Twitter Hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen Sparks Firestorm

[The Intransigent Faction]

A woman in the U.K., Bahar Mustafa, has ignited a virtual firestorm after she tweeted out controversial hashtags, including #KillAllWhiteMen and #Misandry, and blatantly excluded white people and men from diversity events at Goldsmiths, University of London. Her outspokenness has prompted petitions, harassment, death threats, organized calls for her resignation, an abundance of crude and unusual comments on Reddit and now a formal investigation (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bahar-mustafa-police-called-in-over-goldsmiths-union-diversity-officers-race-hate-tweet-10268964.html)from authorities at Scotland Yard.Mustafa, the welfare and diversity officer for the student union at Goldsmiths, faced immediate backlash after she specifically barred white men from an event intent on diversifying the university’s curriculum. Mustafa posted on Facebook, pleading for men and/or white people to “PLEASE DON’T COME,” adding that she hoped people would respect the “BME women and non-binary event only.”
Following criticism that the diversity event was exclusionary, Mustafa responded by saying that as an ethnic minority woman, she is incapable of being racist. In a statement read out to students, she said: "I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.
"Therefore, women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”
Critics have noted that Mustafa’s tweets—which are difficult to find, given that she has disabled her personal and professional social media accounts—were likely ironic, part of an Internet-driven movement poking fun at men and identifying with misandry (a prime example: these best-selling mugs intended to hold “male tears (https://www.google.com/search?q=male+tears+mug&espvd=2&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=_8hgVbHuLMKesAW3p4CoBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=625#spd=12008404458223003798)”). Mustafa herself identifies as a “queer anti-racist feminist killjoy,” descriptors that alone cause the Internet to bubble with controversy.
Still, the vitriol against Mustafa has been extraordinary to witness. Graphic rape threats have been made against her, and a petition on 4Chan calling for her resignation garnered more than 19,000 signatures. While people will debate her response to accusations of racism and her refusal to change her stance, Mustafa’s outspoken effort to empower women and “non-binary” individuals is undoubtedly bringing up pressing questions of expression in today’s social media sphere, a place that in theory is safe but where women and minorities continue to face similar threats.
Slate’s Amanda Hess (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/users/2015/05/bahar_mustafa_at_goldsmiths_university_ironic_misa ndry_claims_its_first.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem :+Trending+Content&utm_content=55607e8204d3012cf7000001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter) put it best: “This is the time we live in: Thousands of people have signed a petition to unseat a woman they’ve never heard of from a position they don’t understand at a school they’ve never visited over a tweet they’ve never seen.”


What do you think, RevLeft? Is this counterprodutive, or amusing, or useful? In terms of the influence of white and/or male voices in the feminist movement, how much is too much, and what sort of measures should be advocated/taken to keep that threshold from being crossed?

[Armchair Partisan]

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.
"Therefore, women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”

I don't understand why someone would say this. It's like she (and other people using this terminology) are intentionally trying to be misunderstood. (And they are succeeding at that, of course.) Why not just differentiate between systemic and individual discrimination instead?

The rest of the shitstorm is an amusing display of people being humorless fucks, bigoted in general, or just completely clueless. Also, how bizarre, white males being outraged at the terrible racist injustice of not being allowed to a single event they would have no interest in anyway. Truly this is the harbinger of the white genocide!

Finally, since I have no experience with the universities of the Anglosphere - what the hell is a "welfare and diversity officer" supposed to be, and what is a "diversity event"?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Men are such fucking babies if they think a Twitter hashtag is in any way comparable to the actual violence other groups face on a daily basis. If they had to walk a day in, say, a trans woman's shoes these manchildren would be balling on the floor

[#FF0000]

I wonder what folks who are offended by the #KillAllMen hashtag think of the actual threats of violence and overtly discriminatory language coming from other people who are up in arms over this.

[PhoenixAsh]

She used the official union's twitter account for calling people white trash, and tweeting about the hash tags. But the hash tags themselves were private twitter accounts.

The student union at the university is holding a petition for a vote of no confidence.

A welfare officers job description depends in detail on the job itself but is generally somebody who provides information, advice and guidance for prospective and current students, parents, and staff on a wide range of practical and personal issues including economic, financial and legal issues as well as guidance.

The diversion part speaks for itself I trust.

Another nuance is that the event was never intended as a diversity event but was a BME event.

Her claim is that the hash tags were in-jokes.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What is BME?

[PhoenixAsh]

What is BME?

Black and minority ethnic

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Black and minority ethnic
Thanks!

[Rafiq]

Identity politics is undoubtedly degenerate, and distinct only in its lack of any revolutionary connotations. The only thing worth despising more than these infantile pseudo-leftist ideologues is the rabid, vile and absolutely disgusting reaction they foster among the scum of scum of the world.

What is beyond idiotic is how such struggles are framed from the reference point of the personal and individual. Such obfuscation of the coordination of oppression and struggle, undoubtedly a product of privilege theory, could only ever produce something so stupid as "No white/cis/hetero/fit/non-disabled men allowed". Undoutbedly the reaction is more ridiculous, i.e. the idea that such exclusion constitutes sexism or racism. But what's even worse is that by it's own merits it's nonsense, that is to say, it so pathetically fails its own qualifications for, for example, combating the root of sexual and racial oppression.

Sexual and racial oppression do not stem from sexual or "racial" differences. And by insinuating that they do, by reinforcing this, they make themselves temporal hysterics who will inevitably abandon their "naive" academic ideas when they grow older. I mean the most pathetic outgrowth of bourgeois "feminism" is this notion that spaces should be provided as a temporal retreat for women against men, i.e. framing it in these terms. There's nothing different in this than, say, a battered and abused wife going to her grandma's house for a weekend only to inevitably return to her abusive husband. The hysterical nature of this "feminism" is that it can only ever be temporal in its demands, it does not provide a viable alternative insofar as it cannot bring forth an affirmative politics of sexual emancipation that make it really universal. Really there's nothing more cringeworthy, more despicable and dishonest than the notion that your politics derive from some kind of innate property, whether it's your femininity, your homosexuality, or your "race". These are categories refined and distinct only by their oppression, not their hysteric exaltation. Proletarian feminism could only ever mean freedom from femininity, freedom from such innate designations of sexual orientation, and finally freedom from 'race'. What kind of "feminism" is so weak and pathetic that it can't confront men on a direct level, so frail and meek that it retreats to the glorified sowing circle to confront sexual oppression? It perpetuates the notion that so long as there are men, sexual slavery is inevitable, as though the key to freedom is through the mere ABSENCE of men. But in conflating those with dicks, with the "male" gender, they are nothing more than the Ying of the phallic Yang.

Look for example at the Panthers: Their black power was a new black power that wasn't so insecure (at least initially) as to exclude whites or proclaim on lines of innateness. It elevated the blacks to a point where they could meet the revolutionary of ANY national character, European or otherwise, eye-to-eye and in a dignified manner. Even with regard to racism, the ultimate irony is that the true enemies of the, for example, black working people were the scum like the Nation of Islam and the running dogs of the black petite-bourgeoisie. It was they who tacitly rubbed shoulders with the Klan, they who did all they could to stand in the way of civil rights, they obfuscated the origins of racial oppression and in turn reproduced it.

We Communists ought to attack the reaction wherever it manifests itself. At the same time, we ought to recognize that such champions of politicized consumerism (i.e. identity politics), are a symptom of our absence, not the key to our future.

[Rafiq]

I don't understand why someone would say this. It's like she (and other people using this terminology) are intentionally trying to be misunderstood. (And they are succeeding at that, of course.) Why not just differentiate between systemic and individual discrimination instead?


What many don't understand is that the overt linguistic symptoms of racism, isolated unto themselves are mere abstractions. That is to say, racism isn't REDUCIBLE to mere discrimination, or pejorative words associated with 'race', or anything of that irk. This is the failure of liberal political correctness. They stem from real conditions of racial oppression. The point is the real ideological messages those words, those sentences convey. There will NEVER be a white person who will feel so worthless, so undignified, so humiliated and degraded from being called a "cracker" as a black person called a nigger. There's only scum who will use it to de-legitimize struggles against racism by hijacking their language, crystallizing its meaning into a worthless abstraction, and laugh away at the confusion of the incompetent anti-racist.

This is why reverse racism, or reverse sexism is impossible. Because saying "Kill the blacks" and "Kill the whites" will never be the same, and every idiot knows this. How? Because there are real connotations associated with the black and white identity, ones that make it clear we do not live in a post-racial epoch, and only those so confident in their ignorance by merit of being divorced from black people on an ordinary, personal and everyday basis have the luxury of thinking in such an abstract manner.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Step 1: Never show an interest in these events in the first place

Step 2: Get outraged when you find out you weren't invited

[Rafiq]

To clarify, there is anything wrong in itself with excluding men from such meetings or whatever. It is understandable that many don't deserve a platform to express their vile filth, and it is entirely understandable that the majority of those who do are, of course, white males. However, there is something deeply wrong with feminism if it is unable to publicly castrate the reactionaries on a rhetorical level. What is especially dangerous politically is the bourgeois feminism that tacitly respects the reactionary masculinity simply in the form of identity politics - i.e. that men will be men. The question has nothing to do with whether it's "discriminatory" or unfair to men, but on the contrary how effective it is actually by its own proposed merits, in creating spaces to 'protect' people.

I mean, of course there is something very slimy and suspicious of self-described "male-feminists". But this only demonstrates the weakness of such struggles if they are divorced from a wider Communist discipline.

And if one wants to point to the irony of this, i.e. by claiming such an assertion is itself hysterical, tell me: What else, what language besides that of the ideas of Communism are capable of consistently approaching all of the struggles claimed by identity politics in a clear manner?

Nothing is more devoid of vitality, more hollow, then to define oneself as a "Queer anti-racist feminist". Because it implies the reality that one isn't automatically a 'feminist" if they are an anti racist, that one isn't inherently an anti-racist if they are a feminist. Nothing unites these struggles except the ideas of Communism and it is revolutionary discipline that will divide the hysterics from those actually committed to the destruction of the enemy.

[Fire]

I would really prefer it if people didn't say that sort of thing. I can understand barring white people from the diversity event but saying #killallmen or #killallwhitemen is something that disturbs me and I find it triggering. Its an ugly thing to say.

[Armchair Partisan]

I would really prefer it if people didn't say that sort of thing. I can understand barring white people from the diversity event but saying #killallmen or #killallwhitemen is something that disturbs me and I find it triggering. Its an ugly thing to say.

Are you afraid of the possibility of an actual white genocide? Or have you experienced anti-white violence in the past (to yourself or someone else you knew) that might cause such an experience to be traumatizing to you? If so, please tell us, maybe we can help you.

[BIXX]

I would really prefer it if people didn't say that sort of thing. I can understand barring white people from the diversity event but saying #killallmen or #killallwhitemen is something that disturbs me and I find it triggering. Its an ugly thing to say.

Is it triggering or do you just not like it? Because of the way tumblr has changed the dynamic of what "trigger" means you can never be sure.

[Fire]

It doesn't so much anymore but before I transitioned the ironic misandry really upset me to the point of feeling suicidal and I know it upsets a lot of other people.

[consuming negativity]

nobody has to let you into their meeting

the democratic and republican national conventions aren't even open to the general public, why should this shit be?

i mean i'm not saying i agree with her, i'm saying that since basically nobody else does, why don't we just say "okay lol", respect her right to be exclusionary of who she wants, and move on?

why would you even want to be somewhere where you aren't wanted? people are fucking stupid and probably malevolent to begin with

[PhoenixAsh]

There are several separate issues here.

She is an elected official for the student union for an official function that involves advising the entire union membership body as well as advancing the inclusion of underprivileged groups and individuals within that body based on a position of mutual trust. We can all agree that expressing thoughts and making statements which specifically exclude parts of the student body, dismissing part of that body as trash and alienating parts of that body regardless of intent and purpose is not the smartest thing to do in the world, can reasonably be expected to violated the principle of mutual trust and legitimately raises the question whether or not the person is suitable for fulfilling the job they are elected in. Whether or not these statements; be they in-jokes, private thoughts and feelings, or intentionally antagonizing statements in order to spark a debate; are part of the given mandate they are elected in is up to the Union to decide upon (especially considering that these statements were made over an official union event...as far as I am aware) according to the democratic principles.

As I understand it the Union body is holding a petition to recall the official and if 3% of the union membership sign the petition this can lead to a vote whether or not the official still holds the trust to be able to perform the mandate they have been given. If that vote is passed with a 2/3 majority the official can be recalled and withdrawn from the function.

As far as I am aware the problem the union has is not so much over the fact that it was a BME/Non-binary event exclusively but over the way the official communicated and what they communicated for part over the official communication channel and using the communication channel to promote private but antagonizing hash tags against part of the people she officially is supposed to represent over an official union event (again...as far as I am aware).

The debate about that belongs entirely with the student union and nobody else should have a decisive say or vote in it...and most definitely has no right to threaten or harass the person under any circumstances. As far as other people are concerned I agree for a large extend with Communer on that (with the exception of the part where she communicates from a position and therefore is restricted in what she can and can not say in accordance with the mandate given when acting in an official capacity or using official communication channels).

The second issue, which is much more interesting for public debate, is what OP stated:


Is this counter productive, or amusing, or useful?

And whether or not there should be separate and limited events/ and what the function and necessity is of safe spaces (as many proponents of the official have stated they support the official because there is a need for safe spaces) and what they should be safe spaces from.

That is a general discussion not limited to this specific event but which ties into the arguments the official has given. And these arguments are incredibly weak and imo a missed opportunity that run counter productive to inclusivity (is that a word?) related goals....as well as the fact that they can be understood from a political perspective but are not generally accepted to hold truth.

[Invader Zim]

I have no problem with the creation of spaces for specific groups to discuss issues per say. However, a student union isn't really the best body to do this, the issue of incusivity is bound to come up.

As for the hashtags - daft move.

[BIXX]

Honestly if I weren't paranoid about the real life social ramifications of the hashtag/I used twitter I'd totally tag everything with it.

[mushroompizza]

This seems like a fox news bullshit story. OH LOOK! We are being mistreated here! (but we refuse to document prejudice elsewhere not against us).

[PhoenixAsh]

For a large part it is and ties directly in the economic agenda's the media are serving.

As stated....the only ones directly concerned are the members of the union. Not anybody else.

The only relevant debate that can be had is over the OP mentioned issues and the use of safe places and perhaps if they were implemented in a correct fashion this way.

All the rest is media hyped bullshit and clutter aimed at deflecting attention from actual relevant issues.

That said there is a wider debat about increasing globalisation of communication with modern media and the consequences on human behavior and interaction as well as the entitlement that brings to have a valid opinion on just about everything and a right to interfere in events across the globe even when they don't directly or even indirectly concern people....all because it is openly communicated into a global population..

[Invader Zim]

Honestly if I weren't paranoid about the real life social ramifications of the hashtag/I used twitter I'd totally tag everything with it.

Stupidity is a powerful drug.

Edit: for clarity that applies to her failure to consider social ramifications.

[Futility Personified]

The hashtag itself was extremely unwise in an official capacity, it was a stupid move...

[BIXX]

Yeah. Like, personally I don't get the outrage (I mean I understand why, but I don't really think it makes sense for people to be outraged) but it was a small thing that had more negative consequences than positive for her so I do think it wasn't the best move.

[Schengen]

It's sexism.

I don't give a fuck whether or not it's actually physical violence, it's still saying things that are discriminatory against men.

If I tweeted something like "#gasalljews" or "#nogays", then it would be seen as discrimination (which it is), so why is saying "#killallwhitemen" not considered discrimination? And don't use the "well, women have been discriminated against men for a long time, so that means that women can't be sexist" argument, because by that logic, Americans should be able to post things like "#beheadthejaps", or Jews should be able to post "#Killthegermans"

And if it is an inside joke, then she should've said that in the tweet. Also, is she aware that an inside joke is usually only something you say to your friends? You know, the people who are in on the joke and actually know what you are talking about. Unless here "Student diversity club" meetings are public, then I don't think thousands of people are going to know that it is an inside joke.

I don't give a fuck if it's a man, a women, are trans man, a trans women, a genderfluid person, an agender person, a person with a third gender identity, a person with two gender identities who said it, this is sexism.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's sexism.It's not.
Or to be perfectly clear, such behavior is nowhere near what is known as sexism - systemic prejudice against, and domination over women.


I don't give a fuck whether or not it's actually physical violence, it's still saying things that are discriminatory against men.
Maybe you should take a deeper grab from the bag of fucks so you can give one then.


If I tweeted something like "#gasalljews" or "#nogays", then it would be seen as discrimination (which it is), so why is saying "#killallwhitemen" not considered discrimination?
It's a matter of individual prejudice that doesn't have either widespread support (vocal or by you know - not giving a fuck) or fertile ground in the form of existing social tendencies.


And don't use the "well, women have been discriminated against men for a long time, so that means that women can't be sexist" argument, because by that logic, Americans should be able to post things like "#beheadthejaps", or Jews should be able to post "#Killthegermans"
Eh so nice you're the guy who'll tell people not to use any argument.

But no, you're dead wrong. It's not that any communist would argue in favor of open prejudice. It's that these represent a world apart from the prejudice and discrimination this woman has had to face since birth - in all probability.


Having said all of this, I don't have an opinion on safe space policies. If people decided to exclude men from participating in an event, okay. I tend not to act as a pompous douche who gets offended easily.
As for open prejudice in the form of social media content, I'm not really okay with that but you know what - I've ran out of fucks to give actually when it comes to a woman doing all of this as I don't believe for a moment this is something that is important for any community.

[Schengen]

It's not.
Or to be perfectly clear, such behavior is nowhere near what is known as sexism - systemic prejudice against, and domination over women.


Maybe you should take a deeper grab from the bag of fucks so you can give one then.


It's a matter of individual prejudice that doesn't have either widespread support (vocal or by you know - not giving a fuck) or fertile ground in the form of existing social tendencies.


Eh so nice you're the guy who'll tell people not to use any argument.

But no, you're dead wrong. It's not that any communist would argue in favor of open prejudice. It's that these represent a world apart from the prejudice and discrimination this woman has had to face since birth - in all probability.


Having said all of this, I don't have an opinion on safe space policies. If people decided to exclude men from participating in an event, okay. I tend not to act as a pompous douche who gets offended easily.
As for open prejudice in the form of social media content, I'm not really okay with that but you know what - I've ran out of fucks to give actually when it comes to a woman doing all of this as I don't believe for a moment this is something that is important for any community.


So basically what you are saying is that discrimination is not discrimination unless action is involved? So me saying something like "fucking negroes shouldn't be allowed to vote", that isn't racism because I'm not actually doing something to stop black people from voting?

Let's look at the definition of discrimination!

" the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."



Mustafa was clearly saying that she won't allow white men into her meetings to her "student diversity club" (with about a million quotation marks around it).



Or is it because she wasn't allowing white men? Because as we all know, white men cannot be discriminated against. Yup, if you are a white male, you automatically have an unbreakable shield against any prejudice whatsoever! (also works for rape!) /s

[StromboliFucker666]

I have 5 things to say about this:

1. People who are offended by a fucking hashtag need to see a therapist because they are being way too sensitive about it.

2. Why can't we all just stop being sexist, racist, homophobic or whatever? Things like this would not even be said if people were not hateful to others to begin with.

3. Bahar Mustafa basically thrives on the attention she gets by making posts like #killallwhitemen. This is not the first time I've seen her go out of her way to say something that would piss off white men. She knows that they will get butthurt and cry when she posts stuff like this and that is what she wants. She's basically trolling.

4. I agree with some of what she says, but overall I think she is being deliberately offensive for attention. Why shouldn't she? She knows she'll get the attention she wants.

5. If you think that a hashtag is comparable to actual threats, then you need to get off your computer and go see the outside world. There is more to life than what some person posts on twitter and there are a lot more serious things you could be focusing your energy into. (Actual sexism, racism, the people who are systematically exploited by capitalism, etc etc)

[Wyboth]

I'm fine with excluding white men from discussions about diversity, racism, harassment, etc, because they (mostly) haven't lived it. Yes, I am aware that this would exclude me - I am fine with it. It obviously would not be the same thing as excluding black women from said discussions, because white men are privileged, but black women are not. I also like the twitter hashtags, and understand their irony - I've been in communities where we made similar jokes. More power to her.

Sorry to hear men on the internet found a new woman to hate, and it's now going to cost her her position. That's the real display of power here.

[Schengen]

This is fucking discrimination.

I don't care if it's by a women or not, it is still sexism and racism

[Futility Personified]

Schengen, are you an old poster with a grudge or a new poster who has just decided to shoot his load wherever his sack drops? The troll card is played quite frequently but the revolutionary left is back pasting it's cv through mailboxes since the greek situation became some sort of joyless excretion procedure, so it is not exactly impossible that you are just here to razzle some chains.

Was it exclusionary? Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be on here fucking whinging about it. Was it sexist or racist? Clearly, the political left has a different understanding of what constitutes racism and sexism. A white male happens to hit two bingo squares of privilege, and seeing as a great many struggles are led by white males, it seems only fair that POC and women and transfolk might not want a white male leading them.

And is this really a fruitful battle? Is this how you are going to stake your name on this board? Arguing in favour of white dudes? Historically, that's where the oppressed have always been, those poor white men, always kept down by those... white men? The struggle for a truly free society is linked with race and gender, and if those communities want to emancipate themselves, or at least create a space where they can espouse their own experiences as they understand, (because funnily enough, as a white male I can sympathize, but I can't empathize) should that not be more worthy of solidarity than complaining that other people who won't have experienced the issues at hand will be forbidden to attend?

Next i'll be hearing 'I can't believe my manager wasn't allowed to listen to us planning our strike activities".

[Counterculturalist]

So basically what you are saying is that discrimination is not discrimination unless action is involved? So me saying something like "fucking negroes shouldn't be allowed to vote", that isn't racism because I'm not actually doing something to stop black people from voting?

If you simply say that, and mean it, then yeah, you're a racist, and an asshole. But to get nitpicky, if you're not in a position of power, you're not in a position to discriminate.

The thing is, lots of people who don't want black people to vote are in a position where they can introduce legislation that actually makes it harder for black people to vote.

Now take a black person saying "fucking crackers shouldn't be able to vote." That person might be an asshole, and one could argue that they are being racist. But there is no societal mechanism by which white people are systematically denied the right to vote. So all it amounts to is empty talk.

That's the difference.


Or is it because she wasn't allowing white men? Because as we all know, white men cannot be discriminated against. Yup, if you are a white male, you automatically have an unbreakable shield against any prejudice whatsoever! (also works for rape!) /s

Now, technically, this is a case of discrimination against white men. Mustapha is apparently in a position to deny white men entry to this meeting. And I'm not gonna defend her; I think she's being needlessly divisive and taking identity politics to absurd extremes. But not being able to go to a diversity meeting isn't oppression.

When white men face the kind of systematic brutality that still terrorizes the black community, maybe I'd get up in arms about this kind of thing. In the meantime, don't we all have better things to worry about - like obliterating the economic conditions that give rise to racism?

[#FF0000]

This is fucking discrimination.

I don't care if it's by a women or not, it is still sexism and racism

damn dude you really are from Reddit huh

[#FF0000]

Now, technically, this is a case of discrimination against white men. Mustapha is apparently in a position to deny white men entry to this meeting. And I'm not gonna defend her; I think she's being needlessly divisive and taking identity politics to absurd extremes. But not being able to go to a diversity meeting isn't oppression.

i think it's a good idea to talk about how absurd and useless it is, though. You're gonna show a film about racism and privilege but only let people of color who are presumably already very well acquainted with these issues? What's the point?

[Varroun]

I don't see what this is really going to accomplish other then create a strong reaction.

You can create a group or whatever that excludes white males, but posting on twitter #killallwhitemen is going out and yelling "Hey over here! Attack us!".

[#FF0000]

What I don't understand is why people are more critical of some dummy shouting into the void than they are of the people actually threatening that person's life.

[Varroun]

Of course the reaction is disgusting, but we know there is reactionaries out there. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage reactionaries to come and attack you.

[#FF0000]

Of course the reaction is disgusting, but we know there is reactionaries out there. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage reactionaries to come and attack you.

I don't think that's an issue with what she said and you could say that expressing any opinion they don't agree with or a joke people they don't like is "encouraging reactionaries to attack you".

Maybe we're splitting hairs though

[Varroun]

What kind of people do you think you're going to attract when put #killallwhitemen as your tag?

They could have done what they were doing without purposely making an abrasive tag that would garner unwanted attention.

Of course the reactionaries are scum, we already knew that. This is about the effectiveness of what they were doing.

Edit: This isn't really that important though. I just find it hard to believe they would put that as a tag and expect a good reaction.

[#FF0000]

you know, i don't think we disagree so I'm not sure why i was coming at you like that

[StromboliFucker666]

All I'm trying to say in this is that while it's not sexist, it was an obvious plea for attention. She knew that saying #killallwhitemen or #killallmen would cause people to get butthurt and deliberately posted it for attention. I can respect it as a way to get your (more intelligent) things out there but at the same time I feel it's a fucking stupid waste of time.


One last thing, no I am not white although I am a male. Just figured I'd put that out there so people will have more context to what I am saying.

[#FF0000]

well

i don't even think it was that since it was an already ancient tweet iirc. people dug it up recently but she posted it years ago

[StromboliFucker666]

well

i don't even think it was that since it was an already ancient tweet iirc. people dug it up recently but she posted it years ago

I think that she was wanting attention back then too. Either way I don't think she was serious about killing white men. If she is then she is doing a very bad job as she hasn't killed any.

[StromboliFucker666]

To the offended people: I don't think anyone is actually calling for a genocide so calm the fuck down and change your diaper.

[#FF0000]

see I think this stuff is more about cynical political posturing than it is about wanting attention, youthful indiscretion, or someone going too far because they desperately care about these issues and feel that strongly about them.

[StromboliFucker666]

Maybe you're right. No one knows but her to honest and I should stop acting like I know. I still think my theory makes sense but so does yours.

Either way i think it's kinda funny how some people got so worked up over a hash tag but expect everyone else to be okay with their oppression lol

[Thirsty Crow]

So basically what you are saying is that discrimination is not discrimination unless action is involved? So me saying something like "fucking negroes shouldn't be allowed to vote", that isn't racism because I'm not actually doing something to stop black people from voting? No, I'm basically saying this woman's prejudice - if that's what is going on here and not rhetorical exaggeration - isn't even comparable to sexism and racism. That's because there are no entrenched social tendencies of this kind (the famed misandry). I'm also saying that it is entirely ridiculous to rage over this.


Let's look at the definition of discrimination!

" the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
Oh wow :lol:

I guess you pulled that out of the thin air warehouse of definitions. But no, I don't think dictionary definitions are definitive when peolle are talking about oppression and prejudice.


Mustafa was clearly saying that she won't allow white men into her meetings to her "student diversity club" (with about a million quotation marks around it).
And finally, you also don't understand a thing about safe space policies. Try googling the term, there should be good information on it.