551
'Whites-only' community banning Black, Jewish and gay people set up in Arkansas
(www.thepinknews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
551 points (100.0% liked)
Boycott US
1669 readers
8 users here now
Overview:
The community dedicated to boycotting the US until they stop fascism, restore full democracy and start following international law.
Americans have a moral obligation to resist Donald Trump and project 2025 at every turn.
America is a flawed democracy currently being ruled by oligarchs. Stop the backslide! Dont let America become the next Hungary.
America needs to challenge the court rulings of citizens united v. fec and shelby county v. holder, protect the media, implement independent district drawing, and the single transferable vote so they don't end up having people stay home in life-changing elections because they cannot vote for their favourite candidate.
Join 50501.chat to fight back!
Related communities:
Boycott:
!buycanadian@lemmy.ca
Activism:
!antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
The question is, why would that be a problem, but a community demanding that men don't participate is fine?
Recent post: Deleting my certified banger of a comment on WomensStuff because I respect the rule (now deleted)
except one being physical and the other one on the internet
3/10 ragebait
mind explaining how?
sigh i know it sounds like ragebait, but if anybody takes the time to actually think about it, would you point out where exactly the logical fallacy lies? you can't convince people by downvoting alone, at least not me. if you think you're right, i guess there's a proper argument to be formulated. i'd like to hear it.
as somebody who participates on that community, i agree with you.
yeah but i feel like that's not the reason
if a group of women demanded a private space for themselves in a public area, i guess people would be ok with that. why so? why wouldn't the same be accepted if it was instead a group of white people asking that no person of color intrude? isn't both discrimination?
or have we merely adopted a habit of granting women special rights, as a habit of culture? if so, it should be explicitely mentioned somewhere, otherwise our speech doesn't reflect our thoughts.
The more used to privilege you become, the more that equality looks like discrimination.
Get over yourself.
You’re such a victim, poor baby. This is your holocaust, your own personal holocaust.
dude i asked a straightforward question for the sake of understanding the logical structure of the argument one might bring up to defeat my point, and you're responding with a knee-jerk insult. not mature of you.
Cry about it.
DM me the banger of the comment and I will comment it for you (assuming it doesn't break the other rules on the sub.) Pretty sure this doesn't break rule 1, since women are allowed to quote men. I'll add a
>and ping you to make it clear it's a quote.oh the post wasn't about my comment on /c/WomensStuff, it was merely a broader discussion about what kind of exclusion is possible/ethical/appropriate on a public forum.
That link doesn't work. Also, What's the problem with a women only community? I just won't go there, no big deal.
yeah the post was taken down, apparently
i'm playing devil's advocate and asking what is the difference between a community that is women-only and one that is white-only. aren't both discrimination? and if people can just declare a community for themselves, can't they both do so?
i.e., where is the "law is blind" principle in this?
Edit: JUST TO BE CLEAR, i'm not advocating for white-only communities or anything like it. i'd merely like to understand what arguments one might bring up to counter it?
I think both women only communities and whites only communities are okay, so long as they're not bothering anyone else what's the stress? I wouldn't go to a women only community because I'm not one and I wouldn't go to a whites only community because it sounds fucking horrible. But if they're not harming anyone I don't see the problem
Edit Ah yeah sorry you were doing the devil's advocate thing anyway. I should go to bed! G'night
fwiw, whites-only communities are illegal in my country :canada: (true for any race actually). I don't know if there is a law against women-only communities.
yeah i agree :)
Because white isn't a group people typically virtue-signal about.
wdym? white supremacists virtue-signal about it. And regardless, I don't think that whether or not one virtue signals should affect policy.
Sarcasctically, because one is in real life and the other in a computer, and you aren't being excluded or hurt from anything tangible. But I suspect you mean what if there were a town in real life that excluded men.
I think the inherent threat of violence would be a pretty clear difference between the the real and imagined scenario. I've been near a house with white power banners all over it in the south, I'm white and a man, and I felt threatened. I imagine the people those bigots hated would feel so much worse, more than I can realistically imagine. The threat of violence is inherent with racism everywhere, but in the rural US south, that racism carries more intent to do harm.
I do not imagine a town of women excluding men and by doing so imply they would hurt me or kill me if I came near or wandered into their town on accident. And I am a white man as I said before. Now if they also excluded trans women that would be a more clear indicator of bigotry and intent to harm.
And going back to the community you first mentioned, it doesn't allow men for the opposite reason, as I interpret it. It is to protect the women in the community from men who are much more likely to be a harm to the people inside. Because men are used to being allowed to go anywhere and everywhere, being gently told, "hey this discussion isn't for you, but you're welcome to sit and listen if you're quiet" is interpreted as an explicit act of violence, even though it's clearly not.
that's convincing, thanks!
i don't know why i hadn't thought of it. must be my lack of experience with thorough racists.
but your argument makes perfect sense, i'll remember it.