But let's not give 'em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, "privilege" and "toxic masculinity" do just that.

Because the well funded rightwing think tanks have already tarred them......

people using "evil homosexuals" don't need to add the "evil," because they're bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use "toxic masculinity" don't need to add the "toxic," because they're bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic.

I use toxic masculinity and I don't think masculinity is inherently toxic?

And I don't think a significant amount of people think masculinity by itself is toxic by itself. Otherwise everyone would be force femming their husbands, or hating any trans men choosing to express themselves.

The only people who seem to be interpreting toxic masculinity as an implication of masculinity as a whole are people who seem to think all maledom is under siege.

But that does not imply that all word choices are equal.

Nah. Many, many people who come from inside that peivilege are being naive. To think they're trying to defend the privilege itself is exactly the problem coming from outside the blinders.

Eh, I would say there are some people who are naive enough to not realize their own privileges. However, that itself is only possible because there are whole media systems coaching the reflective defense of their privilege in the first place.

The "evil homosexuals" comment is trying to elucidate you to that reality for crying out loud, but noooo, you just want to make yourself feel better by pretending your choice of words cannot be perceived the same way...

Lol, I was just remarking on how the modification of words with negative descriptors doesn't reallyatter when the ideas behind the concept were bigoted to begin with.

Your attitude is part of the problem.

Yes, it's the actions of people of color who made us this way...... I've heard that before.

Failure to communicate is a two way street, and you arguing the exact same phrasing is somehow magically not problematic from your side while being problematic from the other is exactly the issue OC's talking about.

I don't really see how I am...? My whole point was that if we stopped using terms that bigoted people dislike and made up new ones, the new words would just end up being disliked by bigoted people.

Stop being OK with creating in groups and out groups by such simple terms as "white" or "homosexual".

First of all.... I can't "other" white people as a whole, I'm not powerful enough to innact systemic racial programs, nor would I want to. The term white privilege is used to describe the systemic advantages white people have enacted over hundreds of years in this country.

Secondly..... Nothing I said can be interpreted as attempting to "other" homosexuals? The only time I refreced homosexuals was when I said someone willing to use a sentence that includes "evil homosexuals" wouldn't be made better by removing the "evil" part. For a hyperbolic example if I said "the evil homosexuals did 9/11" wouldn't be made better if I just said "the homosexuals did 9/11".

. If you want to other someone simply living their life, especially over differences they didn't even ask for, then you're still part of the problem.

Something tells me you didn't stray too far away from your conservative upbringing....

I might not have white privilege, but I am still privileged when compared to the rest of the world, and I have no qualms about recognizing that. Anyone living in a rich nation is privileged when compared to the vast majority of the world that suffers in poverty. I didn't ask for that, but I still recognize it as a problem that we need to address.

Maybe you are feeling a little insecure, and maybe that's a problem you should think about?