topics. Women were not able to hold credit up until the 70s and so their financial security depending entirely on their husband, depriving them of agency.
Unfortunately we can’t just flip a switch and make this history and its legacy disappear. I don’t blame the people portrayed in this comic. I blame inadequate education.
The point is that people generally have trouble seeing others’ struggles they themselves don’t face.
That is why I keep slipping hotdogs in people’s apparel. I don’t want to be the bad guy. I want to be liked. But I am undeniably good at what I do, and if I can bring the world together through sheer force of terror then so be it.
Everyone will be faced with constant uncertainty whenever they reach into a pocket or a purse or a buttcrack. No one will be able to trust a friend, or a wife, or a child any longer. Why can’t I get hot water in my shower? I blocked the pipe with a hotdog. Why is the icecream machine at McDonald’s broke? I replaced the cream with hotdogs. Why are there chunks of graphene and other detritus on the roof? I replaced the control rods of reactor no4 with hotdogs.
I am in your walls.
The white woman is being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
And the guy is wrong.
being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
I’m still stupid, can you fix the multiple negatives so I can understand
And the guy is wrong.
ok. thank you.
I believe it’s essentially the “Black Lives Matter” /“All Lives Matter” situation. Yes, we are striving for equality, but the movements are worded to highlight those who are most affected/disenfranchised by the status quo.
Woman gets it when she’s talking about the movement that applies specifically to her disenfranchisement, but not when she’s in the “out” group of a rights movement
thank you.
deleted by creator
I believe that is the point of the comic But I disagree that these are comparable.
The all lives matter reaction was created by the far right and is coded in direct opposition of Black lives matter as a movement which they want to destroy.
Feminism, masculism and equalism are each not good or bad but require balance.
The goal of Feminism is to advocate for women rights, freedom, respect and understanding. We need focused feminism because our world is unbalancedly scaled towards men.
The (intended?) goal of Masculism is the same goal as feminism but for men, we need much less of this because the world is unbalanced in male favor but we still need some people focused on it to combat against male sexism and abuse, which is more rare but equally not ok.
The goal of equalism is to support the above to try and bring balance, to be a voice of non traditional gender groups that do not fit the traditional focus, and to opposite radical versions, comon toxic masculinity or J K Rowling style Feminism.
“Why is it called feminism, everyone should be treated equally,” is exactly the same as saying, “why is it black lives matter, all lives matter?”
It’s misrepresenting their goals by saying that people who fight for one aspect of an issue are saying that no other aspect of the issue matters.
Most people who support feminism believe that everyone should be treated equally, but one gender needs a lot more lifting up to get equality.
It’s the same for BLM.
Yes but I don’t think a proper equalist should make such a dumb statement, those are usually misogynists maskerading as equalist.
I consider myself an equalist and i have stated above exactly why i think feminism is important. To be an equalist in this time o history means to support feminism.
Feminists continue to lobby for priviledges in the west in aspects where they are already clearly ahead. They’ve stepped firmly into the side exceptionalism and supremacy.
Feminism is a very important tool in the fight for men’s liberation. We men have to realize that we have been manipulated into fighting against our own interests.
We have been told it is masculine to act individualistically, but it is in our best interests to act collectively.
We have been taught that it is masculine to hide our feelings, but it is in our interests to show them, so that others can understand our struggles.
We are taught as men it is weak to ask for help. But helping others makes all of us stronger.
Feminism is for men’s rights too.
not even true one bit.
No, we haven’t.
To add to my other comment, the
realideology where people literally believe the words “all lives matter” is actually antifascism. And as an antifascist I support BLM just as i would support a person of any other color that is the victim of racism of any kind of other human.Right, but the phrase “all lives matter” is a racist response to the BLM movement. The simple fact that you have to explain that you’re not being racist when saying it shows this.
It’s just the nature of things. I can’t have a mustache because it only grows beneath my nose. Some asshole went and ruined that style for everyone.
ALL lives matter has never been anything but racist whites not wanting to lose thier power.
The white woman is being hypocritical. She expects the guy to understand her particular case. She cannot use the same logic to understand the black women’s case.
The man is trying to paper over the issues that divide men and women, the same way the white woman is papering over the issues that divide white and black women.
thank you
I understand the comic is pointing out hypocrisy. But I also see it as illustrating how perspective can shift depending on where one stands, especially if one does not already have a clear understanding of what intersectionality is and can intellectualize it. Both the guy and the woman do not seem to be portrayed as evil people, just misguided.
The black woman still sees the same underlying point, and the white woman now feels “left out”. And perhaps she is next. In pops the Muslim woman.
Though this is clearly not the intended result, one must recognize that this is an underlying point of attack, an exploitable weakness. Bitterness can be created to break groups that otherwise have common interests apart, and without the overall coalition there is no power to enact change.
Ultimately, Black feminism is part of a broader feminist goal that is part of a broader humanist goal. We are together, we are aligned.
Yeah I think your last paragraph is vital to this discussion. Black feminism takes nothing from feminism as a whole, while adding quite a bit.
What matters is consistency.
“Why do you have a label that excludes me?” scales up and to a virtually universal group and down to a specialized category with only three members.
It doesn’t really matter if you say that men are right to critique the label “feminism” or if you allow specialization all the way down to “Midwestern small city non-theater trans-male part-African part-Irish demisexual furry feminism”. Just so long as you’re fighting bigotry and applying your principles consistently.
(I much rather spend effort arguing that a man arguing against anti-masculine sexism is a cause worth supporting than bickering over whether or not his cause counts as “feminism”, even though I would casually include him in the label.)
Must have taken a wrong turn, came here for comics.
I think you may feel more at home in Non-Political Comics then. (Tbh I understand, sometimes I have to live over there for a few days. No need to be rude about it though.)
Feminism is concerned with oppression of all people. It is almost like chuds shouldn’t comment on things they won’t understand.
I gravitate towards humanism instead of feminism even though I align with his the latter would be defined by many people.
In my younger years many feminists groups I ended up participating it, often from working together on protests or other issues under the progressive banner very violently anti-men.
Many actively thought all men were inherently bad and had no place in shared spaces. I remember walking out when one member whom I had worked along with for years and thought of as a close friend spoke of how she had heard a theory of how Genghis Khan was castrated by his wife and died. She thought this was a fitting end for a man and some others chimed in, in agreement. There was a general sense of othering men as an out group responsible for evil, rather than seeing most men and women as suffering under the system.
I don’t think most people are like this, I’m just illustrating why someone might think differently without being a ‘chud’.
Ah yes, I see trying to pigeon hole feminism because women who are abused don’t trust men.
The two are unrelated because women distrust men without feminism.
In respect to Genghis Khan, he was a mass murder and rapist of epic proportions. Not really a good example if you are trying to paint them as horrible people.
Feminism is an academic study of oppression and people who oppress men are not feminists. They are probably just women trying to cope in a patriarchy that abuses and suppresses them. Angry and upset about a world that steals their bodily autonomy and ignored their cries for help.
This comic is a mischaracterization of feminism. For one feminism studies was a catalyst for African American Women studies. The man in the beggining is definitely a chud and the comic is written from a chud perspective.
I know it is a troll comment, but I think it’s a conversation starter on its own.
In any movement, including feminists, there are people struggling for equality and people willing to hijack the conversation to suit their needs. While the latter intentionally label themselves same as the former, they are not the same.
As long as the goal of a particular feminist is to create a more equal society (in this case - by removing the obstacles and dangers women specifically face in everyday life), I, as a man, am totally aligned.
However, there are certain people within the movement that serve much different politicized goals. Denying the rights of trans people. Starting gender wars to distract people from uniting over shared goals. Pretending they care about women when stripping away their reproductive rights or spreading disinformation about contraception. These people are here to support oppression, not liberate others.
Not a troll comment at all. The US is absolutely full of women haters. They lie about what feminism is constantly.
One of the ways they do this is by claiming individual that are clearly not feminist represent feminism. They point to ignorant men or women in a disingenuous attempt to discredit the movement based on perceived hypocrisy or just general misogyny.
Lemmy is absolutely stocked full of these type of fucks. This post is clearly anti-feminist under the guise of supposed social commentary.
“Feminism” start like a slur to people who defend women vote, then they take the slur in their movement designation, egualism and humanism are already movements and study metods where they study why humans are patetics and beautiful at same time
Did you have a stroke?
ok xenophobe
Edit: very ironic to be called woke on a post discussing intersectionality btw.
Let’s be clear. Making a joke at someone’s expense? That is an insult. If that insult is predicated on the fact they don’t know your native language as well as you do, that is an insult targeting their culture (or lack of full integration into your own).
Assuming it from a western-centric perspective that the commenter themselves is from somewhere English is a native language: Definitionally, objectively, undeniably, it was xenophobia.
If it was from another non-native English speaker… boohoo I called an asshole a xenophobe on the internet. Shut up, losers.
So, when did xenophobia mean not being able to understand misspelled word salads?
It’s xenophobic to ridicule a non-native speaker and ask them if they had a stroke. You are ridiculing them and making a joke at their expense.
You also have a lot of gall to comment on how other people speak, to be honest. Your mastery of the English language is lacking. Maybe it’s not your first language either?
Sure.
Goddamn, random internet commenters being accused of xenophobia for joking about being unable to understand a comment. Woke is back, baby! Love to see it.
WoKe Is BaCk
That’s right, it is! and apparently so is alternating caps! Welcome back, 2017!
Bro must be 20 if they think 2017 was the year of alternating caps. It turns out, some sentiment is timeless. 😎 but yes, also, making fun of someone because they aren’t very practiced at their non-native language is xenophobia. are you familiar of the concept of “laughing with vs laughing without”?
But okay, let’s say it’s not xenophobic to target someone specifically for a cultural/language difference. It’s not xenophobia, it’s just being an asshole. And yeah, assholes deserve to be called out and dogged on.
So what’s your point? You just love assholes? Big anal guy?
Hey now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticising you, I love the energy.
I don’t think the user you replied to really meant any harm, though, I think they were just joking. A slightly problematic joke, to be sure, but not an uncommon one.
Still, I support you.
The fuck did I just read?
I can’t dechiper the latter half but it seems like they’re trying to say “feminist” started as a “slur” that was used against men and women who wanted women to be able to vote. Feminists “claimed” the slur so to speak and broadened its meaning to encapsulate more issues?
But again I’m just guessing. English isn’t their first language. Maybe let’s not expect people to have perfect English on fucking Lemmy? lmao
I dont expect perfect English but it changes nothing if I cant decipher what they said.
Sure, but you could have maybe tried to interpret it a little bit and ask them what they mean? Instead you opted to make public spectacle of something that a lot of non-native speakers are self-conscious of.
Or you could just have not engaged. But again. You opted to make fun of someone because either you were being thoughtless/careless, or because you’re an asshole. Not a huge deal, but deserves being commented on.
The fuck did I just read?
Sure, but you could have maybe tried to interpret it a little bit and ask them what they mean? Instead you opted to make public spectacle of something that a lot of non-native speakers are self-conscious of.
Or you could just have not engaged. But again. You opted to make fun of someone because either you were being thoughtless/careless, or because you’re an asshole. Not a huge deal, but deserves being commented on.
This is the language of patetics
deleted by creator
