Nope. That’s over at !asklemmy@lemmy.world. This is the Lemmy version of askMarxists

None of them are super active but here’s what I found.

!budgetaudiophile@lemmy.world

!hifi@lemmy.world

!audiophile@lemmy.world

I just noticed that OP is from hexbear so they can’t use lemmy.world communities.

Here’s some more

!audioengineering@lemm.ee

!musicproduction@lemmy.ml

!audiophile@lemmy.ml

It has nothing to do with subjugation, it’s just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I’m not subjugating other people by doing so.

But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It’s not humans, it’s the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.

Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious?

Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.

If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you’re not being honest with yourself, let alone me.

What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn’t crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I’m just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.

In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It’s the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.

That’s really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!

I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.

For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.

I’m sorry that happened to you.

However, your anecdotal experience is just that. I have been subject to exponentially more racist abuse from black individuals than from individuals of any other race. Does that indicate to you that we should be “pushing back” against black racists? Obviously not, because my personal experience is not enough to draw any conclusions about society as a whole.

In fact, you’re condescending me right now. You’re implying that your personal judgment supercedes my rational argument. I provide sources and construct an argument, and you respond “this is news to me” (condescending and dismissing my argument) and proceed to explain that what I’m saying can’t possibly be true, because it contradicts your personal viewpoint.

That’s not my main argument, it’s merely a supporting clause.

OP asserted that

white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

I countered that by pointing out that it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That’s my main argument.

And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.

I obviously can’t definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don’t need to. I’m not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I’m merely pointing out that it’s a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.

Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that’s a fair point, but it doesn’t really hold any ethical implications, it’s simply a description of a material reality.

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

Citation needed.

In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.

But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.

In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.

It’s also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.

In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.

https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf

That bot ain’t right. I’ve seen it responding to itself in an infinite loop in the past couple days 😂

Blocked 🚫

I’ll never return, regardless of what Reddit does, but I don’t blame you for your position.

I’d just say don’t give up yet, I think we have a pretty large chunk of people sitting on the sidelines temporarily, waiting to see if Lemmy actually becomes what it aspires to be.

Also I don’t mean to be rude, but it would be nice if Tildes users just came to Lemmy and helped us build here. I’m sure many Tildes users use Lemmy anyways. Tildes is just way too small (like 10% the size of Lemmy) and even if it did take off, it would probably turn out the same way as reddit. But that’s just like, my opinion, man.

Yes, as we know, the notability of national accomplishments diminishes as a function of time… other nations would never consider being proud of anything their ancestors accomplished before they were born. Lmao

If you don’t have enough things to be proud of as an American, which nationality would be good enough to meet your standards?

Very strange argument. It seems like you’re bad at those games and created some elaborate theory to rationalize it. Class based games require just as much, if not more, skill than non-class based games. As the number of classes increases, the total amount of knowledge required and variety of techniques available also tends to increase.

Professional players do optimize the fun out of a game, but that’s totally unrelated to the point you were trying to make.

deleted by creator

I don’t believe in free will, so I suppose we have reached a stalemate. In my mind, one’s religion or favorite color is no more of a choice than sexual orientation. But I understand that most people would disagree with that perspective, and trying to convince you that free will doesn’t exist is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Well, I can’t say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your viewpoint and that you took the time to explain where you are coming from.

I wish you would try to be more welcoming to people who aren’t already in your camp, but at the end of the day I can’t blame you for trying to protect yourself and other people in the LGBTQ community.

Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.

Why do you people keep talking about “the right to exist”? That’s nonsensical. You either exist, or you don’t. No one can take your existence away from you, it’s not a right that can be granted by others.

What you are really talking about is the right to make assertions about the nature of human sexuality without being challenged to provide evidence for those assertions.

It’s quite clear that you have a persecution complex. I can understand why, I’m sure you’ve had some unpleasant experiences with certain people that have caused you to adopt this defensive posture.

However, your comment is absolutely reeking of in-group and out-group bias. Everyone who is part of your group is being unfairly persecuted, and everyone who is not part of your group is a genocidal Nazi.

Personally, I am fully in favor of any and all expressions of sexuality, as long as the resultant behaviors and belief systems can be debated and analyzed like any other human behavior or position.

To the neutral observer, it’s apparent that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line. This may be beneficial to your self esteem in the short run, but it ultimately does a disservice to your goals, assuming that you intend to enhance the acceptance of LGBTQ culture in our society moving forward.

I would argue the same is true of LGBTQ individuals. I don’t see how one could rationally argue that an infant emerges from the womb with a fully formed sense of sexuality. Sexual identity is a nebulous trait that develops throughout our lives, not an objective, immutable physical fact such as the color of one’s skin or the chromosomes composing one’s genetic code.

Many LGBTQ people transition through a number of different sexual identities throughout their lives. An innate property is something that cannot be changed.

I suppose that it’s possible that we all get assigned a hidden number at birth that defines our sexuality absolutely, and people just struggle to figure out what their “number” is due to societal pressure, but that doesn’t really jive with our understanding of human biology, like at all. Nearly every trait we have studied exhibits both genetic factors and environmental factors.

Who are you referring to?