> we must also be careful of the power in evidence-free accusations and abrogation of "innocent until guilty." Not saying that is necessarily happening here.
But you are strongly implying it. In a case where many of the men admitted their guilt, nonetheless. Your comment is just "men's rights" activist talking points.
That's fairly dismissive. He was asserting an unbiased approach at accusation. How is that a "men's rights" activist talking point? Are you suggesting that bias should exists against Y chromosomes?
This makes his assertion a politically motivated non sequitur.
Only if you incorrectly assume a particular intention on my part. However, if you take what I said at face value, it's simply a valid observation. I think it's one of the most important and fundamental observations to be made: that of the power dynamic. Feminism has much to say about such power dynamics. I think your bias is clearly showing.
That is like arguing "I'm just saying there should be equal rights for white people" on a post about white-on-black harassment because MLK Jr had "much to say about equality."
Taken in context it is an attempt to deny the imbalance of power that exists and which civil rights / feminism seek to dismantle.
That is like arguing "I'm just saying there should be equal rights for white people" on a post about white-on-black harassment because MLK Jr had "much to say about equality."
No, it's more like mentioning how people should be judged on the contents of their character, not the color of their skin. It's more like citing the importance of understanding the ideological basis of activism in the protection of individual rights and dignity. These are two points of great importance to MLK's activism where many of today's social justice activists are very weak.
Taken in context it is an attempt to deny the imbalance of power that exists and which civil rights / feminism seek to dismantle.
If you look at the greater historical context, you will find that overcompensation and tilting the playing field "the other way" doesn't produce greater social justice. However, I congratulate you for coming out and saying overtly that you are for creating an imbalance going "the other way." You thereby admit that you are not for a "level playing field" but rather an "equality of outcome."
I'd bet "equality of outcome" is a great way to run a startup! (/jk)
You've misrepresented the dismantling of sexism and racism as "tilting the playing field 'the other way'", a fabricated quote.
You've also utterly missed the point on MLK Jr. Using his words to suggest that racial oppression goes both ways on anything near the same level is a transparent attempt to deny the existence of white privilege. Popping up on threads about the oppression of women with non sequiturs about the oppression of men is exactly the same thing.
You've misrepresented the dismantling of sexism and racism as "tilting the playing field 'the other way'", a fabricated quote.
That's not a quote. That's putting three words in quotes. It's not really "the other way." It's really the same kind of injustice, hence "the other way" in quotes. What we have here is a fabricated charge.
MLK Jr. Using his words to suggest that racial oppression goes both ways on anything near the same level
Sorry, but where do I say that? I never said anything about the magnitude of oppression, and my argument doesn't require it. Please provide a quote, or you are putting words into someone's mouth? (Hint: you are putting words in someone's mouth!) Racial oppression doesn't have to go both ways at the same level to make artificial unfairness problematic.
Here's another hint: If you constantly have to willfully distort the other party's words to support your side of the argument, you might be in the wrong. On the other hand, my argument is made by your words and precisely the point you are trying to make.
Are you suggesting that bias should exists against Y chromosomes?
Many 2nd wave feminists are against such a bias. However, there are 3rd wave feminists who openly advocate this, even to the point of openly advocating the abrogation of innocent until proven guilty -- which is possible through the proceedings of non-judicial organizations (like school disciplinary systems) and by district attorneys in local jurisdictions in the US. Innocent until proven guilty isn't directly enshrined in the US constitution. It's inferred from some other parts of the constitution.
Heck no! That was the whole point of my saying, "Not saying that is necessarily happening here." Maybe I should've left out the necessarily.
Your comment is just "men's rights" activist talking points.
My point is a valid general observation about the power dynamics. One has to worry when valid general observations go unanswered by association with what some group says.
But you are strongly implying it. In a case where many of the men admitted their guilt, nonetheless. Your comment is just "men's rights" activist talking points.