170

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by pillow@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

117 comments fedilink hide all child comments

poor leftists talk about poverty, labor aristocrats get uncomfortable and insist that sociological classes aren't materialist. "all that matters is that we're working class - we're all in this together"
black leftists talk about racism, whites get uncomfortable and insist that they're not personally part of the problem. "we mustn't allow the bourgeois to divide the proletariat along racial lines - we're all in this together"
female leftists talk about patriarchy, men get uncomfortable and insist that it hurts them too. "this men vs women stuff is reductive anyway - we're all in this together"
third world leftists talk about imperialism, americoids get uncomfortable and insist that red white and blue lives matter too. "what happened to the international working class - we're all in this together"

you don't have to invite yourself to every form and experience of oppression. anyone with a baby's consciousness of intersectionality ought to be capable of admitting when they have privilege

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

As I said, "an analogy like this" (emphasis now added).

The utility of an analogy is that it conveys a point in a more obvious way

The goal is that, but the goal and the means are different things. The means, to put it in a more informal way, is that "the same logic applies," which is the everyday way of saying "it has a the same (or similar) formal relation".

Rhetorically you can certainly convince people with an analogy of this kind that in virtually no way maintains the formal relation, but doing so is generally regarded as sophistry. As I explained already, the user's analogy is incoherent and we can imagine a more coherent analogy, but they have done no more of the work to produce that analogy than if they said "imagine we were talking about geological formations and you were preoccupied with a grain of sand," which discards the formal pretense that the real comment maintains.

And this is a forum post, not a spoken conversation, so it doesn't bear the same level of monolinearity and therefore I don't really give a shit if it's off topic.

[-] aebletrae@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

Oh! I see what you're doing. You're insisting on a specific, unhelpful, and—ultimately—incorrect definition of a term as a meta-commentary on the weakened definition of racism as mere racial animosity as used by the privileged who think they know better than to listen to others, that are the subject of the post.

It's trolly as hell, but very clever, and a far, far better analogy. Bravo!