Image of post by ginnydi:
Okay, here’s the problem with the idea that oppressed groups can “alienate allies” by not being nice enough:
You shouldn’t be an ally because oppressed groups are nice to you. You should be an ally because you believe they deserve basic human rights. Hearing “I hate men” shouldn’t make men stop being feminist. Hearing “fuck white people” shouldn’t make white people stop opposing racism.
Your opposition to oppression should be moral, and immovable. Your belief that all humans should be treated with equal respect shouldn’t be conditional based on whether or not individual people are nice to you.

  • stealth_socks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    1 year ago

    I completely agree that a person’s belief that everyone should be treated with respect shouldn’t be conditional.

    However I do think it’s possible for someone to want to distance themselves from a movement without compromising that belief. For example if you heard lots of people who identify as feminists saying “I hate men” you might start to feel that feminism was less about equal respect and more about hate.

    Not saying that this is always the case but I do think it’s worth bearing in mind.

    • VenoraTheBarbarian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      To add on to your comment, if we want other groups to work with us they need to feel comfortable doing so. I wouldn’t blame any man who didn’t want to protest side by side with women who say they hate all men, for instance. I wouldn’t blame men for supporting in other ways and staying home from the protest.

      So if we want other groups to want to be next to us, we have the obligation to make them feel welcome and wanted. Imo. Anything less is rather unfair and unwise.

      • stealth_socks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        1 year ago

        Couldnt someone use the same logic to say “Because some feminists hate men all feminists hate men”? I understand wanting to prevent people from detaching themselves from the problem but this just feels unnecessarily antagonistic.

        • MemeCollector@kbin.socialOP
          27·
          1 year ago

          Only if they were arguing in bad faith (because obvious false equivalence)
          which is in itself antagonistic
          Yet it’s only ever the marginalised people who are required to be polite and accommodating in order to say even the most basic shit, never mind being heard on serious issues
          All you understand is ways to protect your own feelings

          • stealth_socks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry but I really dont see the difference between “because some feminists are awful all feminists are awful” and “because some men are awful all men are awful”. Theyre both bad faith arguments that likely only exist to justify the prejudice of the user. At the end of the day hating people over something like the colour of their skin or their gender is wrong. And normalising the use of that sort of hate in a group will quickly turn it into a hate group.

  • Narrrz@kbin.social
    17·
    1 year ago

    of course it comes with conditions. everything comes with conditions.

    hopefully those conditions are just “don’t be awful people yourselves”, but unfortunately most people are not that pure in their morality.

    • MemeCollector@kbin.socialOP
      313·
      1 year ago

      No, you’re either an ally or you’re not, and it isn’t even you who gets to decide (precisely for this reason), it’s the people you claim to support that make that call.

      • Narrrz@kbin.social
        17·
        1 year ago

        can you not see how that kind of black and white, all-or-nothing attitude is unrealistic in the extreme, and probably harmful to your cause itself?

        i support you… as long as it won’t cost me my life savings.
        I support you… so long as you don’t expect me to actually die for the cause.
        I support you… as long as you promise not to persecute me, In turn, should you ever come to power.

        These are all conditions attached to support. do any of them strike you as unreasonable?

        By spouting things like this, you turn away potential support which could prove the difference between success and failure. if someone is willing to financially contribute to a movement, but not have their name publicly associated with that movement, they are still offering support, just not unconditional support.

        if you refuse any ally who doesn’t offer their unconstitutional support, I guarantee you will alienate nearly 100% of your actual supporters.