• luciole@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think it’s inaccurate because the essence of what makes someone spread climate denial is not gender or skin color. Why target white men at large and not petro-masculinity or the manosphere? The solution is not getting rid of white men, it’s a culture shift, something this community is trying to explore. Fortunately the article is more nuanced than the the title.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbtM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Uh, no one – in the article or in this thread – is advocating getting rid of white men. But acknowledging that white men particularly have issues – and those issues are related to climate change and masculinity, particularly petro-masculinity – seems … fine actually? White men are not above criticism.

      • luciole@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I never said anyone was suggesting to get rid of white men. It would be absurd to suggest so. That’s my point. This means that white men aren’t the actual essence of the problem.

        I’m a white man and I do my best to fight climate change. I’m not right wing and I don’t even know how to drive. I hate cars. There’s way too many of them. I go about with my kid in the bus and the subway. It’s cool. Why is the title stating I’m a climate denial super spreader? These blanket generalizations are bad no matter the group targeted because they have a “us versus them” dynamic.

        Again, my gripe is precisely with the title, not the article itself. It starts off bad and turns off the ones that actually need to read this.

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbtM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s quite a gap between “we need to get rid of white men” and “white men have problems that need to be fixed!” Can’t we say the latter without saying the former?

          Why is the title stating I’m a climate denial super spreader?

          The funny thing when talking about any problem with white people, is that then you have two problems: the original problem, and also white fragility.

          We can talk about problems with whiteness and white people without indicting individuals, just as we can talk about problems with masculinity and men without indicting individuals. No one is coming to take your whiteness away or telling you you’re a bad person.

          Now, can we talk about the problems with white masculinity?

          • luciole@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Oh lay off the fragile masculinity/snowflake shit. We have feelings too. I’d like to see your take on an article called “Gay men are STI super spreaders” or “Blacks men end up in prison”. These two titles could both accompany thoughtful articles too, because underneath these vulgar headlines are genuine societal issues. I’m disappointed that a mod of this community of all people is telling me to just man up and suck up on the generalized man shaming.

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              The question is why do you feel targeted. I’m as white as it gets - and I don’t feel targeted by the headline, generalised or shamed in any way or form. I get that headlines have to be edgy - that is the game of klick based 24h news circle.

              • luciole@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I feel targeted because I’m lumped into the title’s generalization. I’ve read a bit about informal generalizations afterwards and I get now that I don’t have to interpret it as such. Such generalizations are not as universally shunned upon as I thought as long as they don’t devolve into stereotypes.

                As for clickbaity titles, of course it’s a thing but they’re counter productive so I’d rather call them out.

                (I really should let this thread be already.)

            • Veraticus@lib.lgbtM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              But the gay community was the primary community impacted by monkeypox, and I can say that without anger or judgment, for the purpose of fixing that problem in our community and targeting the people most affected by it. And for stopping it in the proper place.

              …just like the problems with white masculinity.

              I’m suggesting you dismiss your fragility and focus on the problems and improving them.