• HollowNaught@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I always roll my eyes whenever I see a “you can’t do that because you’re a woman” character in a show, and then I’m always reminded that these people actually exist

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    As a white dude, I would be horribly embarrassed to do something like that. I hope the guy in the story learned a lesson from it.

  • AOCapitulator [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The @lemmy.liberals in the comments here being flabbergasted that straight white men in positions of power are privileged and embarrassing is very funny

    Keep it up dorks

    Edit:

    To the salty folks out there mad about people not stooping down and being your personal elementary school teacher to teach you basic lessons about the world we live in, and our friends from lemmy.world who are assuredly reading through posts like this one from defederated instances (hi!)

    A word about what it is to be civil in conversation and Why Those Tankies Are So Mean (not a tankie but w/e):

    I will definitely admit that I was very annoyed and could have been nicer about a lot what I went about saying throughout my posts in this thread. Here’s the thing, ‘being nicer about it’ is a personal decision not a moral necessity, and not even necessarily beneficial at all. The “it” we’re being “nicer” about is often something horrifying, like when people got upset at Aaron Bushnell for his self immolation, people who were more upset about THAT than they are about what’s happening to innocent bystanders in Palestine. These are not positions that should be met with civility. No one is required to put up with someone’s bullshit just for the purpose of helping them learn and grow. Its good to do in the few times when that is possible…

    but here?

    on the internet? On a not-reddit forum website in a science memes community? Its 1/10000 chance where that’s possible.

    We all know why you would feel attacked by seeing the mention of his white maleness and the implication that had anything to do with it. No unbiased person would see that and think “this is prejudice based on skin color!” or pretend they can see no connection between the guy in the tweet’s old male whiteness and THE TWEET, A perfect encapsulation of the absurdity our nightmare culture which enshrines and systematically enforces the power of ignorant old white men. Its not a statement that all white people are bad, its not a statement that all old people are bad, its not a statement that all men are bad.

    It’s a recognition of the systemic rot inflicted on the scientific community by our current culture shaped by patriarchy, capitalism, and imperialism.

    Add to that how sick I and many of us are of the constant bullshit, the harmful attitudes beliefs and inevitable whining and whinging when the least criticism lands near the fancy of the loser we run across on some post. We’re leftists, but also most of us are either trans or queer or poc or neurodivergent etc etc or any combination thereof. We have been around for years just on lemmy, and years before. And over those years, have grown to recognize civility bullshit for what it always was. And recognize what it means when we see stuff like this post, where people are upset about criticism of privileged behavior that demonstrates an injustice inherent to our current system. So we see that bullshit, and we come down on it. To see that an not react harshly against it is no different than contributing to it yourself, to let it fester and grow, to let something horrible and unjust become simply ‘normal’.

    To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened is unacceptable.

    That’s why many people in this thread reacted negatively to the comments we did. Clear enough?

    This is why I usually just say shut up, loser. It’s way fucking easier, and taking the effort like this is never worth it, not on here, not with the .world et all crowd.

    So shut up, losers.

  • azenyr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Clearly the race and genre are both only being used in this sentence for bullying purposes. What could very well be just “a random guy” was specifically changed to “a white male” to really attack the race and genre mentioned. If it was another race or genre it would be called racist. The “white males” won’t accept this blatant racism many more years without standing up against it, trust me. But then they will be called racist. They are not racist only while they accept being bullied and accept racism towards them. This hate speech against white males is being completely normalized in america daily. And being used in comments, sentences and now even books in such a “normalized” way that it disgusts me. Just because whites are not a minority, doesn’t mean we can bully and be racist to them. And in this exact sentence, it triggers me so much that the “while male” adjective was used with the clear intent of bullying and image degradation of the mentioned race and genre.

    When will we, as humans of all colors, stand up against racism against whites (and especially males) that is strangely being more and more accepted as a normal thing daily?

    Edit: ofc I am being hugely downvoted. Society can’t understand that bullying against whites actually exists. She just didn’t need AT ALL to use the race and gender in her post. Minorities and inequalities between genres exist and should (and are) be solved. Women and all other races deserve all the same as white males do. But white males don’t need to be bullied in exchange or used in jokes like this like if they are the modern punching bag of standup comedy.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.

      There are many human drivers of fire, the first and foremost being, well you know, lighting a fire. And boy, do humans light a lot of fires.

      Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:

      First order human drivers of fire are things we actively or accidentally do to light a fire. Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does. Things like a cook fire, burning brush or downed debris for management purposes, infrastructure like power lines or fueling stations, car accidents, lit cigarettes being thrown out etc… etc… The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.

      Second order drivers are things like vegetation management, home placing and construction, and other biophysical drivers. For example, introduction of invasive species like bromus tectorum, which burns very readily, represents more fine fuels in the environment. Yadayadayada more fires. Other things around vegetation management would fall into this category, such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Funny, but what does the skin color have to do with the situation?

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.

      In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the “western” world, they will also be white.

      In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what’s called colloquially, “mansplaining”. He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.

      This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

      In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.

      She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn’t a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.

      Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they’re right and whoever they’re talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn’t both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.

      • casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

        Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don’t subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.

        I’m not sure if that was your intent, that’s just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.

        • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn’t in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.

          I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.

          A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn’t inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what’s called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).


          Here’s the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I’m in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.

          Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won’t change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.

          That’s the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren’t the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn’t the way it is is just silly.

    • It’s not obvious? Because white males as a demographic are the most privileged people on the planet and not coincidentally also the ones most prone to petty, oblivious arrogance, tantrum-throwing, and egotistical man-splaining. The latter was demonstrated by the one in this NASA scientist’s anecdote.

      • Dra@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        This robs people of their individual context. The UK Prime Ministers wife is Indian and astonishingly privileged. You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.

        Lumping people into loose categories (particularly based on skin colour) and then prescribing loose values to them is fascist and racist.

        • DinosaurThussy [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.

          You misunderstand the concept of privilege. It’s not linear. Intersectionality was devised to solve this exact contradiction.

            • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person’s circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.

              If you’re homeless and white it’s clear that you’re in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it’s unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.

              The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn’t have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.

              In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person’s identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    DEAR GOD! The patriarchy! A successful woman…who’s probably rich and living in a nice house and owns a nice car who may have not put her face out there that much wasn’t recognized for who she was immediately.

    Also who was that guy? what are his qualifications? Has he achieved anything?

    I suspect this story didn’t happen. How could you be so bad and speaking about your own work that someone questions it like that?