You're viewing part of a thread.
The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I'm just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.
Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.
so I'm racist now for saying
white men are notnot all white men are oppressed? alright then sure budThere are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.
Plenty of "white men" are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a "white man" is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.
(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva's thesis, in which case it would merely be "racially prejudical.".)
(edit: wrote "autistic" twice and said sex when I meant gender.)
I'm talking about men in general. Of course some of them belong to other minorities, but this argument is about the person who complained about having to raise a son in a world that allegedly hates men.
Maybe on your half. Like I said, I'm only here for grammar, rhetoric, and understanding.
I dont want to argue about whether or not the pain of children who happen to resemble the elite of the patriarchy is less urgent than the pain of children who do not. Both sides of that fight are very passionate and have good-sounding arguments and in other contexts I might argue either side.
Right now, here, in this thread, I just want to stand up for language and rhetoric and the need to be mindful that unspoken messages can still be heard and cause harm.
ok so you're admitting you're here for being annoying instead of adding anything of value to the discussion? thanks man, appreciate it