katy perry has a well documented past of SAing ppl, including an 18yr old singer. drunk straight women love to SA queer women and think that they will be flattered by it. i’m not surprised
Throwing a whole group of people in there with the actions of some idiots is a tiny bit rude.
Signed, a straight man who kind of likes not being treated as a rapist and murderer.
Edit: In retrospect, please ignore the second sentence. It distracts from the actual argument, and me picking an arbitrary group should not effect the validity of the first sentence.
no one is treating you as a rapist and murderer theyre just saying that what was mentioned (powerful people abusing vulnerable people from vulnerable groups) is mostly a straight people thing
They are talking about a trend with straight people, not accusing every straight person of being a rapist. Rule of thumb, if someone critiques an identity that you are a part of and the critique doesnt apply to you then its probably not about you. Coming in and saying this type of shit makes you seem like an asshole who isnt listening to marginalized peoples’ struggles.
Like for example I hear houseless people complain about nurses and doctors a lot because they tend to assume they are dope-seeking. If I was a nurse, I would listen and do my best not to be the kind of person they are talking about. I would not tell them “You should stop generalizing, cause I don’t do that.” It feels very invalidating and makes you come off as very self-centered.
I aint gonna say people couldn’t rephrase better to avoid over generalization, but just saying that lets stop making it about ourselves when people are talking about real and serious problems affecting them. Be an active listener and dont be a part of the problem if you aint gonna be a part of the solution.
Edit: Crazy how a comment can have +60 upvotes, but a comment defending that comment can get -11.
That is a very general statement. I really dislike like such blanket statements. Because what is the difference between that and statements like “black people are dumb”, “Mexicans are drug dealers”, or, yes, “straight men are rapists”?
if someone critiques an identity that you are a part of and the critique doesnt apply to you then its probably not about you
If someone critiques a whole identity, they should either make sure that it applies to all or at least the overwhelming majority of that identity, or be prepared to be called a bigot and prejudiced.
To be extremely clear, because I know this is the internet, nuance is dead, and everything has to be black and white and packed for a 10s attention span:
You should critique people. You should point out toxic and hostile behaviour and oppressive social norms. You should, in my humble opinion, never fall into the trap of going from “gay people are bad” to “straight people are bad”.
The opposite of a restrictive society that enforces a one-size-fits-all norm (like heterosexuality, or being of $majorityEthnicity) is not an inverse stereotype, it is a free society where people are judged on their actions, not the properties they were born with.
So, your argument is, some of those groups are actually oppressed, therefore, it is inappropriate to throw in some of the actually oppressed groups in the same bin as obviously non-oppressed ones?
Yeah, that is a fair point, I guess. In retrospect, I should not have done this, if only because it distracts from the original argument, and I can see how it can be read as “look at me, a non-oppressed person, I am soo oppressed”. You live and learn, I never had the intention to make this about me, or any group I may be in.
I believe that my original argument, while maybe not exactly presented in the best way, still is valid: blanket statements against a group, any group, are bad. Some are worse than others in the context of how society treats them, sure, I agree with that.
Yeah basically. Like yeah generalizations are bad, like you say. But when we play the “not all straights” or “not all men” game, we are detracting from very real and very harmful issues facing a community. There is a reason women overwhelmingly pick the bear over the man in the hypothetical, and a man saying “not all men” does nothing to make that women want to pick him over the bear. Honestly, it often times would probably make the woman even more likely to pick the bear. Cause what you are doing is effectively making the topic about you, and you are telling the person “your generalization is more important to me than the problem you are talking about.” And because the people talking about the problem are marginalized (by definition, people without an influential voice), it only further covers up the message. As a white, straight-passing, and cis-passing man, yeah of course it hurts when I feel like someone is lumping me in as the problem. But I know its not my fault, and that its not really attacking me. And I know this because I try my damnedest to be an accomplice, not just an ally.* Basically, be the reason why they dont feel the need to generalize anymore, show dont tell.
*There is a very good zine called “Accomplices Not Allies: Abolishing the Ally Industrial Complex” written by Indigenous Action that I highly recommend. There is also another zine called “Queers Read This” that I also highly recommend. I linked both below.
Yeah, like white supremacists doing it are not victims talking about real oppression, they are pieces of shit leveling stereotypes and misinformation to slander their victims. A queer person saying straight people force straightness down their throat is not the same as a straight person saying queerness is forced down their throat. One is a reflection on how straightness is deemed normal and safe and so is represented as the default, and the other is being uncomfortable outside of your tiny bubble and accusing people just wanting to be represented as some sort of personal attack. Intent and context are huge
Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument; not disagreeing with your overall point. If you seek to be persuasive, form your argument on points that can’t be so easily dismantled. Framing the argument from the perspective of patriarchal hegemony would be far more advantageous as it can’t then be weaponised by those who would seek to be bigots.
I’ve made no accusations towards you about being racist because I don’t know anything about you; I wouldn’t do that without evidence. It might be worth reflecting on why you felt I did so.
Okay, one, I am a different person. Two, it’s not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies have names.
I thought about asking if you knew what code switching was, and I really should have. You don’t seem to understand why I brought that up.
There are lots of black people in the US who will talk to white people in a different way than they will talk to their friends and family. It’s usually more polite, more cordial, more deferential, and much, much less “crass”.
Now, think about this for a second: why would a black person in the US want to be seen as polite in front of white people? What assumptions do you think they’re making?
My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.
Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.
I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.
(making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group)
Okay, I’ll try asking this again: What assumptions do you think black people make of white people when they code switch? Are these assumptions correct?
I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere with this person, so, onlookers:
You cannot use racism as a defense of your hurt feelings that women would choose the bear because your class is not being meaningfully harmed by what’s being said. You are not slaves. You are not being forced to build a railroad. No one is holding you in a camp. You are not being refused at the grocery store.
People who do not want to be lynched do in fact make generalizations about other groups (*ahem*, white people) as a means of keeping themselves safe. It is simple risk aversion. You have learned the wrong lessons about what racism is and why it’s bad.
Then let me rephrase it, because I forgot it’s the internet and people will try to misunderstand me.
As a member of a non-specified group X, I would hate it if people would precondemn me based on thing Y, which a part of group X does more than the average population.
I could have picked any other stereotype, I just happen to be not a woman, and of the majority ethnicity in my country. Blame my parents.
However, based on this hypothetical, yet relatable thought experiment, saying that a group does a bad thing because some people who happen to be in that group do that bad thing more often than other people is at the very least rude.
uhhhhh no one misunderstood what you were saying - thank you for bringing the conversation back to what matters, the struggles of the most victimized group of all time. make sure you let every queer voice on the internet know what we should focus on. i really appreciate it thanks so much <3
My bad, I thought you were arguing in good faith. easy mistake. But apparently I hate queer people now.
The example of me being a straight man does not matter at all. I could have picked any other group. In fact, in retrospect, I probably should, because we are now arguing about straight men, when we should be arguing about how “$group is bad” is a fucked up style of thinking.
The solution to a society that is oppressive to some (like homosexual women) is not applying the same rhetoric of oppression and stereotype to groups that are more likely to do that oppression (like heterosexual women).
I mean, I get it’s inappropriate to be like “what about men”. It’s pretty clear they are talking about blanket judging straight women for Perry’s actions. “Not ALL straight women” - ya see?
In my experience though, they lean towards harassing gay men over queer women. 😅
oh yea kissing that 18yo, but the guy was wierd as fuck, and gave off wierd vibes. NOt surpisingly, later on he was caught posessing CHild porn material in 2024, hes a pedophiles which is why everyone thought he gave off wierd vibes. the guys name is benjamin glaze.
katy perry has a well documented past of SAing ppl, including an 18yr old singer. drunk straight women love to SA queer women and think that they will be flattered by it. i’m not surprised
Throwing a whole group of people in there with the actions of some idiots is a tiny bit rude.
Signed, a straight man who kind of likes not being treated as a rapist and murderer.
Edit: In retrospect, please ignore the second sentence. It distracts from the actual argument, and me picking an arbitrary group should not effect the validity of the first sentence.
We’ll MAYBE you should have thought of that before being a straight man.
chill
no one is treating you as a rapist and murderer theyre just saying that what was mentioned (powerful people abusing vulnerable people from vulnerable groups) is mostly a straight people thing
deleted by creator
They are talking about a trend with straight people, not accusing every straight person of being a rapist. Rule of thumb, if someone critiques an identity that you are a part of and the critique doesnt apply to you then its probably not about you. Coming in and saying this type of shit makes you seem like an asshole who isnt listening to marginalized peoples’ struggles.
Like for example I hear houseless people complain about nurses and doctors a lot because they tend to assume they are dope-seeking. If I was a nurse, I would listen and do my best not to be the kind of person they are talking about. I would not tell them “You should stop generalizing, cause I don’t do that.” It feels very invalidating and makes you come off as very self-centered.
I aint gonna say people couldn’t rephrase better to avoid over generalization, but just saying that lets stop making it about ourselves when people are talking about real and serious problems affecting them. Be an active listener and dont be a part of the problem if you aint gonna be a part of the solution.
Edit: Crazy how a comment can have +60 upvotes, but a comment defending that comment can get -11.
That is a very general statement. I really dislike like such blanket statements. Because what is the difference between that and statements like “black people are dumb”, “Mexicans are drug dealers”, or, yes, “straight men are rapists”?
If someone critiques a whole identity, they should either make sure that it applies to all or at least the overwhelming majority of that identity, or be prepared to be called a bigot and prejudiced.
To be extremely clear, because I know this is the internet, nuance is dead, and everything has to be black and white and packed for a 10s attention span:
You should critique people. You should point out toxic and hostile behaviour and oppressive social norms. You should, in my humble opinion, never fall into the trap of going from “gay people are bad” to “straight people are bad”.
The opposite of a restrictive society that enforces a one-size-fits-all norm (like heterosexuality, or being of $majorityEthnicity) is not an inverse stereotype, it is a free society where people are judged on their actions, not the properties they were born with.
Read my reply to walk_blessed and you’ll get the nuance. I explain how its different from white supremacists generalizing black people.
So, your argument is, some of those groups are actually oppressed, therefore, it is inappropriate to throw in some of the actually oppressed groups in the same bin as obviously non-oppressed ones?
Yeah, that is a fair point, I guess. In retrospect, I should not have done this, if only because it distracts from the original argument, and I can see how it can be read as “look at me, a non-oppressed person, I am soo oppressed”. You live and learn, I never had the intention to make this about me, or any group I may be in.
I believe that my original argument, while maybe not exactly presented in the best way, still is valid: blanket statements against a group, any group, are bad. Some are worse than others in the context of how society treats them, sure, I agree with that.
Yeah basically. Like yeah generalizations are bad, like you say. But when we play the “not all straights” or “not all men” game, we are detracting from very real and very harmful issues facing a community. There is a reason women overwhelmingly pick the bear over the man in the hypothetical, and a man saying “not all men” does nothing to make that women want to pick him over the bear. Honestly, it often times would probably make the woman even more likely to pick the bear. Cause what you are doing is effectively making the topic about you, and you are telling the person “your generalization is more important to me than the problem you are talking about.” And because the people talking about the problem are marginalized (by definition, people without an influential voice), it only further covers up the message. As a white, straight-passing, and cis-passing man, yeah of course it hurts when I feel like someone is lumping me in as the problem. But I know its not my fault, and that its not really attacking me. And I know this because I try my damnedest to be an accomplice, not just an ally.* Basically, be the reason why they dont feel the need to generalize anymore, show dont tell.
*There is a very good zine called “Accomplices Not Allies: Abolishing the Ally Industrial Complex” written by Indigenous Action that I highly recommend. There is also another zine called “Queers Read This” that I also highly recommend. I linked both below.
https://www.indigenousaction.org/accomplices-not-allies-abolishing-the-ally-industrial-complex/
https://archive.qzap.org/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/184
Also thank you for engaging in good faith and being willing to listen
Try telling that to victims of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry. It’s not a particularly sound piece of advice.
wow, it’s almost as though the power dynamics in a given context are relevant
Yeah, like white supremacists doing it are not victims talking about real oppression, they are pieces of shit leveling stereotypes and misinformation to slander their victims. A queer person saying straight people force straightness down their throat is not the same as a straight person saying queerness is forced down their throat. One is a reflection on how straightness is deemed normal and safe and so is represented as the default, and the other is being uncomfortable outside of your tiny bubble and accusing people just wanting to be represented as some sort of personal attack. Intent and context are huge
I’m sure black and gay people love being wielded as a weapon to defend you from mild criticism that wasn’t even fired in your direction.
I think I’m pretty good at not being racist. Do you think I spend a lot of time being upset with black people for code switching around me?
Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument; not disagreeing with your overall point. If you seek to be persuasive, form your argument on points that can’t be so easily dismantled. Framing the argument from the perspective of patriarchal hegemony would be far more advantageous as it can’t then be weaponised by those who would seek to be bigots.
I’ve made no accusations towards you about being racist because I don’t know anything about you; I wouldn’t do that without evidence. It might be worth reflecting on why you felt I did so.
Okay, one, I am a different person. Two, it’s not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies have names.
I thought about asking if you knew what code switching was, and I really should have. You don’t seem to understand why I brought that up.
There are lots of black people in the US who will talk to white people in a different way than they will talk to their friends and family. It’s usually more polite, more cordial, more deferential, and much, much less “crass”.
Now, think about this for a second: why would a black person in the US want to be seen as polite in front of white people? What assumptions do you think they’re making?
My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.
Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.
I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.
Okay, I’ll try asking this again: What assumptions do you think black people make of white people when they code switch? Are these assumptions correct?
I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere with this person, so, onlookers:
You cannot use racism as a defense of your hurt feelings that women would choose the bear because your class is not being meaningfully harmed by what’s being said. You are not slaves. You are not being forced to build a railroad. No one is holding you in a camp. You are not being refused at the grocery store.
People who do not want to be lynched do in fact make generalizations about other groups (*ahem*, white people) as a means of keeping themselves safe. It is simple risk aversion. You have learned the wrong lessons about what racism is and why it’s bad.
what are you talking about about bruh no one said anything about straight men. eye roll
Then let me rephrase it, because I forgot it’s the internet and people will try to misunderstand me.
As a member of a non-specified group X, I would hate it if people would precondemn me based on thing Y, which a part of group X does more than the average population.
I could have picked any other stereotype, I just happen to be not a woman, and of the majority ethnicity in my country. Blame my parents.
However, based on this hypothetical, yet relatable thought experiment, saying that a group does a bad thing because some people who happen to be in that group do that bad thing more often than other people is at the very least rude.
uhhhhh no one misunderstood what you were saying - thank you for bringing the conversation back to what matters, the struggles of the most victimized group of all time. make sure you let every queer voice on the internet know what we should focus on. i really appreciate it thanks so much <3
My bad, I thought you were arguing in good faith. easy mistake. But apparently I hate queer people now.
The example of me being a straight man does not matter at all. I could have picked any other group. In fact, in retrospect, I probably should, because we are now arguing about straight men, when we should be arguing about how “$group is bad” is a fucked up style of thinking. The solution to a society that is oppressive to some (like homosexual women) is not applying the same rhetoric of oppression and stereotype to groups that are more likely to do that oppression (like heterosexual women).
every stance you take is acting like the victim. more eyerolls
This might be complex, but bear with me.
If someone steals 100 euros from Alex, and someone steals 2 euros from Bob, both are victims, even though Alex lost much more.
And it just so happens that the solution for both is exactly the same.
deleted by creator
I mean, I get it’s inappropriate to be like “what about men”. It’s pretty clear they are talking about blanket judging straight women for Perry’s actions. “Not ALL straight women” - ya see?
In my experience though, they lean towards harassing gay men over queer women. 😅
frfr it’s crazy, nobody said anything about men but he still had to drop in a “not all men” anyway. these fuckin’ “people”
In my experience all the gay guys I knew loved getting handsy with me.
They thought they could make go gay presumably with their “incredible” technique.
Didn’t work…but jeebus the amount of having to fend them off. Not to mention the never ending commentary about how I’d be better off gay.
But I don’t consign every gay man to this behaviour in the same way I don’t consign hetros who rape women as if somehow all men are rapists.
Can confirm. I’ve had way more gay men try to be handsy or to try and convince me to fuck around than I’ve seen the other way around.
“straight”
/no-phobo
Per Ron White, being gay is a spectrum and everyone is at least a, little gay.
oh yea kissing that 18yo, but the guy was wierd as fuck, and gave off wierd vibes. NOt surpisingly, later on he was caught posessing CHild porn material in 2024, hes a pedophiles which is why everyone thought he gave off wierd vibes. the guys name is benjamin glaze.
You experiencing someone as weird isn’t an excuse to dismiss them being sexually harassed/assualted. But I know you’ll continue to anyways.