• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ew. No. Racially restrictive groups are good when there’s a reason for the group to need to seek solidarity in the face of discrimination or to seek support for group-specific issues, neither of which apply to white men in America. White men do not need racial organizations.

    • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah, thanks for clarifying.

      I’m sure the idea of something being okay for some races but not for others has a name.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yes, it’s called historical precedent. And not even historical anymore, just ask anyone in downtown Nashville.

        • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you want to use historical precedent to make reductionist takes, really nobody should ever organize into any kind of group because if you dig far enough back everyone has violent, savage ancestors. History has proven that all groups of people have, at some point, done horrible things. There should be no United Nations because literally every government has a dark history. Also, how can we trust teachers (who each have had some horrible things in their ancestry) to teach our children?! Doctors should not provide care because there is a long history of systemic abuse in the field.

          At least be consistent.

          As for current events, maybe separate the good and the bad instead of just labeling everyone in a group bad. Historically and in the present lots of groups fought and bled for equity. You’re shitting all over it.