• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 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
      link
      262 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
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 months ago

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

        • @stonerboner
          link
          42 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.