Here's a simple test. Take someone's rhetoric, like "killallmen". And replace the target with "Jews". If the updated statement feels racist and evil, then the original is also racist and evil.
But the difference is the context of history, right? While I definitely don't advocate for any "killallmen" stuff, I can recognize the difference between Jews, who were the actual target of a real genocide in which millions died and whose people are located in a country in a region embroiled in actual physical wars, vs men who are the target of.... internet campaigns? A key aspect is how these sentiments manifest (or have manifested) in a tangible sense.
I don't want to go down the path of who was oppressed, or how, or why.
I will say that advocating for genocide is wrong.
This shouldn't be rocket science. Advocating for the death or oppression of any group "just 'cause" is wrong. People shouldn't do it. Their behavior shouldn't be condoned, or excused as "they don't really mean it", or "they're not really going to do it", or "other people have it worse".
Personally, I've never advocated for genocide, and never defended anyone who advocates for genocide. The idea horrifies me.
Sure, but can you at least recognize that conflating what's happening here to men (an internet campaign that has no signs of manifesting in the real world in any significant way) vs. what Jews have experienced is not a useful thing to do? It is a huge false equivalence. You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust.
> an internet campaign that has no signs of manifesting in the real world in any significant way
Then you're not paying attention. See my other links.
> You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust.
Your argument comes across that advocating genocide isn't really that bad, because they don't really intend to do it, and anyways, the Holocaust was worse.
I find that entirely unconvincing. Morally bankrupt may be a better description.
Your idea that men and Jews are equivalently oppressed, to the point where you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses, is psychotic and incredibly toxic, and I will not humor it. The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit that makes its "point" by minimizing the Holocaust via a word game, and yet you question my morals. I see a world where the "oppression" of men takes the form of a handful of anecdotes of people saying mean things (that I concede they should not say), compared the oppression of Jews that takes the form of systemic violence (https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/vict... "62.4 percent [of anti-religious hate crime victims] were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias."). The willful non-recognition that these are different types of issues that require different responses is naked bigotry.
> Your idea that men and Jews are equivalently oppressed
Which is not, in fact, what I said. Or what I believe. But why let facts interfere with a good flamewar?
> you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses
You're missing my point. Which is explained in simple English FFS.
> The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit
Uh... no. You don't seem to be able to understand rhetoric or analogy.
No one in that subreddit advocates anti-semitism. Instead, they re-write hateful articles to show that they have the same tone and style as anti-semitic articles. And that both are wrong.
Your interpretation of these analogies is that the people are actually advocating the opinions they're mocking.
Which (again) entirely misses the point. Depressingly so.
> I see a world where the "oppression" of men takes the form of a handful of anecdotes of people saying mean things
Like advocating for the genocide of men? Which isn't entirely saying "mean things".
> The willful non-recognition that these are different types of issues that require different responses is naked bigotry.
I think your hostility comes from a point of view which prevents you from understanding what I've written.
I've tried to make it as clear as I can. Genocide is bad. Advocating for genocide is bad.
Anyone should be able to understand that.
Your point is that advocating for the genocide of some people isn't really that bad... because jewish people had it worse.
If you can't understand the immorality of such a statement, I have little more to say. If the only way you can defend such actions is to label me an anti-semite, well, that's your delusion. You're welcome to it.
Not to detract from your main message, but much of #killallmen was actually males from 4Chan during "Operation Lollipop" (source is a quick Google away off the quoted words). They also had #BanFathersDay trending
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
Or Marilyn French, who believes that all men are rapists, and that in private, they boast to each other about how many women they've raped. And that the population of men should be reduced.
There's an entire subreddit devoted to this idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/menkampf/
It's eye-opening just how racist many "mainstream" comments are.