Why purposefully alienate part of the community?

Submitted by Flopmauser in AskRaddle

I'm an anarchist, who happens to be a gay white male. It's never been as issue what gender/color/orientation someone was in anything I've done IRL, but on here I feel kind of out of place and am wary to contribute to some subs due to a large amount of posts/comments about males or whites that frankly make me feel like I'm hated for how I was born (and yes, I get the irony of the situation given the oppression people have faced on the flip side of that). I am curious as to if this is intended? If this isn't a space where I'm welcome, I'll move on, but I find it a bit at odds with what I expected, and decided to ask.

−3

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GaldraChevaliere wrote

It isn't that you're unwelcome, kin. It's that the space is going to put oppressed populations first, because it's needed. The important thing to keep in mind is that these complaints are not personal to you, and aren't intended to target you specifically but rather the privileged class to which you belong, and there are axes on which you are oppressed, chiefly sexuality, but white gay dudes as a class are also known for kicking down and selling out LBT folks and gay men of color with startling regularity, something white lesbians aren't exactly clean of towards bisexuals, women of color and transfolk either. Working to undermine those hierarchies is the path to trust, and nobody's going to have a problem with you if you're not doing shit like making weird theories about why transwomen really want breasts or how indenture was somehow any worse than the protracted and industrialized system of slavery.

15

MrPotatoeHead wrote

The world is rapidly moving to only having two classes, billionaires and their corporations, and everyone else. Focusing on whites is a distraction from the real world where the true elite want us to be at each others throats. Western white people have more, for now. But that is a distinction that is being silently taken away by the only true elite class, IMO. Billionaires want us to be at each others throats while they take what everyone else has in the name of economic growth. Liars.

−6

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Class reductionism has never been a strong argument, because we know already that race as a concept and especially whiteness exist to uphold the bourgeoise. We don't have a prayer of toppling them until we're all on the same page, and for every ignorant cishet white boy who insists that identity poltiics are divisive, we in fact get that much more divided, because of the inability of the privileged folk to accept and then abdicate their position of privilege. The west has more because the west has taken more from the rest of the world, not as a fluke of luck, and to be able to do so it's had to oppress africans, asians, south americans and amerindians, polynesians and aboriginal peoples, and yes, 'ethnic' impure europeans to do so. Whiteness as a system is rooted in the ability for a select handful of powerful imperial nations to exploit the resources and labor power of others through overwhelming violence and force and that is absolutely a race concern. Race and class and gender are entangled and utterly inseparable, and it's a fool's errand to try to position pure economic disparity as the only real concern. That is why nobody likes whitey, including the portion of us descended from those you bribed or coerced into your club.

8

MrPotatoeHead wrote

My point was that we are moving toward two classes. You are 100% correct in that white Europeans slaughtered and stole from others, for hundreds of years. Billionaires run the Western world and now China has its own set of billionaires that are not white in any way, but still suppress workers to gain more wealth.

I respect your well thought out comment.

−3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I don't think we're moving towards them, I think they've always been a necessary component of any imperialist structure, whether that be feudalism or the pax romana or the modern world. East Asians definitely commit abuses on polynesians, siberians and south/central asians and that absolutely should not be discounted or downplayed.

But it's symptomatic of a concept that was codified in a very major way by rich european empires; France, Spain, England and Holland in particular. Just like those ethnic groups propped up by empire (along with Germany and Sweden at the heights of their power, and in the modern world ((post-victorian)) by just about every 'developed' western country especially America) kicked down and exploited Irish, Italians, Poles, Travelers, and European Jews and Romani while still focusing their efforts on the systemic stripping of sovereignty and resources from other continents, Japan and China have exercised imperialist oppression against the Ainu, Malay, Mongolians, Uhgyurs and a host of others I don't know well enough to speak of. But that system has it roots in a very specific breed of colonisation that was developed by the people who would label themselves 'white', and that cannot be overlooked.

5

00420 wrote

I'm a straight white male, but I can't say I've ever once felt like those attributes caused me to feel left out or hated in leftist communities.

I know damned well that non-white, non-straight, and non-male leftists don't hate me because I'm straight, white or male. They just hate the patriarchy that's mostly run by straight, white males. And it just so happens, that so do I.

Also, being straight, being white, and being male have absolutely no affect on how I see myself as a person. I don't identify with them in any meaningful way, anymore than I identify with being right-handed, or having a short tongue that I can't fold into a U shape. I'd suggest you try to view yourself the same (with the straight part swapped around, of course), and you may just find yourself no longer taking offense to such things.

11

Pop wrote

One potential kind of response to this question comes from Ally Henny:

The reason why I speak plainly and broadly about “white people” is because, I have found, that when I say “some white people” or use language that is otherwise non-specific, there is a tendency for those words to be lost on those two whom they most apply.
I have observed that speaking specifically and broadly about white people is the easiest way to get white people to examine themselves and the quickest way to unearth fragility. Being able to hear a broad statement about white people and not respond with fragility is one of the basic things in having conversations about race. If one feels defensive about this practice, they aren’t ready to enter into a deeper conversation because they are unwilling to examine themselves in relation to their whiteness.
White people must be prepared to understand, discuss, analyze, and deconstruct whiteness and white identity. This is, arguably, the most basic component to racial healing. Without an understanding of whiteness and one’s relationship to/with whiteness, hearing such “broad generalizations” can be taken as an attack rather than an observation.

9

zzuum wrote

Yeah as a white guy I think that it is (a) encouraged since whiteness is oppressive and (b) something you should believe in, since whiteness started most of the bs that ruling parties use to oppress minorities. Also i don't see THAT many posts referring to that you are talking about anyway.

6

Flopmauser OP wrote

I can understand that, maybe I'm just being too sensitive or something, I just felt really unsure of how to react to a post I saw this morning that said "men = fragility" or something like that and found it off-putting to be judged just by my gender (and again, I 100% appreciate the irony given patriarchal oppression of women, but I don't think the solution is to flip it around and just swap oppressors).

2

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Nobody wants to swap oppressors except for TERFs. But when absolute power is broken and others begin to rise to your level, it can feel like being oppressed yourself. Nobody here is interested in replicating patriarchy with women at the head, we're interested in nuking the whole thing to begin with and half of us wouldn't be satisfied without taking coercive gender out altogether in the process. When a trans woman tells you to shut the fuck up about the realities of her transition, or a cis woman tells you to step off and let her get her abortion she has every Frigg-given right to, you're not being oppressed. You're being told that your outsider perspective is wrong and that you shouldn't talk over people living through those situations that you can't experience for yourself.

4

Flopmauser OP wrote

I completely agree with your points, but where I disagree is where I'm saying derogatory things about a person based on general shouldn't be something that we aim for, and it certainly isn't 'power bring broken and others rising to your level'.

It's doing the same thing that you are fighting against, to someone else. I just don't understand why that would be supported.

2

GaldraChevaliere wrote

That's the logic trap that liberals tend to fall into, and why they hiss and boo any sort of meaningful physical resistance. Punching up is not a form of violence, because it doesn't uphold or reinforce systemic oppression the way punching down does. A black person saying "fuck whitey" is not rebuilding those systems with her at the top, she's openly expressing dissent, and that is not something that should be frowned upon. Likewise, if I say "die cis scum" or something, this isn't an act of violence against cishets with the intent to exploit their labor and resources for my benefit, but an act of rebellion against an overclass that seeks to dehumanize me and push me to the fringes of society. A hard thing to get over is what I said earlier, recognizing that these outbursts are not personally directed at you, but at the system that enslaves and kills us that you do benefit from.

6

[deleted] wrote

4

Flopmauser OP wrote (edited )

Well, matriarchy wasn't on my mind specifically. More like, saying derogatory things about anyone based on race/gender/orientation is bad, and shouldn't be done either way. Patriarchy oppressing women is a wrong that needs to be righted, but the correction of that wrong isn't to then turn around and demean men. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

Flopmauser OP wrote

It wasn't that specific comment, but another one saying the exact same thing. Saying men or women are inherently 'fragile' is stereotyped and demeaning to either group.

3

[deleted] wrote

5

Flopmauser OP wrote

So long as it was consensually obtained, your kinks aren't my business.

3

[deleted] wrote

3

wagoncigs wrote

me: i love anarchism

y'all: we hate white males they all deserve to die

me: suddenly i hate anarchism

jesus fucking christ y'all, mans not even being a dickhead and you're acting like he's some T_D dickhead brigading is. I completely agree with the whole more oppressed people get priority, but listen to the absurdity of what you're saying.

−3

ziq wrote

https://coinsh.red/p/7fiubx6ruun11.jpg

1

Flopmauser OP wrote (edited )

I don't disagree with anger. I disagree with hate. There is a distinction. Posting a meme about 'gaslighting' to a comment saying no one should be oppressing anyone else is bloody weird, mate.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reverse-racism-isnt-a-thing_us_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97

(apply the same concept to sexism)

2

Flopmauser OP wrote

Racism is racism, regardless of who it is directed at. I'm not sure what you're trying to promote or what point you're trying to make here.

No one should oppress anyone else. No Gods, no Kings. Racism is oppression and so is equally bad, regardless of who it is directed at.

−8

ziq wrote

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/reverse-oppression-cant-exist/

2

Flopmauser OP wrote

No matter what links you post, racism is still bad, regardless of what race it is against. There's no argument that can be used to say racism is okay against a specific group. Oppressing anyone is an evil.

−4

Faolinbean wrote

THERES NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE SEXISM YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST NOW GO READ SOME LINKS THAT WERE KINDLY PROVIDED FFS

3

ziq wrote (edited )

are you even reading these links, bruv?

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I'm a white hetero male and I've never felt under assault here. All of the attacks against white men, heterosexual or otherwise, that I have seen here are on things that deserve criticism.

I haven't seen anyone advance the agenda that we should all be executed, imprisoned, etc... etc... I think we're fine.

5

ziq wrote

If oppressed people blowing off steam by speaking ill of those above them on the hierarchy (white men) bothers you enough that you feel threatened, then you're better off sticking to a white supremacist site like reddit or notabug.io where white men are never called to account and are flooded with approval every time they say anything to disparage those less powerful than them.

4

[deleted] wrote

4

ziq wrote

If this isn't a space where I'm welcome, I'll move on,

If raddle's feminist and poc users make him uncomfortable for talking about whiteness and male privilege then why would he want to stay? He's clearly uncomfortable around the kind of pushback against the white supremacist patriarchy that's commonplace on raddle. It's understandable since it's so rare in society to encounter a community that doesn't celebrate white maleness every minute of every day to avoid offending the sensibilities of white men.

Women and poc don't have the luxury to 'move on' when they feel uncomfortable; every space they go to is openly demeaning of their existence.

5

transhumancom wrote

i don't think it's meant to be alienating as much as it is illuminating

4

BunnyBop wrote

I think the other day I made a comment to a cis male troll that his opinions on gender would never be relevant. I don't know if that's a comment you saw, but either way, when I made that comment, it wasn't meant as a personal insult to all cis males, but rather a statement that they generally don't have a lot of new perspective when it comes to gender. You, as an individual, may have some insight I haven't heard before into your own gender or gender in general, but that's not usually the case when the world was built for cis male supremacy for a long time.

When people say stuff like "male = fragility" or "cis men's opinions aren't relevant" it's both a way to blow off steam and an acknowledgement that the world generally serves those perspectives and not our own.

3

Flopmauser OP wrote

Okay, I can understand that perspective, and I'll take it in that light. I will admit I do have worry that such vehement rhetoric can easily give birth to actual hate, but I will do my best to not judge and keep an open mind about it.

2

BunnyBop wrote

I won't lie, there are probably some people who do hate white men, but I don't think they're the majority at all. I'd say most people who state the things you're concerned about are just cautious of white men, if not resentful that a great deal of the world has been built around them and that they can present a danger to the rest of us, but they don't hate you. I don't speak for everyone, but it's probably more disappointment than hate.

4

ziq wrote

why don't you link to specific instances so we don't have to speculate about what offended you?

3

AgitatedStatesOfAmazement wrote

Nobody hates people for being part of a privileged group, they hate the oppression privileged groups as a whole are responsible for, and when members of those privileged groups cause oppressed groups harm it's incredibly frustrating. PoC who genuinely hate white people and non-men who genuinely hate men are about as common as gay people who genuinely hate straight people.

Being incredibly frustrated with someone while hating the oppression their kind is responsible for can sometimes feel a lot like hating them, so it's sometimes expressed that way. The ultimate solution to this is to end oppression, so keep working towards that.

3

Flopmauser OP wrote

That's a fair and reasonable explanation, thank you. By and in large most people commenting on this seem to be of that viewpoint, so I'll take that as the majority view here on Raddle.

There's a couple others, but I'm not familiar enough with this site yet to know if I'm just being trolled by facist sockpuppets or if some people just really think racism is okay against specific groups.

1

BunnyBop wrote

They're arguing that racism against white people doesn't exist, not that "racism" against white people is okay. Those are two very different perspectives and I think you're conflating the two.

6

Flopmauser OP wrote

I must be, do you mind explaining the difference? I feel like I am missing something, since to my view, saying "White people are scum" or "Black people are scum" are both equally bad and undesirable.

1

BunnyBop wrote

I'm not that up to date with race politics, I still have a lot of reading to do, but the way it was explained that made sense to me is that racism isn't simply prejudice against someone's race, but prejudice along with the power to act on that prejudice in a way that is supported by society in some way or built into the way things are done. You can be prejudiced but not racist, if you don't have the power to oppress those who you are prejudiced against.

You also have to look at why people say "white people are scum" vs "black people are scum." When people say the first, it's probably because of that disappointment/resentment/whatever that society has been built around these people and they themselves aren't doing anything to correct that. When people say "black people are scum," however, that comes from a very different place. It's the belief that black people are inherently inferior somehow, that they don't deserve the respect we give others because they're inherently lesser. They might sound the same but their meanings are different.

5

martasultan wrote

To quote Malcolm X,

The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities -- he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites.

5

Flopmauser OP wrote

I'm not American and really have no frame of reference for American race relations past some stuff in movies or on TV, but I'd argue that everyone ought to be equal and treat each other with respect.

−1

martasultan wrote

Where are you from? In my home country, also not America, we continue to praise people who enslaved Africans and have statues of King motherfucking Leopold standing high above our capitals. It's far from just an American thing. Nevermind all the racism that I saw all across Europe after the World Cup.

If you must, simply substitute slavery with colonialism in any context.

4

rampart wrote

You can create your own place over at www.libreddit.com

We love people of all races and sexual orientation.

−3

martasultan wrote

We love people of all races and sexual orientation.

sorry, but as the raddle official totally real ToS as defined by /f/meta_ says, no whites or straights allowed

5

ziq wrote

lmao, was this all one big wind up to promote your white-fragility-friendly postmill instance?

That's fucking awesome.

I'll be sure to send all the brosh that come through here over to you <3

5

martasultan wrote

what an absolute power move lmao

it even says 'free speech zone' and shit on the wiki, smells like it'll literally just be notabug but somehow even worse because nobody will use it

4

Pop wrote (edited )

libreddit

when you try to be libre but you just are liberal

(or worse)

5

ziq wrote

he should just call it WhiteMaleEgosStrokedHere.com

3

martasultan wrote

libreddit

sorry pal but im going to have to report you for violating my beloved copyright laws, i love trademarks

3

ziq wrote

uh no, Amurica has free speech so they can call their site whatever they want, didn't you know?

5

bubblegum wrote

I made an account just to say I feel the same way. White men aren't the enemy.

−4

ziq wrote

If you were the enemy, how would you know? Enemies don't typically see themselves as enemies.

3