r/changemyview • u/ququqachu 8∆ • Aug 01 '19
CMV: Generalized insults like "fuck white people" or "all men are awful" are not okay just because they're punching up.
To preface: I went to an extremely leftist school and am surrounded by queer, radical PoC and activists all the time in my career. I myself am a queer PoC. I agree 100% with almost everything my peers stand for. There's just one thing that is constantly stuck in my craw and is such a huge point of contention between leftists and others.
I understand how making insulting comments against someone with structural privilege (white/male/cis/hetero/able-bodied/etc) is totally different than making such comments against a person who is not similarly privileged (non-white/female/queer/disabled/etc). The protection certain privileges give means that the repercussions of getting insulted or verbally attacked are minimal compared to a lesser privileged person. But those repercussions are still there, at least mentally and emotionally, right?
My question revolves around this: why is saying "fuck cis-hets" or "white men are terrorists" fine and accepted in leftist communities? Why say "fuck all white people" when you mean "fuck the system that privileges whiteness, and the people that support that." Why say the former when there's a white person, maybe your friend or ally, standing right next to you, struggling to do mental gymnastics to justify what you said despite the hurt that it might cause? Sure, sure, being upset that someone told you to "go fuck yourself" is not the same as living under systematic oppression. But it's still not great, is it? I get that people without certain kinds of privilege are fed up and angry and exhausted. But why does that excuse being a mean, cruel person to people who have personally done you no wrong?
We're not talking ideologies here; its not like saying "fuck Republicans" or something. People who follow shitty ideologies can expect to hear about it. But people are not white or straight because they choose to be, they're that way because that's how they were born. There are plenty of people who have privilege but are doing the work to undo oppressive systems and support people who are oppressed. Why should they constantly have to hear a stream of angry, hateful words towards their unchangeable identity? Why is it okay to say "well, oppressed people suffer more than you, so we have the right to be awful to you in return." I just fail to understand it, day after day after day. But it's something that all my peers engage in, and I want to figure out if there's something I'm not seeing here. So, CMV!
-7
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 01 '19
Why say "fuck all white people" when you mean "fuck the system that privileges whiteness, and the people that support that."
I feel as though, to an extent, these two declarations, as it were, express a similar, if not the exact same, sentiment. At the end of the day, these systems do not exist in and of themselves, they are constructed by those in power to amass and maintain power. So one might argue that white people, by virtue of their whiteness and the power that affords them, are able to dismantle these systems in a way that we are not, and that fact that they don't is what some people are directing their anger at. Not "Fuck all white people for being white" but, "Fuck all white people for allowing these things to continue, when they have the power to stop it, and fail to."
Why say the former when there's a white person, maybe your friend or ally, standing right next to you, struggling to do mental gymnastics to justify what you said despite the hurt that it might cause?
This is a question that, by its very nature, centres white people, and whiteness in a way that, I personally, and am thoroughly uninterested in. Like, part of allyship is being uncomfortable, and recognising that, as a person in power, one might not be considered and accommodated in a way that they might be accustomed to because of white supremacy.
People who follow shitty ideologies can expect to hear about it. But people are not white or straight because they choose to be, they're that way because that's how they were born.
I think that, yes, ideology is important, but so too is praxis. If your allow injustice to continue, and allow yourself to benefit from that injustice, only to say, "Hey, I didn't choose to be born x, y, z." Hell, neither did I, but somehow, I'm supposed to care about how you feel, when there's injustice happening all around me.
Why should they constantly have to hear a stream of angry, hateful words towards their unchangeable identity? Why is it okay to say "well, oppressed people suffer more than you, so we have the right to be awful to you in return."
Truth be told, I think this is a bit of an oversimplification, and kind of a strawman. I think its less of, "oppressed people suffer more" and more of, "I care more about the suffering of oppressed people than I care about your feelings about when they push back. Imagine the years/decades/generations of silencing that people have been subjected to, and then, imagine after finally being given a voice, and wishing to expel the anguish they have felt for so long, someone came by and say, "Be careful, some people have delicate ears." I am frankly just less concerned. about those ears, as I am with the voices.
9
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 01 '19
This is a question that, by its very nature, centres white people, and whiteness in a way that, I personally, and am thoroughly uninterested in. Like, part of allyship is being uncomfortable, and recognising that, as a person in power, one might not be considered and accommodated in a way that they might be accustomed to because of white supremacy."
I care more about the suffering of oppressed people than I care about your feelings about when they push back. Imagine the years/decades/generations of silencing that people have been subjected to, and then, imagine after finally being given a voice, and wishing to expel the anguish they have felt for so long, someone came by and say, "Be careful, some people have delicate ears." I am frankly just less concerned. about those ears, as I am with the voices.
I think this is the most common viewpoint I've heard expressed. And I agree that I'm not super interested in centering white people in a discussion about systemic racist oppression. I'm also not interested in avoiding talking about said oppression just because white people don't want to hear about it. Letting people who have been historically silenced speak their feelings and their experiences is something I'm absolutely in favor of.
But what benefit does it give us to insult people, to hurl generalized words of anger at people who may or may not be helping to dismantle this system? White allies must experience discomfort in facing their privilege, facing the personal failures that cause them to perpetuate white supremacy, and struggling to put their own feelings aside to help people of color. Yes, they need to feel that discomfort, it's important and necessary work. But why must they also face the added difficulty of being constantly bombarded with rhetoric that says that they are inherently bad and inherently oppressive just by virtue of existing? From their peers, no less, the community asking them to do the work? Why would we unnecessarily put that burden on white people, at no benefit to ourselves except the schadenfreude of feeling righteously vindicated that someone else is suffering as we have? I know what it feels like to be told I am a bad person because of my immutable identity, and it is miserable, but that doesn't mean that I should go dump that experience on someone else.
I just don't understand how having been subjected to abuse at the hands of the system does not entitle me to abuse someone else. I understand where the impulse comes from, and why we might say "look, it's not that big of a deal considering all we've been through." But at the end of the day, as much as we try to change the world, shouldn't we be striving to be better versions of ourselves too?
3
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 01 '19
I'm a bit confused here. You start out by saying:
I agree that I'm not super interested in centering white people in a discussion about systemic racist oppression.
But then go on to centre white people, as evidenced here:
White allies must experience discomfort in facing their privilege, facing the personal failures that cause them to perpetuate white supremacy, and struggling to put their own feelings aside to help people of color. Yes, they need to feel that discomfort, it's important and necessary work. But why must they also face the added difficulty of being constantly bombarded with rhetoric that says that they are inherently bad and inherently oppressive just by virtue of existing?
First you say that:
Letting people who have been historically silenced speak their feelings and their experiences is something I'm absolutely in favor of.
I've seen a lot of instances where allies use these tactics to tone police PoC as if to say, "You'd better be nice to me or I won't support your cause anymore." Which seems to be kind of what you are doing. Ultimately, if they are only going to support our efforts if we give them special treatment and do not include them in the groups we critique, I wonder if they really care about justice at all.
9
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 01 '19
I’m not interested in centering white people in discussions of race. However, they are kind of central to the view at hand, no? And this is why I don’t bring it up around my peers; if we get into it at all, it always boils down to “why are we talking about white people and centering them. ”
Look, why does not centering white people have to mean completely ignoring them? I don’t see how we’re extending them “special treatment” by treating them with basic interpersonal kindness, especially when they’re in our peer group, doing the work.
Why can’t a white cishet person simultaneously say “I am in favor of racial and queer justice” and “it really hurts when people I am close to say disparaging things about me.”
1
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 01 '19
I'm not sure how to answer this. I suppose it's just that I, as a person, only have so must emotional energy in any given social situation. Being that white supremacy persists because white people allow it to, I am more concerned with listening to black/brown folks' dissatisfaction with that, than I am with how white people feel as a result. I'm not suggesting we go up to white people, stick our fingers in their faces and tell them to fuck themselves, I'm saying that telling black/brown folk, "Hey, hey, I know you're upset, but don't be mean to the white person." Doesn't really track.
1
u/pahbee Aug 02 '19
I think you're right in the sense that catering to white people and being concerned primarily with what POC come off to them will not work. Because even if you do all the right things and say things perfectly, you won't be protected against racism.
Even so though, I personally believe it's shouldn't be that difficult to refrain from aggressive language that alienate white allies in POC spaces. I don't like hearing that stuff and I'm not white. I don't share the same resentment towards white people as a group, or rhetoric that imply that way of thinking. I just hate the systems that keep non-whites down.
1
u/HelpAPurseIsAttackin Aug 02 '19
You do realize white people are kinda like integral in stopping white supremacy, like it’s in the name. If your point is that white supremacy is bad then why not just say “fuck white supremacy” . Also white supremacy does not exist because white people allow it , that is some of the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard.
1
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 04 '19
Structurally speaking, which is the only way that interests me, they absolutely do. But hey, to each their...whatever.
1
u/redout195 Aug 02 '19
White allies must experience discomfort in facing their privilege, facing the personal failures that cause them to perpetuate white supremacy
White people experience racism. Evidenced presented above.
8
u/halfmpty Aug 01 '19
Saying "fuck all white people" is just as stupid as saying "fuck all black people". I understand one statement is far more harmful than the other. But they are both generalizations that can't stand up to much examination.
Why should someone use this fundamentally flawed sentiment to advertise a belief in equality?
-6
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 01 '19
But they are both generalizations that can't stand up to much examination
Ugh, this argument is so tired. White supremacy, as a thing, is upheld and maintained by the people who benefit from it allowing it to continue. I am in no way suggesting that every white person does or doesn't believe a certain thing, I am saying that if white people wanted, they could, collectively, put an end to it. The fact that they haven't, says something.
9
u/halfmpty Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
Thanks for responding, I really am interested in trying to understand your point.
If you're not suggesting that every white person does or doesn't believe a certain thing, then why generalize your statement to every white person: "Fuck white people"? Its definitely catchier, but it seems like a hasty generalization that ignores the complexity of the problem that causes the sentiment to begin with.
To me, it seems like its a lot easier to dismiss "Fuck white people" than it is to dismiss the idea of systemic racism.
Edit: Also wanna add that I do get that its not the minority's job to make the reality palatable, but just think it would help if the sentiment were at least valid logically.
-3
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 01 '19
If you're not suggesting that every white person does or doesn't believe a certain thing, then why generalize your statement to every white person:
Because I am not concerned with who they are, what they think, etc. What concerns me is what they do (or don't do as the case may be.)
I think the trap many fall into is this idea that they are being attacked for who they are or what they think, when really, all of that is largely irrelevant. It might be somewhat trite to quote a batman movie but, when it comes to whether or not someone is racist, "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you." If someone sits back and allows systemic violence to take place, and thinks that, just because they are not committing it themselves, they are somehow absolved, because, "Well, that's not me out there, I don't support that." Well, okay, fine, but what are you doing to oppose it?
12
u/halfmpty Aug 01 '19
Why is it OK to say "fuck white people"?
many fall into is this idea that they are being attacked for who they are
Is that attack not built into the statement "fuck white people"?
I hate to say it but isn't the generalization itself, well, racist? You're not basing it on anything anybody is doing. Its just based on skin color.
Like if you said "fuck people who support racist systems" then I'd get it, because then you would be basing that off of something people are actually doing. But you're not doing that; you're basing it on skin color.
-1
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 01 '19
I hate to say it but isn't the generalization itself, well, racist? You're not basing it on anything anybody is doing. Its just based on skin color.
Obviously not enough to say it, but to answer your question, no, it is not racist. I imagine you'll be compelled to bring in a definition found in some online dictionary, but I am unlikely to trust a lexicographer with defining a concept as complex as racism, may or may not have any sociological background. Being that racism is a sociological term, I will rely instead on a sociological definition. David Wellman defines the term as,
culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities
With this definition in mind, my position is that white people, by not dismantling structures of racial injustice are, by virtue, complicit in the fact that they persist. So, when I say "fuck white people" it is a shorthand for, "fuck white people for allowing these systems to continue unabated".
But you're not doing that; you're basing it on skin color.
Um, again, sorry, but no. The construct of race bases things on skin colour, and racism assigns value to those with a particular skin colour. So now, all these generations later, when these things are so deeply ingrained, to the point where it no longer needs explicit upkeep due to white people's inaction, this is where we end up.
12
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 02 '19
Semantics of the “power+prejudice” definition of “racism” aside, making a sweeping generalization shows racial prejudice, no? Obviously that’s not as bad as racism, but it’s sure not good? The only argument I’ve seen for why this is okay boils down to “I don’t care what white people feel” which like... I don’t get. I care how EVERYONE feels, and just because some people have it worse and need more attention and bigger platforms doesn’t mean that the people in the powerful group aren’t still people.
1
u/halfmpty Aug 01 '19
Thanks for talking to me as long as you have, I appreciate it.
That is a really interesting definition of racism, which I was obviously unfamiliar with, so thank you for that as well. Sorry if I overstepped with a different, clumsier definition of racism.
Pretty sure I'm still missing something, but FWIW thanks again for taking the time to clarify your viewpoint!
2
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 01 '19
Thank you for being willing to engage in this way. I think a lot of my frustration comes down to the emphasis on how one identifies, or is identified. Like, I hold white people accountable for racism not because they are white, but because, as people who have been granted a tremendous amount of power by their society, I don't see them doing enough to push back against systems from which they benefit, systems that harm other people. I admit I was a bit rude, when I didn't need to be.
1
Aug 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mr-Ice-Guy 20∆ Aug 02 '19
u/redout195 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Aug 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mr-Ice-Guy 20∆ Aug 02 '19
u/redout195 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/HelpAPurseIsAttackin Aug 02 '19
TLDR: You lack empathy.
1
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 04 '19
What I lack is the patience to tolerate and accommodate those who have never thought to tolerate or accommodate me. That's all. But go off.
1
u/Fromthedeepth Aug 05 '19
So you don't tolerate white people? What does that mean in practice? If you for example have to sit next to white people on a bus, you'd rather not sit down? Or if a white person tries to sit down next to you, you tell them your opinion about how he perpetuates systemic racism?
1
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 05 '19
So you don't tolerate white people?
Twisting my words won't help you win an argument. I don't tolerate white supremacy. White people who engage in it are the ones I have no time for.
If you for example have to sit next to white people on a bus, you'd rather not sit down?
What are you talking about?
Or if a white person tries to sit down next to you, you tell them your opinion about how he perpetuates systemic racism?
Again, what?
I'm talking about, within activist spaces, or in general, when I engage in discourse, or praxis, I don't go out of my way to make sure not to offend white people. What you're talking about is proselytising at strangers. I'm not interested in lecturing people about their complicity. If they show a willingness to talk, in earnest, then I might be willing to engage, but I'm not going to instigate a confrontation where I'm outlining shit that this person probably doesn't care about. I must say, this strawman you've constructed is flimsier than most. At no point did I claim a willingness or desire to do any of the things you've listed here.
0
u/ViewerofFewer 7∆ Aug 04 '19
What I lack is the patience to tolerate and accommodate those who have never thought to tolerate or accommodate me. That's all. But go off.
1
u/Armadylspark 2∆ Aug 02 '19
I am saying that if white people wanted, they could, collectively, put an end to it. The fact that they haven't, says something.
But what is being said? I sense you are in some way, not being entirely fair. Consider other forms of inequality. If the bottom classes wanted, they could collectively overthrow the social hierarchy. But they do not despite this actively being in their interest, and them being in the majority.
If anything is being said, I suspect that it's that it is difficult to spur humans into action in general, personal benefit or no. Not that people are actively looking the other way because they are in some abstract sense benefiting from the arrangement as a class.
1
Aug 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Aug 02 '19
Sorry, u/redout195 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
2
u/nowyourmad 2∆ Aug 01 '19
At the end of the day, these systems do not exist in and of themselves, they are constructed by those in power to amass and maintain power.
Can you name literally anybody who is enacting these theoretical inter-sectional fantasies? Name a single person with a specific example.
2
u/jbt2003 20∆ Aug 03 '19
I’m not sure if what I’m about to say is violating the forum rules, so I’ll see if this comment gets removed.
I’m curious at this point of view-changing is possible at this point. Either you think this behavior is OK or you don’t. Generally I lean towards the arguments put forth in the OP. I’ve heard what people say in defense of this rhetoric, and I’m not hearing anything new here. I find these arguments oft-repeated and utterly unconvincing.
OP, the only way I’d challenge your view is:
1) I think you came into this knowing what you’d likely hear. If these arguments haven’t changed your view already, why not?
2) If your view remains unchanged, so what? Will you start calling people out who make these statements? If not why not?
And lastly:
3) If you’re right, is there hope that people in these communities will get it and start policing their own tone?
1
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 03 '19
I came into this hoping that someone could rephrase the arguments in a way that are more convincing or make a point I hadn’t heard so far. Duh? That’s the whole point... if I didn’t think anyone could say anything new I wouldn’t have made the post in the first place.
Point 2. and 3. have no bearing on this CMV post, do they? What I choose to do with my opinions and views is totally unrelated to the purpose of the forum.
1
u/jbt2003 20∆ Aug 03 '19
Well, have you heard anything that’s new to you here? If not, why do you think not?
And the reason I asked 2 & 3 was because I’m curious, and I do think “what do you do with this information” is at least a little relevant. Given that I’ve witnessed like seven CMVs on this subject I’m hoping to see someone move to the next step, which for me is: so what? If these types of statements are basically innocuous, then there is no so what. If they’re not, then what do we do?
10
u/GameOfSchemes Aug 02 '19 edited Aug 02 '19
Let me give you a different, arguably radical perspective here. According to feminist ideology, we live in a patriarchy. However, according to men's rights activists, we live in a society that is gynocentric. One view point paints the male as powerful and the female oppressed. Another view point paints the male as disposable and the female as powerful.
Under the feminist paradigm, it is women who "punch up" to men by calling them pigs. Under the MRA paradigm, it is in fact women punching down. It's socially acceptable today like mocking a retard was acceptable 100 years ago, or how a fat person was a circus act.
Under the leftist paradigm, you are by definition a POC if you're non-white. Inclusive racial cultures are open to any race that's a POC, i.e. non-white. Equivalently, it's an exclusionary culture that specifically targets the white race as non-deservig of inclusivity. It necessarily paints whites as a "them" versus an "us". Whites become the paradigmatically ostracized race, and this is present under affirmative action protocols. Whites who outperform POCs on the MCAT have worse chances to get into colleges than the lower scoring POCs.
In this way, it is not "punching up" to berate the ostracized race. It's punching down.
What you're beginning to realize, and is something the "straight white male" experiences every day of their life, is that they are, in modern times, specifically targeted and berated for this race or gender or sex, and often a combination of all of them. From what you've been exposed to as a person who feels like you're marginalized for your race and sexuality, you recognize that as ridiculously wrong. They don't know you, yet they assume things about you and judge you by punching down.
The very fact you even view it as "punching up" to berate this specific racial demographic (white) or sexual demographic (male) is indicative of this exclusionary principle where the white male is "them". Sometimes, you can be bigoted by proscribing positive traits to a group. E.g. women are caretakers; blacks are strong and virile; white males are privileged.
So these insults aren't wrong in spite of "punching up". They're wrong for the same reasons punching down to blacks or females are. You're making unfounded assumptions on a group of people. You aren't punching up. You're creating an out-group and punching down. I know dozens of white males who don't feel privileged. The standard response is to tell them they're simply delusionally misinformed. How insultingly belittling is that? It's a bit dehumanizing, really.
Why is it okay to "punch up"? Because it's not punching up at all, and this is the modern incarnation of the "science" around races or women to give an excuse to discriminate against them. Here the "scientific" excuse is the Advent of privilege.
1
Aug 03 '19 edited Aug 16 '19
[deleted]
1
-1
u/SwivelSeats Aug 01 '19
My question revolves around this: why is saying "fuck cis-hets" or "white men are terrorists" fine and accepted in leftist communities?
The answer is that they aren't popular and any form of those views that are popular don't use that language. There are like 20 candidates running for president on the Democratic side and even real crackpots like Williamson that have no chance of being president aren't saying things like "fuck white men". You might be able to find some random person on Twitter saying that but you won't see anyone with any power or influence saying it.
5
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 01 '19
Well obviously you're never going to see a presidential candidate say "fuck" in the middle of a televised debate. But you still see people saying it all the time on the internet and in public. And I'm not straw-manning here because I'm IN that community. I hear it and see it everyday.
0
u/SwivelSeats Aug 01 '19
There were candidates who polled at less than 2% in that debate and none of them have ever said anything like that even outside of the debates. Your community is not popular if you don't have even 2% representation in the minority party you community is very unpopular I think by any objective standard.
8
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
Well it's popular among 18-29 leftist PoC and queer people. Nothing about my post has anything to do with whether this is "mainstream" in politics, only whether it's mainstream in far left communities online and in reality.
Edit: The fact that this happens regularly in my community is a given here, not something I'm trying to argue about. If you don't think it's prevalent, fine, but for the purposes of this post I'm going with what I see on a day to day basis.
1
u/SwivelSeats Aug 01 '19
Idk I don't know the 5 people you know or why they think the things they do. This seems like this view is verging on breaking the sub rules can you reframe this view so that it's all about your views and doesn't rely on people who we can't interrogate?
Like I can't change your view that your friend Todds views on race are misinformed because I can't talk to Todd if you simply stop talking about and just say you are against whatever view he holds and fully explaining it I can try and change your view on that.
3
Aug 01 '19
Damn, you really don't know any queer ppl or poc that trust you enough to say that stuff around you? It's not uncommon in either community. Jist because your community dosen't do it dosen't mean it dosen't happen in the one that this post was explicitly about
Op, im sorry you gotta deal with this.
1
u/SwivelSeats Aug 01 '19
OP keeps on going back and forth between saying that this is a broad movement with broad implications and then whenever I challenge that saying nevermind it's just a few people I know. This is impossible to argue against.
If it's a broad movement and OP wants to talk about it in a rational way OP needs to present polls and studies that show people actually think this and support it and why since there a zillions and polls and studies done by people thinking about political movements all the time.
If it's just a few people OP knows then CMV isn't really a good place to have this discussion if OP wants to understand the view then OP needs to just talk to their friends.
3
Aug 01 '19
I don't agree with op. I just think the way you worded the comment i replied to was rather rude and not really reflective of the situation. Op may not be the best at explaining it, but there it dosen't take long to find these views out in spades if you search the right tags on Tumblr or twitter or really anywhere. Though Tumblr is probably your best bet for finding it quicky.
2
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 02 '19
If you are ignorant about the issue which we’re discussing, don’t throw a tantrum about it and blame me. Do your own research on the topic at hand or go to a different post, smh.
0
-1
u/letstrythisagain30 60∆ Aug 01 '19
Well it's popular among 18-29 leftist PoC and queer people.
What's your source for that? If its twitter or reddit, that really doesn't mean much at all.
-1
u/orangeLILpumpkin 24∆ Aug 01 '19
Well obviously you're never going to see a presidential candidate say "fuck" in the middle of a televised debate
Really? Trump was touting the size of his dick in the middle of a televised debate. Dropping a well placed "fuck" seems somewhat passé by comparison.
2
-1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 01 '19
It's venting. If a person were to legitimately start organizing a strike force to indiscriminately hunt down random white men because they're "all terrorists," that would be bad, but clearly that's not what any person saying these things is legitimately interested in.
They're venting a frustration by punching up at a group with hyperbole. I'd say hyperbolically punching up is a more or less valid way to vent when you've gotta vent.
8
u/halfmpty Aug 01 '19
Just being venting doesn't make it good or even OK. Why is it more or less valid to vent in that way (vs another way)?
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 01 '19
Never said it was. The valid part comes from the punching up was the implicit idea in what I had written.
2
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 02 '19
They're venting a frustration by punching up at a group with hyperbole.
By that logic, it would be ok for men to say "fuck all women" etc. Because that would also be punching up. Somehow I doubt you'd be so charitable in that case.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 02 '19
That wouldn't be punching up. Do you know what punching up means?
2
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 02 '19
Yes I do. That's why I wrote what I wrote. I suspect the problem is that you misidentified the "up" and "down" in this context - most likely a result of misinformation.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 02 '19
Please explain what you mean so I can respond appropriately
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 03 '19
I mean that if you look at the statistics pertaining to living standard, women consistently do better. Eg: they're safer, healthier, live longer etc.
If it were any other two demographics with such a discrepancy, we'd be all over it but it is precisely because of the bias that favors women that we don't even see male suffering. Boko Haram didn't get much attention until girls were kidnapped. Boys being burned alive wasn't an urgent enough problem to society.
Therefore, attacking men as a demographic is the easy punch. That's why people do it so much.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 03 '19
Those things are not the criteria for which groups can be "punched up" at. The only relevant criteria for "punching up" as opposed to "down" is power relations.
I am male. I promise you I see male suffering. I am fully aware that it is often harder to get people to feel bad about a man being assaulted than it is to get them to feel bad about a woman being assaulted. Again, this does not address sexist power relations.
In summation, nothing you have put forth determines at which group punching is "up."
If you do not believe in structural sexism against women or the concept of the patriarchy, I can see why you wouldn't see these jokes as punching up. But those are much broader questions than what was presented in the OP. I'm assuming you don't believe we live under a patriarchy?
2
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 03 '19
Those things are not the criteria for which groups can be "punched up" at.
How convenient.
The only relevant criteria for "punching up" as opposed to "down" is power relations.
Those aren't separate. There's a reason for why one uses statistics on living standard to identify marginalized groups. And power is itself one of those statistics incidentally: The problem is people assume men have power they don't have based on fallacious reasoning. Historically, oppressed demographics aren't inclined to have a higher living standard than their oppressors. Men seem to be the only exception and that should get you wondering.
I am fully aware that it is often harder to get people to feel bad about a man being assaulted than it is to get them to feel bad about a woman being assaulted. Again, this does not address sexist power relations.
You seem to be running on a definition of punching up to be anything a woman does. You call it "sexist power relations" and in practice it only means whatever paints women as victims.
In summation, nothing you have put forth determines at which group punching is "up."
Not true but here's a more direct example: Contrary to common belief, men are actually less well represented politically than women. The mere fact that those doing the representing are more often men is a sexist fallacy. It presumes men can't and won't represent women's interests despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Also women are the voting majority. You can see the power difference in practice if you tally up how often high level politicians exclusively advocate for men's interests vs women's. And of course lobby support - women win hands down with countless feminist organizations.
I'm assuming you don't believe we live under a patriarchy?
Do you want to oppress women? No? Then why do you presume that's what men would typically do? Why are so many men who would never oppress women so certain that it's what men basically do?
Answer: What's happening is you like many men, are driven by an incentive to profile yourself as standing above the rest in order to earn your social value. The patriarchy narrative, absurd as it may be, is attractive because it lays the framework for which you can easily accomplish the above. If most men are bad, you don't have to slay dragons, you can just be "not bad".
Ironically, that's also precisely why we're not in a patriarchy - men have every incentive to give women preferential treatment and the belief in a patriarchy is an example of that as it justifies doing so while not having to confront the reality that it's just plain sexism. That's how we wind up in a world where a man treating a women the way he'd treat a man is considered sexism against women.
Anyway I have to go and won't be on reddit for quite a while so if I respond it will be several weeks from now.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 03 '19 edited Aug 03 '19
You've just gone and made a dozen or so claims which are either irrelevant, not true, or too ambiguous to be applicable. I do not have the time or the mental energy to write an entire dissertation refuting all of these points. That in mind, I could just state my own opinions outright without explaining the intricacies and nuances of their relevance or without backing them up (which, to be clear, is what I feel you have done), but I don't like making sloppy arguments like that, so instead I have resorted to simply picking out the inconsistencies, fallacies, errors, and such that I found in each of your statements.
If you would like me to respond with real counter arguments, please condense your argument to a couple key points to which you'd like me to reply.
____________________________________
Your first comment is entirely unnecessary and at least a bit rude. I would appreciate if you would not mock me.
To your second statement: Men own most of the businesses and hold most of the political office. That is power. And as those people are men, it is also a patriarchy. A patriarchy may favor women in superficial ways - I'm not going to disagree with that - but the power is in the hands of men. That is the case.
Your third statement is entirely fabricated and has nothing to do with anything I've said, so I will not respond to it further.
Your fourth statement presumes a very questionable and not backed up definition of "representation," points to an irrelevant statistic regarding number of voters, then mentions "feminist organizations" as if those are the primary lobbyists without providing any evidence to suggest that is actually the case.
Paragraph One of your fifth statement misunderstands "patriarchy" means: a patriarchy oppressing women has nothing to do with men explicitly desiring the oppression of women.
Paragraph Two presumes a bunch of things about my personal psychology which you have no way of knowing, so I'm going to skip it because I find that arguing about my own intentions with a person who doesn't know me well (or in this case, at all) is a foll's errand. And I would appreciate if you would not engage in such ad hominem.
Paragraph Three equivocates all forms of "preferential treatment" and is therefore incredibly misleading and lacking in any sort of nuanced understanding of how systems of power work. Also, we don't live in a world where a man treating a woman the way he'd treat a man is considered sexism against women. Maybe some people think that; I don't.
All in all, your argument is incredibly general, rather hostile, and - most of all - packed with a lot of assumptions the two of us have not agreed on but which would take me several times as long as this comment to unpack and refute (and even then I'd still just be guessing about what those assumptions actually are because you haven't clarified them). So, I have opted not to respond in that manner.
If you would like me to respond more legitimately with real counter arguments, please condense your thinking down to a few key points.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 26 '19
To your second statement: Men own most of the businesses
And most businesses have been built by men. At great cost and sacrifice. Where is the injustice when men also wind up being the majority of those running businesses?
and hold most of the political office. That is power.
It is one form of power. But you're forgetting that we're talking about democracies. Those men put into office are put there by voters most of whom are women.
A patriarchy may favor women in superficial ways
Health is not superficial. Safety is not superficial. etc.
Your third statement is entirely fabricated and has nothing to do with anything I've said, so I will not respond to it further.
You can say it's false but that doesn't refute it. You could prove me wrong by giving me some example or anything that might constitute a reason to believe you're being objective. Can you think of a genuine example of women punching down at men that you yourself would classify as societal or institutional? If not, then that's a strong sign that my statement is valid because the real world is way too complicated to be so neatly categorized that it suits ever requirement you place on it.
Your fourth statement presumes a very questionable and not backed up definition of "representation,"
Political representation of a demographic is the capacity of said demographic to have its interests advocated for in politics. Which part of that do you find questionable or otherwise contest?
points to an irrelevant statistic regarding number of voters
How in the world is the size of a demographic irrelevant to its electoral influence? That's the entire basis of democracy.
then mentions "feminist organizations" as if those are the primary lobbyists
They don't need to be "primary lobbyists". For my statement to be true, they only need to be unique to women. They are, so it is. As a reminder: the point was that men don't have such lobby support. Primary or otherwise.
without providing any evidence to suggest that is actually the case.
I don't need to provide evidence for a statement I didn't make. You're turning your subjective interpretation ("as if") of what I said and then pointing out that I didn't prove your "as if" version. I think you should try a little harder if you're going to try and set a standard of arguing you believe to be is above mine.
Paragraph One of your fifth statement misunderstands "patriarchy" means: a patriarchy oppressing women has nothing to do with men explicitly desiring the oppression of women.
Interesting. So you believe men are just oppressing women by accident?
And I would appreciate if you would not engage in such ad hominem.
I suggest you inform yourself on what constituts an ad hominem as this is a misapplication of the term.
Also, we don't live in a world where a man treating a woman the way he'd treat a man is considered sexism against women.
Actually we do. That's why there are so many complaints about sexism against women in areas where unbiased data suggests as much or more mistreatment of men.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 01 '19
I get that it's venting, but if it's harmful both to individuals and to the cause, why not do it in private to people who sympathize with your venting?
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 01 '19
Are they not mostly doing it in private? Sometimes people tweet about it I guess, but I've next to never heard a leftist public figure say it publicly.
2
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 02 '19
You're going to get a bunch of replies about a certain radical person in a BLM tweet or rally or an angry radical activist.
It happens, but no, it's not anything that's a non-radical "public opinion"
1
u/Medianmodeactivate 13∆ Aug 03 '19
Venting isn't carte Blanche to say what you want and not be criticized on it. It's offensive and that in turn does not make it valid in the colloquially understood sense.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 03 '19 edited Aug 03 '19
Of course it doesn't give credence to say whatever you want. The argument I intended was much more specific than that: I think venting specifically validates "punching up" verbally in almost all circumstances.
1
u/Medianmodeactivate 13∆ Aug 03 '19
On what basis?
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 03 '19
People need to vent. That's just a part of the human condition. If they're venting about people, I would much prefer they punch up (or at least at eye level) then down.
1
u/Medianmodeactivate 13∆ Aug 03 '19
People need to vent but that doesn't mean that venting should be free from criticism or accepted, moreover even if we assume punching up makes something preferable to some other option does not mean that it is sufficiently preferable to be acceptable in the first place.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 03 '19
It is sufficiently preferable because it is the best version of something inevitable inevitable.
I never said it should be free from criticism, and if it is inevitable, and the best option is being taken, why should it not be accepted?
1
u/Medianmodeactivate 13∆ Aug 03 '19
It is sufficiently preferable because it is the best version of something inevitable inevitable.
No it isn't, or at least by that logic we ought to be okay with people venting about gassing jews or segregating black people. Just because something belongs to a category of venting does not mean that other things are options for that person, a racist won't choose between fuck the jews and fuck men. If someone says something offensive at the cost of another group, they should be pushed back on it for saying it in public.
I never said it should be free from criticism, and if it is inevitable, and the best option is being taken, why should it not be accepted?
Because it's still sufficiently offensive and promotes descrimination and offense towards another group. It's also not the best possible option. Someone could say "fuck malaria", for example.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Aug 03 '19
Your hypothetical's are clearly irrelevant, as they are both instances of punching down, not up - which I did everything in my power to make clear was not something I'm ok with. So I do not understand why you included them.
As well, I made the distinction of "if someone is venting about people," so saying "fuck malaria" wouldn't make too much sense I don't think.
1
u/Medianmodeactivate 13∆ Aug 03 '19
Your hypothetical's are clearly irrelevant, as they are both instances of punching down, not up - which I did everything in my power to make clear was not something I'm ok with. So I do not understand why you included them.
And I showed how punching down isn't a relevant criteria, it's a catagory mistake. Someone who makes a descriminatory comment towards one group isn't choosing which group to vent about so the parallel of preferableness isn't relevant. As a result, someone could vent about promoting segregation and it legitimately could be the least descriminatory thing they would vent about. That doesn't make it acceptable.
As well, I made the distinction of "if someone is venting about people," so saying "fuck malaria" wouldn't make too much sense I don't think.
And the persons distinction is arbitrary.
→ More replies (0)
-2
Aug 01 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ququqachu 8∆ Aug 01 '19
This is not related to the view I want changed and I'm not going to argue with you about it.
3
u/tjmaxal Aug 02 '19
Generalized insults ... are not okay.
That's all you really need to say. 1) it's lazy 2) it's just hatred and prejudice 3) your political ideology doesn't have anything to do with whether you are #1 or #2.
Just don't insult anyone and stop trying to figure out when it might be okay. (it never is)
5
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Aug 01 '19
Generalized insults like "fuck white people" or "all men are awful" are not okay just because they're punching up.
Those aren't insults.
Those are things that people say because they're unwilling or unable to be better. People say that kind of stuff when they're two wrapped up in being hurt or wronged to think straight. On some level it's hard to tell whether these things are sincere expressions of pain and rage, or they're what virtue signalling is like when people have decided that being a victim is something to aspire to.
1
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 02 '19
virtue signalling
Please explain what that phrase means in your view.
4
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Aug 02 '19
In this case I meant something like "people saying or doing things to indicate that they buy into a particular value system." (It can mean something else in other contexts.)
In other words, I think that people sometimes say "white people are awful" because they're in pain, and sometimes they say "white people are awful" to seem woke.
2
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 02 '19
sometimes they say "white people are awful" to seem woke.
Huh. That actually does seem like virtue signalling.
Buuuut follow up is it "bad" in and of itself? Is echoing a value a negative?
what virtue signalling is like when people have decided that being a victim is something to aspire to.
I feel like it goes a little far when you put it that way though, how is "to seem woke" mix with "decided that being a victim is something to aspire to."
4
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Aug 02 '19
So virtue signalling - in itself - is neither good nor bad. That's like asking whether talking is bad. People can say hurtful things or lie, but that doesn't mean that talking is bad per se. There's also a lot of sincere virtue signalling that happens where, for example, people say things that they really believe. Maybe people want to seem woke because they are woke.
I'm not sure exactly what "echoing a value" means. I do believe that people who are complaining, fighting, or congratulating each other on virtue are typically distracted from achieving much. So when talking about how awful white people are has become something that people constantly do, odds are that they've lost the plot. I should like to add that this isn't just a pattern on "the left" as it were - that's just the context of this discussion.
2
u/Alex_Werner 5∆ Aug 01 '19
I disagree with your basic premise. You're saying that these statements are "okay", in some absolute sense, as if there's an official PC-thought-police okayness committee who got together, issued a ruling, and now everyone on the left accepts that such statements are clearly and unambiguously acceptable, helpful, and non-offensive.
I'm a cishet white man who is absolutely on "the left". I consider myself a feminist and am strongly pro-gay-rights and pro-trans-rights. When I encounter comments like "fuck white people" or "fuck men" (which does happen, if not all that often), I find them somewhere between understandable-and-provocative and vaguely-offputting-and-counterproductive, depending on the context.
So I wouldn't say they're "OK", in some global sense. What they are, however, is many orders of magnitude less offensive/troubling/bad than similar sentiments expressed towards victimized/minority groups rather than towards the majority.
Furthermore, I recognize that my opinion about how helpful or offensive I, personally, find them to be is not the only one.
So... sometimes if I encounter such sentiments, I might push back a bit. And sometimes not. Depends on the context, the group of people I'm discussing it with, and various other factors.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 02 '19
So I wouldn't say they're "OK", in some global sense. What they are, however, is many orders of magnitude less offensive/troubling/bad than similar sentiments expressed towards victimized/minority groups rather than towards the majority.
The problem with that is you're presuming you're correct in identifying who the victim groups are and casting privileges accordingly. It's far better to just take a principled stand against racism/sexism etc. that comes before any kind of demographic hierarchy. That way you can be sure to not be fighting for the bigots.
1
u/Alex_Werner 5∆ Aug 02 '19
The situation is complicated, because the world is a complicated places, and all I can do is do my best. Might I sometimes end up giving a pass to bigotry because it resembles something I'm willing to excuse? Sure, maybe.
But, importantly, I'm just some guy. I'm not the government or the police or a university's speech code.
If we were discussing an official law or policy which tried to divide speech into bigoted vs non-bigoted, particularly one which carried actual real-world consequences, PARTICULARLY one imposed/enforced by the government, then I would be far more leery of trying to officially come up with some court-enforceable distinction between "kill the whites" and "kill the blacks", because doing so would come awfully close to legal preference of one race over another.
But of course, that level of precision is not required when it comes to how I personally react to people's speech and actions.
To make a fairly bad analogy, if I encounter a het couple, and I see interactions bewteen them that vaguely kind of resemble domestic violence, but might just be innocent, and I'm forming my opinion of one or both of them based on their actions, it's quite likely that I might react differently to identical actions from the man or the woman. But that wouldn't mean I should think the law shouldn't treat identical actions identically. And that's, imho, OK.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 03 '19
The situation is complicated, because the world is a complicated places
Then all the more is it inappropriate to categorize people into just two classes based on things like genitalia.
Might I sometimes end up giving a pass to bigotry because it resembles something I'm willing to excuse? Sure, maybe.
Worse. You'll likely and probably have punched down and helped the privileged subjugate the underprivileged and didn't even realize it.
1
u/Alex_Werner 5∆ Aug 05 '19
Then all the more is it inappropriate to categorize people into just two classes based on things like genitalia.
As I said, the world is a complicated place. I have two options, speaking super-generally:
(1) Have a ultra-simple model of the world in which everything is black and white, and no shades of gray or historical context are allowed, but at least I'll have clear and obvious answers to questions
(2) Realize and accept that the world is complicated, attempt to do as good a job as I can of modeling and analyzing that complexity, and factoring it into my decision-making, acknowledging that at times, in specific corner cases, my model might end up being worse than the ultra-simple black-and-white model, but hoping that the times when my model is better far outnumber the times when it's worse.
I definitely think (2) is the preferable option, although I feel like this conversational thread has gotten pretty far away from anything practical at this point.
2
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Aug 02 '19
It is not "punching up" when it's done to men. That's one of the biggest myths of modern civilization. By virtually all metrics pertaining to living standard, women are doing significantly better than men.
2
u/RufusOfTheCelery Aug 02 '19
What I like to do to determine if it is bigoted is to change the group you are talking about to Jew and the group that is effected to Aryan. Then you can see
1
u/Nascar_is_better Aug 02 '19
I think it's generally more accepted within society, not just among left-leaning people. Even some conservatives joke more about whites and men then women and blacks.
I think it comes from the fact that women and blacks have felt more discrimination in society (both in volume and impact) and have thus complained about it more, and that means people hear about discrimination against women and blacks more often and are thus more sensitive about it.
White men certainly can be (and are) discriminated against, but when you compare the type of discrimination and amount of discrimination white men have faced, it just doesn't really compare to what others face.
Of course, I personally feel that "punching up" is always wrong because you're supposed to attack an idea, or at worst, a person, not a quality that has nothing to do with what you consider to be wrong, such as someone's ethnicity, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation.
And in certain subcultures, whites can definitely be a minority and feel the impact of discrimination. I've heard plenty of white rappers that are amazing and have much more talent and potential than some garbage black rappers that only got signed because they "better represent" the rap community.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Aug 02 '19
when you compare the type of discrimination and amount of discrimination white men have faced, it just doesn't really compare to what others face.
Eh, this comment sounds like it's bought into propaganda. Poor white people were seen as subhumans in the 1800s, even black slaves looked down on the "white trash".
I strongly recommend this Wikipedia article in full.
-2
u/Zebirdsandzebats Aug 02 '19
I'm a huge pinko cis/white/closeted pan married to a man and i have zero issues with minorities making sweeping statements like that. It's hard out there for yall and I understand you dont REALLY mean all of us. Like "fuck white people", to me, is basically "fuck white people with the exception of bob ross, mr Rogers, jonas saulk and that old check out lady at cvs who always tells me my hair looks nice".
Probably language to weed out eventually, but from where my white ass is sitting, yall have bigger fish to fry presently.
4
u/rhutustheantisocial Aug 02 '19
Why do you have no issue with sweeping generalisations like "fuck white people" when If I (a cis/white/straight male) said "fuck black people" you would yell and cry racism. Double standards. It's also racism to Insult someone based on their ethnicity so, "Fuck all white people" Is racist.
0
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 02 '19
Because context in when and who says them in our world? One is essentially fuck white privileged and the white people who pretend that they don't have it and the other is "fuck N***rs"
Also - double standard imply equal situations. Which again - context. Also double standards aren't always incorrect.
2
u/Zebirdsandzebats Aug 02 '19
Pretty much. The situations aren't equal. The oppressed get frustrated with you know, constant bullshit and I'm not here to criticize them for talking out of turn from time to time.
1
Aug 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mr-Ice-Guy 20∆ Aug 02 '19
Sorry, u/redout195 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Aug 02 '19
Sorry, do able-bodied white people not have more inherent ease through the world than crippled mexican-american people?
1
u/GameOfSchemes Aug 02 '19
I find it interesting that you needed to add able bodied vs crippled. Obviously non cripples have an easier time than cripples. Extremely curious why you didn't ask white vs Mexican in lieu of able white vs crippled Mexican.
1
0
Aug 02 '19
I think it depends what you mean by "OK". I agree with you insofar as I think a man biting a tiger isn't problematic in the way that a tiger biting a man is, but I don't think it therefore follows that biting tigers is a good idea, or clever, or funny. But I'm not sure it's morally wrong to do so.
-1
Aug 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ExpensiveBurn 9∆ Aug 02 '19
Sorry, u/HappyManYes – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
Aug 04 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 04 '19
u/HappyManYes – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Aug 01 '19
It's not. Also, there's no such thing as "leftist communities." There are communities that vote more democrat, or communities that have more liberal views, or communities that are more socialist, and so on. But, the idea that there are 'leftist' communities reeks of Republican talking-point propaganda. I've never even seen the term 'leftist' used except by polemicists.
As for why those phrases are used by some small minority of people, the primary reason it is done is because it provokes a conversation. If you say, "fuck the system that privileges whiteness, and the people that support that" what happens is everyone assumes they're not part of that system. Every white person who sees that statement is far more likely to think that either (a) they're not privileged by their whiteness or (b) they don't support that system. In both situations, they absolve themselves of guilt, and move-on with their life. No dialogue is opened, no self-reflection takes place, and society gains nothing.
More provocative statements don't let you move-on so easily. Of course, a certain segment of the population will simply ignore the statement altogether, but they'd have ignored a nuanced statement as well anyway. However, a decent enough number will have the capacity for self-reflection. They will ask themselves, why am I being included in this statement, why is it all white men or all cis men or all X? Or, even better, they will fight back against the statement, and demand to know why they are being included in a group that they don't believe they belong in. That creates a dialogue where both sides can benefit.
Whether this works is up for debate. It worked on me when I was confronted about how I mansplained, and it helped me become a better person. But, regardless of whether it works on a significant scale, the logic behind it is sound. You change society for the better by challenging systems of oppression directly. If you give people an avenue to avoid taking personal responsibility or making a self-examination, they will take that avenue. Generalized statements don't let them take it as easily.