Oh, true. He also wrote the first known usage of the popular phrase “lick my ass” though. Fun fact.

As a trans person in a trans friend group, this is fucking hilarious. Trans people tend to have more casual views on sex and relationships, and often don’t care for, or at least are okay eschewing, monogamy. If you’re willing to question the gender systems that society forces on everyone then you’re willing to question other things. No group of trans women is spontaneously having an orgy (unless that was the plan going in), its hyperbole for the joke, poking fun at the tendency for trans friend groups to all have been sexual partners at some point.

Regardless of what the “normie world” thinks, gender is a social construct and people can do whatever they want. That doesn’t make them a troll and doesn’t invalidate them. We can’t just throw people out for being “too different” for fear of what the “normies” think. We all were too different not that long ago. We live for who we are, not for the approval of anyone else.

Don’t speak for trans people. Regardless of whether drag thinks drag’s an actual dragon or if it’s roleplay or just a fun neopronoun, respect people’s identities. I don’t have to get it. If someone says “I’d like to be referred to as fae,” then I’m calling fae exactly what fae wants. I have a friend that uses “love/love” as neopronouns. I don’t get it, and yes it can be confusing, but that isn’t roleplay or hurting anyone’s right to exist. This is exactly the type of infighting that conservatives try to start, and you’re either falling for it or white knighting for people that don’t need it.

Gender is made up and entirely a social construct, and some people choose to make their own rules because the rules don’t actually exist. For some reason that really pisses people off that otherwise think they’re being allies.

Whatever man. I tried, but you’re not interested in listening. I commented for your benefit, not mine, and it makes no difference to me.

Educate yourself. Numerous cultures don’t cover the female breast. Not my job.

That’s definitely not true. Many cultures around the world don’t see breasts sexually at all.

What

When they said, “I don’t care about your parents,” it was an expression of apathy, not animosity. It was them telling you that they agree, and that their point is about the greater system, not that guy’s aunt or your parents. You took it personally and got more defensive. Their absolute does hold, because it’s in regard to a system. The point isn’t that your parents are individually bad people, like you seem to think it is, it’s that they’re part of a bad system, and regardless of their individual actions, the system is still bad. Fundamentally, you, the other commenters, and I agree. They aren’t trying to argue that you’re defending landlords in general, the argument is that your defense of your parents excuses them from the system.

A fair and kind cop is still responsible for participating in an evil system, just as your parents are. They may be good people, with good intentions, and treat people well. No one is denying that. It’s just entirely besides the point. They’re still hoarding property that should be possessed by those that live in them, and housing should be cheaper. Without landlords and real estate conglomerates driving prices high, there should be a surplus of housing. Again, your parents might be good people, but they are participating in an immoral system. Even the best landlord is still a landlord, and while they are nowhere near anyone’s first target to fix the system, they’re still participating.

The best cop is still a cop, the best billionaire is still a billionaire, and the best landlord is still a landlord. It’s nothing personal against them specifically.

As a neutral outside reader, this person does not sound like they are hating on your parents specifically, and you come across as extremely defensive (understandably). Their point seems to be that the existence of a good cop doesn’t make the police state tolerable, nor does the existence of a good landlord make the system of people owning other’s homes tolerable.

Regardless of how good any landlord is, it would be better for homes to be affordable and owned by those that live in them. In the current system, some areas are unaffordable without renting, but that doesn’t make the landlords morally good categorically, it means they’re part of the problem that drives prices too high in an area. Owning property to rent artificially drives the price of real estate up. Ideally, renting should be far, far more limited or entirely phased out depending on the specific situation. No one is saying that your parents specifically are evil, but they are part of a larger system that is.

What an insane thing to say. I’m Jewish (non-religious). I’m strongly anti-zionist. Most Jewish people I know, especially young ones, do not support Israel. Israel is a problem, but the moment you extend that to religious and ethnic groups, regardless of overlap, you’re inviting hate and violence. It would be like blaming Mexican people for Mexican cartels, Arabs or Muslims for ISIS, or ethnic Russians for the actions of the Russian government.

The Israeli government is “the problem,” not Jewish people categorically. Totalitarian regimes around the world are “the problem,” not the ethnic or religious groups that live where they occupy.

I think the point of the title isn’t that the killing rings alarms, it’s that the response indicates building class tension.

Fuck don’t tell anyone

I’m glad you’ve decided for everyone. Many thanks, language dictator.

Show me when I said it was okay. I can show you several times I said the explicit opposite.

If one is to engage in pedantry, it can’t hurt to at least be correct. Calling me a “bougouise feminist” was hysterical though.

“Extrapolating things I didn’t say” is called inference, and you can claim something is beside your point but it doesn’t change the fact that your omission commits a logical fallacy. I do not defend shitty behavior, I demonstrate nuance, and yet I constantly see this response online to it. A nuanced position that contrasts your own does not necessarily agree with your opponent, and the ad hominem is just immature.

Committing the same logical fallacy as a “all lives matter” person does not mean I believe you to be the moral equivalent of one, regardless of my disagreement.

Pointing out something objectively shitty as shitty is not in debate. Doing so in omission of other key facts is the problem. Let me provide an example conversation, featuring person A and B, who are both going to be parents soon:

A: “I hope I have a girl!”

B: “I’d support whoever my child is!”

A: “I’d support my child even if they were born very sick!”

Both A and B are using a poor form of argument, which I don’t have a better name for than whataboutism, but is very adjacent to it. By saying “I’d support whoever my child is,” B is implying that A would not. By saying “I’d support them if they were sick,” A does the same. This is the same thing you’re doing when you say:

Dodges the point which was simply that something which is objectively shitty is shitty

You use this same rhetoric throughout your arguments, as do other commenters agreeing with you. I agree that thing is shitty because it was shitty. This is more equivocation. The point is not simply that “thing is shitty because of self evidence,” it’s that by saying this you form a false equivalence and minimize women’s experiences.

If you read nothing else, read this: My argument has nothing to do with whether or not pejorative generalizations are wrong, or to do with defending women who make such arguments. I agree with you on both of these points! My entire argument is that your response of “what if you did this to another group” while omitting the power imbalance that is intrinsic to this issue equates both groups, and therefore dismisses the existence of the power imbalance entirely.

You cannot reply to trans people saying “cis people are trash” with “what if you said that about trans people,” to black people saying “white people are trash” with “what if you said that about black people,” or the above example, or any other similar situation, without also including the nuance that a power imbalance does exist. To do so is to minimize their experience in a defensive position of privilege.

I do not want to be at ideological odds with you. I do not think “men are trash” is an okay thing to say. However, I understand that there is nuance here, and that hurt women are not the target of my ire; the unjust system that hurt them is.

I beg you, read this comment in full. You’ve painted me in your mind as a self righteous egotist, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I won’t continue a back and forth, but I do at least want you to understand that I’m just another person with a set of lived experiences, not a feminist demon from hell here to kick little boys. Men and women are both victims of the patriarchy. Have a good day.

I have never said or meant “men are trash.” I don’t know who gave you that idea. I explicitly didn’t excuse the behavior, I stated it was wrong and unjust, yet explained the societal nuance and why it isn’t okay to equate “men are trash” and “women are trash.” I’m paying nothing forward.

You should read my longest comment within this larger thread. Truly read the whole thing, and its child comments, before forming your opinion. I clearly and explicitly state

I am not suggesting that it’s okay to make men feel responsible for the actions of people that share only a gender with them, nothing else.

and that doing so is unjust. Nuance isn’t the same thing as taking an opposing stance. I even go into the fact that women making such blanket statements likely do not hate all men. If you feel the same way after reading my full comment and understanding it, I’m happy to have a discussion about it, but by the context of your comment, I don’t believe you understand my stance, and therefore I don’t want to engage with it further.

I am not suggesting that it’s okay to make men feel responsible for the actions of people that share only a gender with them, nothing else.

Again, you can stick your head in the sand. It’s your prerogative. I’m not going to argue with you. You can choose to learn or not, it’s your life.