Toy Soldiers really outdone himself on that one.

[Soveliss]

I have nothing else to add to this post on the Toy Soldiers wordpress blog. To me, this says it all.

https://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/hypocrisy-thy-name-is-candy/

I just wanted to see what you had to say about it.

[Anteros]

What a steaming pile of bullshit. The first source quoted in this 'article' even says this:

Also, the analogy doesn’t work if you replace an oppressive group with a marginalized one. If people fear marginalized groups then they get beaten, abused, arrested, and perhaps even killed for just getting some skittles.

[Vekseid]

There is nothing respectable about promoting tribalism. By declaring that 'liberals' agreed with the stupid m&m meme, he is not trying to convince people who may disagree. He is trying to other those who may disagree with you.

That is cultural poison in a nutshell.

[Lustful Bride]

Even after reading it I have no idea what is going on. @_@

From what I can guess....trump jr. said something offensive and people are getting offended. But at the same time some other group said something similar but people are not offended?

I'm just gonna stick with my usual policy of both factions suck and are liars. There might be something of value in it but it is lost (as always) in the endless screaming match between both groups as they each try to make themselves look better while making the other look worse.

I say neither side is 100% right or wrong. Because the world is not that simple but they are both going about presenting their points in the wrong way.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I think this is a case of mixing logical arguments with emotional arguments. Trump Jr. was probably depending more on the emotional impact of his statement than on the logical soundness of it. The picture was bright, colorful, easy to remember and delivered an emotional threat 'You will die'.  On the other hand, the left probably isn't too concerned with being correct when retaliating. "Don't vote for Trump because he hates the dusty Syrian kid who we all feel sympathy for." Anyone with half a conscience would feel feel opposed to that regardless of the logical content.

Regarding the logical argument about risk, that's a subjective thing that we can't all agree on. My assessment and tolerance for risk is different that yours. What is acceptable to me is not necessarily acceptable to you or anyone else. To say that either Trump or the feminists are wrong because of their tolerance for risk is not a very good argument.

[Egoiste]

Also, the analogy doesn’t work if you replace an oppressive group with a marginalized one

So the oppressive group in this case is men (regardless of their social status, ethnicity, class, etc.) men are as whole an oppressive group?

But Syrian refugees aren't. They are in fact the opposite. They're a marginalized group.

How about male Syrian refugees?

[Skynet]

So the oppressive group in this case is men (regardless of their social status, ethnicity, class, etc.) men are as whole an oppressive group?

But Syrian refugees aren't. They are in fact the opposite. They're a marginalized group.

How about male Syrian refugees?

In social justice viewpoint, marginalization/privilege is not a linear scale, but more a three-dimensional axis. As in you can be oppressed in one area but not in others.

Agree with it or not, the idea is to take that that you can be simultaneously marginalized and privileged in different fields. Example: In the USA, African-American men are more likely to be followed in stores by employees concerned about shoplifters than white women, but white women are more likely to be sexually harassed by strangers than African-American men.


As to the original article, there are definitely problems with the candy analogy, although the OP seems more like he's trying to pick a fight or has an axe to grind than making a point to new and/or uninformed parties.

[Egoiste]

Agree with it or not, the idea is to take that that you can be simultaneously marginalized and privileged in different fields...

I'm sorry but that's not what this indicates: 'Also, the analogy doesn’t work if you replace an oppressive group with a marginalized one,' or was it your intention to point out that this (the fact that it's possible to be priveledged in one area while being marginalised in another) is simply another reason why these kinds of generalisations don't work?

[Skynet]

I'm sorry but that's not what this indicates: 'Also, the analogy doesn’t work if you replace an oppressive group with a marginalized one,' or was it your intention to point out that this (the fact that it's possible to be priveledged in one area while being marginalised in another) is simply another reason why these kinds of generalisations don't work?

I didn't know what your earlier post was referring to exactly, be it the article specifically or the concept of marginalization in general. So I went with the assumption that the last question was confusion to the concept more than anything. Apologies if I misread anything.

[Egoiste]

I didn't know what your earlier post was referring to exactly, be it the article specifically or the concept of marginalization in general. So I went with the assumption that the last question was confusion to the concept more than anything. Apologies if I misread anything.

Not a problem. I appreciate your attempt to explain things.