this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
832 points (81.9% liked)

Memes

45742 readers
1676 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anytimesoon@lemmy.ml 88 points 9 months ago (9 children)

The point should be to bring everyone up, not pull others down, though

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 59 points 9 months ago

There aren’t a limited amount of rights that can only be handed out to be shared amongst people.

There are just rights and everyone should be entitled to them.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 34 points 9 months ago (4 children)

That’s impossible since the point was a superficial elevation of their own interests.

Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.

[–] H4rdStyl3z@lemmy.ml 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.

I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that, but those don't represent the entire movement and usually only pay lip service to the cause where it aligns with their personal beliefs. They should be ignored.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that

Those aren't radicals; those are reactionary trolls who falsely claim allegiance to the movement in order to discredit it.

[–] psud@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

For a while it seemed like that minority owned the term "feminism"

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I’m not even sure the radicals want that. Anger is an appropriate response to oppression. Vengeance is an extreme form of that but I doubt anyone that isn't truly damaged would be okay with it.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 13 points 9 months ago

There's also a psychological phenomenon that occurs in 'elite classes' where they think that someone getting more means they get less. They literally cannot fathom someone getting welfare without it affecting them negatively. It's one of the reasons why poor people still support Republicans.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

No shit, the only thing leftists want to pull down are systems of exploitation.

[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Meanwhile, the Right want to pull down your trousers to check your "gender".

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

At the same time, privileged people will still sometimes feel a loss of something when you're portioning out a finite resource. So if a particular group is 25% of the population and they were getting 75% of the pie before and now they're getting 25% of the pie, that's a loss. It's a justified loss, but it's still a loss.

That said, there are other things like rights that are not finite in any meaningful sense of the word. When someone is feeling a loss because an oppressed group gained rights, it's usually because they're an oppressive asshole.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"White people be like" memes, so progressive

[–] swag_money@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

go back to Reddit

[–] Kachilde@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

That IS the point, and rarely do equality or equity initiatives “pull down” anyone.

But the Haves feel like they’ve earned their position, and that means that if you help a Have Not in any way, you are taking away from their achievement (which in this case is “not being born poor/black/female”)

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others. It's like a race to these people - who's winning isn't based on how close to the goal they are, it's based on how far ahead of the competitors they are. People who have everything they need often see others getting to that same point as competitors catching up, and, seeing that they are not advancing themselves, they feel that they need to prevent that in order to maintain their lead. It's meant to be everyone working together, but few see it that way, especially among the current "winners."

[–] grue@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others.

Some people are that way, but not "people generally."

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

I considered putting a "some" in there, but honestly, I feel like it's sadly the default state, at least in the US. Even fellow politically-left people I meet rarely demand resources for underprivileged people that actually elevate them to their own station. It usually feels like "They deserve more! But still less than me."

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 3 points 9 months ago

Making sure the rain forest isn't destroyed doesn't mean letting the pinebarrens be converted into a strip mall.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are you in this meme right now?

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml -4 points 9 months ago

That's well and good, but bringing everyone up needs to be done in consideration of lasting multigenerational harm from what has come previously, and areas where we as a people and nation continue to marginalize, underserve, and sometimes actively harm some segments of our population.

Folks who think those things should be ignored are not actually interested in bringing everyone up.