全 28 件のコメント

[–]farven2 37ポイント38ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've also heard that pointing out racist actions is a better way of combating racism than calling people racist.

It's easier for people to defend a generalized statement of their self ("I'm not a racist!") than it is to defend a specific action.

[–]TheRealBaanri 22ポイント23ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pointing out actions is also less likely than name calling to put a person on the defensive, which then:

  • increases the chances of open communication, which then:

-increases the chances of cognitive dissonance

-which is typically a prerequisite for changing opinions

-which can then lead to a change in behaviors.

Systemic racism is so problematic partly because it's unconscious for so many people. So calling them racist does nothing but make them angry and defensive. Constructive communication is necessary for change.

[–]Tisarwat 52ポイント53ポイント  (8子コメント)

Statistically speaking, if all of those women voted, two of them voted Trump. It's very true that women were more likely to vote Democrat than men. But we can't get complacent.

94% of black women voted Democrat. 68% of latinx women.

53% of white women voted for Trump. Their desire to maintain white privilege overcame 'grab her by the pussy', 'blood coming out of her wherever', 'such a nasty woman', claiming that he'd date his daughter were they not related, 12 accusations of sexual assault, and multiple accusations of rape.

53% of women put their whiteness before their gender. Feminists can't forget that we need to address racism too- within the feminist movement and without.

[–]WouldYouLikeABucket 17ポイント18ポイント  (7子コメント)

Your statistics are out of people who voted at all. Barely 50% of women voted, so saying "53% of women...." is just false.

Out of 231 million eligible voters, 128 million of them voted.

44.4% of the country didn't vote, that's what lost you the election.

This post from the front page earlier was great, Trump got a million less votes than Romney did.

[–]JozarinWiffy weapman 26ポイント27ポイント  (3子コメント)

Then only one of those women voted Trump.

I bet it's the one in the yellow dress. Look at that petty-bourgeois fascist. What is she plotting?

[–]Dragon9770[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Now that the cookies are done, I can use the oven for something a little more...kosher."

[–]WouldYouLikeABucket 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I bet shes poisoned those cookies, you have to eat the first one to put suspicion off yourself.

It'll only have a half dose I bet too, not even being able to die for her cause is such a cowardly bourgeois fascist move.

Thank you for highlighting the true underlying meaning behind that image.

[–]Dragon9770[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, that is probably the blackest piece of humor I have made in a while...

[–]Tisarwat 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah I'm only speaking about voters. But of voters, half of white women chose Trump. Edited for clarity anyway.

[–]WouldYouLikeABucket 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So isn't that a considerably larger issue facing feminism? One of those women voted Trump, one voted Hillary and two of the four (in every race group) didn't bother to vote at all.

[–]Tisarwat 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

The reason I brought up race rather than low voter turnout is that I've already seen a lot of white women identify the problem as men, whereas after white men, white women were the demographic most likely to vote trump.

I'm not having a go at OP but I worry that pictures like this absolve white women and ignore their role in his victory. I don't want to allow complacency.

[–]JozarinWiffy weapman 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Now is the time to convert as many liberals as possible, and mobilise against Trump. Keep spreading the propaganda!

[–]TheGentleOctopus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not propaganda, facts. If we're staring at the threat of fascism, facts defeat propaganda.

[–]petrilstatusfullA Trollercoaster of Emotion 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then...

EX...TER...MI...NATE.

[–]vacuousaptitude 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

[–]Dragon9770[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Huh, I didnt know Ambedkar was the source of the phrase. Good for him. Too many non-dalit within India and all people outside India dont know him or his place in Indian history as the (good) anti-Gandhi.

[–]vacuousaptitude 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Susan B. Anthony reportedly used the phrase prior to him (though in different order), and I've seen it used in some even older history books but not together in one rallying cry (as SBA proposed it ought to be) instead in a paragraph more or less explaining how a farmer's movement took place.

[–]Hindu_WardrobeKEGELS 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

hell yeah let's get some far left movement up in this piece!!

[–]xuxux 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Left comrades, unite <3

[–]WouldYouLikeABucket 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

So I'm not politically minded at all so I apologize if this is a mind numbingly stupid question, but can someone explain how the agitate part works?

To me it's always seemed like one of those "4 step" memes. Organize, agitate, ????, profit! I just don't get how it helps further a cause.

The thing that springs to mind the most at the moment is the obstruction protesting. If someone's trapped me in traffic because they have cut off a freeway, especially if I'm working, I'm never going to support them even if their cause actively benefits me, simply out of spite.

I know everyone's a bit raw from your election at the moment, but I'd appreciate insight.

[–]Dragon9770[S] 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sure. I am sure different people have different takes on it, but the agitate part sort of goes with the educate part. Like if you say to someone "Hey, isn't X pretty fucked up?" and they respond "I don't know, maybe, why?" and then you explain patriarchy/neocolonialism/history of the Vietnam War/obscure state laws victimizing minorities/etc., and then suddenly they are like "Yeah, that IS really fucked up, someone should do something about it." and you respond "No, WE should do something about it." That is basically the three steps of the slogan, and is greater than JUST complaining or JUST advertising an organization. And of course, once you hit that last step, the educating and organizing continues (people like to forget how much of the 1960s was reading social-political-theoretical discussion).

Freeway protests are really just a contemporary reaction to several things that did not face the 1960s or other times of revolt (and hence why people like to do the "MLK didnt do X"). Ever greater suburabnization and defunding of public transport in the US means most people travel alone on highways away from the public, except as traffic. Thus there are few "public spaces" to protest in and actually address the public without being run over (this was part of the message of Occupy Wall Street and the privately-owned Zucotti Park: people had their "right" of assembly, but no place to actually effectively assemble that was legal). Actual soap boxes and yelling worked in the 20s and crowds on campuses and city centers worked in the 60s, but in the desperation of no public spaces and the piling of bodies, freeway stops have become the only thing more eye-catching than a tweet. Also, if someone is not going to support out of traffic-spite, their support was probably not gonna be that vital anyways, one way or the other.

You say "your election", so you must not be American, but let me just say, the literal geography of our politics is a very important thing, and is much different than in European cities where a "city square" and old city layouts mean public spaces are actually still present. And more generally, rural/urban, North/South, coastal/inland, and racially-segregated cities means the "where" of American politics is key, and thus the only common intersection today, freeways, is very important.

[–]WouldYouLikeABucket 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah I'm Australian, as a nation we don't really get passionate about anything outside of drinking and barbecues so I do enjoy watching the passion with which Americans seem to go about absolutely everything.

Thank you for the insight, it was very well articulated.

[–]GrammarNerd 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Americans are filled with righteous fury; it's one of the requirements of citizenship.

[–]vacuousaptitude 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a rallying cry that has been said in different order by Marxists, socialists, labour movements, equality movements and the like. It's been used for over a century so it's definitely not a meme based on a south park episode!

/u/Dragon9770 did a good job explaining the other parts of your question I just wanted to provide some historical background on where it comes from.