this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2026
283 points (94.6% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
39379 readers
4296 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.
Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.
To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.
I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.
I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.
I... don't even know what to say to this. I'm just gonna roll past this one.
It isn't. It's not a fallacy. Nor is it wrong.
I'm not picking on you because you disagree with the core intent of the person you responded to, I'm picking on you because you're doing—I hope unintentionally—the reverse-racism bit. You are placating people who are abusing our cultural sympathy for bigotries to avoid acknowledging something that makes them uncomfortable.
I promise you, there were a lot of white people in 1960s US that would whine about how all this discussion of segregated schools and drinking fountains was just to make white people feel bad. They still do it today! Ron Desantis in Florida, schools there are not allowed to keep books on slavery. Why? Because those books are "racist." To whom? Allegedly, white people. Men, as a category, do the same thing about rape.
You cannot talk about slavery in the US without talking about white people. You cannot talk about white people without making generalizations. Racism works through generalizations. The same is true for men and sexism. You cannot talk about rape culture without talking about men. There is no logical contradiction here; they're intrinsically linked to the subject.
Safeguard themselves from what? I'm issuing this as a challenge to you: what do they have to be afraid of? Like, in a sentence, how do you explain it?
I want to disagree with you because you're doing nerd shit, which is, generally speaking, really unapproachable for people. But I don't even know what framing you're suggesting, so I'm willing to hear it.
I get the impression you benefit from extra clarity, so to that end: I know what patriarchal hegemony is, I don't understand the framing. If your explanation amounts to replacing the word 'men' with 'patriarchy', I'm going to be a little bit upset.
If I am not severly mistaken from reading all of this. The point he was trying to make is a phrase like "All men commit sexual assault." Which can quite easily be disproven will give ammunition to the vile men like Andrew Tate to draw in young men that feel like they are being labeled as a criminal.
"straight women love SAing queer people"
"All men commit sexual assault."
When was that word 'all' added, do you think? I don't remember seeing it. You're correct, that would be easily disprovable.
Andrew Tate, by the way, does not need ammunition; he will freely invent the ammunition he needs. Those men, also, are perfectly comfortable jumping onto incel boards to complain about how femoids only want high sexual market value—nary a concern about how any of this language may or may not be unfair.
Listen, the whole problem is, the reason why I'm here, is that if you listen to these people then you never get to make cultural critiques. Martin Luther King never gets to talk about the white moderate because Not All White Moderates are like that, you know? You have to learn to identify when people are just disingenuously deflecting.
Most of these men do not care about the fairness of this language; it is piss easy to figure out when someone is talking about a class demographic vs. its individual members. The thing they care about is never dealing with the subject. They're just protecting their cultural capital.
There are other ways of dealing with Andrew Tate's followers: you call them stupid and you make fun of them for it because they are and they deserve it. And I hear you, "how is being mean effective?" But I'll tell you, no one likes being on the side of the uncool.
I fully agree with you that you need to call out bullshit whenever you see it. My phrase was just hyperbole to emphasise my explenation, not a direct comparison to straight women assualting lgbtq women.
But as someone that got close to falling into the whole early manosphere stuff. My personal experience is that these grifters thrive in the "broken clock is right twice a day" situations because it gives them an air legitimacy.
So although I agree with you in general I do think the way you bring a message can have effects. (Sorry if my way of writing isn't fully clear English is not my native language).