this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
416 points (95.6% liked)
Facepalm
362 readers
1 users here now
Anything that makes you apply your hand to your face.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How many other places in the world could she have taken this photo? All of them.
As a start, 6 million Jews were exterminated in camps like this, as well as many, many others, including some of my relatives.
I have my views, and they aren't shared by everyone. I am obligated at times to go to a church, and as an atheist, I keep my mouth shut and let people observe their sacred places.
This location is sacred, to many people for many reasons. Nothing about it suggests "Look at me aren't I cute?".
The events that happened there represent some of the worst that man can do to thier fellow man. The defeat of that ideology and liberation of these camps represent the best that man has to offer.
Men women and children died there on mass because of who they were. Men died on mass to free, protect, and avenge those people.
When you are walking on someone's grave, please show respect. When you are walking on a peoples grave, yes, take a photo, commemorate your experience, and have the humility and humanity to do it in a way that honors those who died.
En masse, but I can understand how you arrived at your spelling.
You should never be obligated to go to Church. People are pushing their beliefs on you. You not fighting back isn't being polite rather it's refusing to stand up for what you believe.
I was not going go let my beliefs prevent me from going to my fathers funeral or nephews wedding.
I have never been shy about expressing my beliefs, and haven't been compelled to a Sunday service since I was in basic training in the 90s.
That's not at all what you seemed to be implying
i read it as "obligated to go to church" too but he wrote "obligated to go to a church". damn english.
Yeah, but boomers are the problem! /s
Wtf
The irony here is palpable: the author demands respect for the victims of historical atrocities while using language that inadvertently excludes and marginalises. Phrases like "the worst that man can do to their fellow man" and "the best that man has to offer" are not only outdated but also insensitive, as they ignore the gender inclusivity that should be a part of any respectful discourse. Furthermore, referring to the dead collectively as "men" fails to recognise the countless women and children who also suffered and perished. This linguistic insensitivity, while perhaps unintentional, detracts from the powerful message of the rant and reveals a blind spot in the call for inclusive and universal empathy.
Overall, I think it's more insensitive to read a comment like OP's, and instead of taking the right point home and moving along, you decide to nitpick in an attempt at some sort of "Gotcha", which couldn't have been done more wrongly and with such confidence (or arrogance?)
Overall I think you're missing the point. The terms "man" and "mankind" have historically been used to refer to humanity as a whole, but their continued use is a subtle reinforcement of a male-centric view of the world. To suggest that "mankind" encapsulates all human beings is not just an oversight; it perpetuates a narrative where men are the default and women are an afterthought. This linguistic practice not only erases the presence of women but also reinforces patriarchal structures that have long excluded them from full participation and recognition.
Language shapes our reality. When we default to male-oriented terms to describe humanity, we implicitly suggest that men are the standard against which all others are measured. This isn't merely about semantics; it's about recognising the inherent dignity and equality of all people. Using "humankind" or "humanity" acknowledges the full spectrum of our species, respecting the contributions and existence of everyone, not just half of the population.
The argument that such terms are convenient or traditional falls apart when we consider the power of language to shape thought. Just as we have evolved from archaic practices and beliefs, our language must evolve to reflect a more inclusive and respectful understanding of our shared human experience. clinging to "mankind" is not a mere linguistic preference; it's a refusal to fully acknowledge and respect the equal humanity of women.
I think you are missing the point here. Whenever anyone reads "Mankind", they think of everyone. Not just the men. It's not making anyone an after-thought.
Although I think you are not arguing in good faith I will once again attempt to make it crystal clear to you. The argument isn't about what people currently understand when they read "mankind," but rather about the subtle implications and historical context of the term. Language evolves, and the shift towards more inclusive terms like "humankind" reflects a broader recognition of equality and inclusiveness.
While many people do understand "mankind" to mean all humans, the term's roots in a male-centric view of the world can perpetuate outdated notions. By consciously choosing language that explicitly includes everyone, we make a small but significant step towards a more inclusive society. It's about acknowledging and respecting all members of humanity equally, without relying on language that has historically excluded or marginalised women.
I can not be more clear and "on target" to the point than this.
I think itçs very important to bring up how we currently think and perceive words, after you said language shapes how we think.
The word "mankind" isn't male-centric because no one perceives it that way. It cannot possibly be "male-centric" when it was never meant that way and when no one perceives it that way.
However, I'd like to argue that by making this new "Humankind" distinction, you're adding the male-centric view to the term "Mankind", when there wasn't one associated to it in the first place.
I cannot be more clear than this, and I think you are the one arguing in bad faith here perhaps
To assert that 'mankind' isn't male-centric because 'no one perceives it that way' is to ignore the very evidence that proves otherwise—many people do perceive it as male centric, (spend three seconds googling it ffs) this claim rests on a deeply unfounded generalisation. Furthermore, the suggestion that the introduction of 'humankind' retroactively imposes a male-centric view on 'mankind' is a form of historical revisionism. It assumes that our understanding and language cannot evolve without distorting past usage, which is plainly absurd. Language, much like our society, is in constant flux, and to deny this is to remain willfully ignorant of the dynamics that shape our communication and thought.
ill say good day to you now, as you are clearly either a misogynist or an idiot (likely a combination of the two).
One simple google of the definition shows it includes all humans. The archaic ('old meaning', if you don't know) meaning did refer to only men, but that's nor the case anymore.
It's not the case anymore because through time and usage lsnguage evolved ( Like you said! ) and it evolved to encompass all humans! Crazy how language does that.
However, for you to selfishly tout about all of this in a post Xompletely unrelated to any of this, and for you to call me an idiot and/or mysoginist because i simply didn't agree with you on this, shoecases just how bad faith you were in the first place.
Oh and what's this? No one giving this much a fuck about this? https://old.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/1wdzcq/how_do_you_feel_about_the_word_mankind_or_the_use/
Clearly you want to be feminist and do something and that's great! Please tackle some actual problems instead of getting fired up over a word that has nothing to do with anything, hasn't bothered anyone, and shouldn't have been an issue to discuss about in a post on disrespecting Holocaust victims.
Have a good day, and I hope you learn from your mistakes and develop some "Think twice before posting"
you're not wrong BUT
cramming nuanced and counterintuitive sociological topics down peoples' throats and then calling them bigots and idiots when it doesn't click right away makes you look like a crazy person. if i didn't already agree with you i'd be far less inclined adopt your viewpoint after having an interaction like this, because every time it came up again i would remember your smug ass on a high horse wielding it like a cudgel and mentally disengage.
you need to ease up and give people time to explore and integrate new ideas and perspectives, especially things like this that involve subtleties of linguistics and human psychology - not insult them and storm off when it doesn't take right away. acting this way just makes people double down on their position.
Your point is very clear, and you need to get off the internet for a bit and interact with real people, nobody is offended by the terminology.
i don't disagree with that person but it's a weird hill to die on, and their behavior is an atrocious embarassment to all feminists and queer people. nobody is going to change their mind after reading that stuck-up, insulting, pendantic rant.
To assert that 'nobody is offended by the terminology' is to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, erroneously believing that majority opinion dictates truth. It's a convenient but very lazy dismissal that ignores the voices of those who do feel excluded by such language.
The suggestion that discussing these issues requires more 'real' interaction is a classic straw man argument. It sidesteps the substance of the debate in favour of a cheap ad hominem attack. It's a spinlessly weak attempt to undermine a valid discussion about how language evolves and impacts inclusivity.
I’m not trying to argue with you, as this is a complete non-issue. Nobody feels excluded by the term “mankind”.
Remember this?
Old Star Trek: "...to boldly go where no man has gone before..."
New Star Trek: "...to boldly go where no-one has gone before..."
I noticed, and to be honest - once my pattern-recognition subsystems adapted to that very minor cognitive dissonance - I was very glad to hear it. It also prompted me to think more consciously and diligently about similar mental shortcuts elsewhere in my life (and not just for gender equality), and bolstered my nascent efforts to be actively fallibilistic in all things - especially the things I am expert in, which are the hardest ones. It "raised the empathy bar" by way of ripple-effect.
The phrase men used to primarily mean all humans in English. This is just nitpicking and using a historical phrase in this way doesn't exclude anybody or detract from anything, unless you intentionally ignore contemporary use of language.
The terms "man" and "mankind" have historically been used to refer to humanity as a whole, but their continued use is a subtle reinforcement of a male-centric view of the world. To suggest that "mankind" encapsulates all human beings is not just an oversight; it perpetuates a narrative where men are the default and women are an afterthought. This linguistic practice not only erases the presence of women but also reinforces patriarchal structures that have long excluded them from full participation and recognition.
Language shapes our reality. When we default to male-oriented terms to describe humanity, we implicitly suggest that men are the standard against which all others are measured. This isn't merely about semantics; it's about recognising the inherent dignity and equality of all people. Using "humankind" or "humanity" acknowledges the full spectrum of our species, respecting the contributions and existence of everyone, not just half of the population.
The argument that such terms are convenient or traditional falls apart when we consider the power of language to shape thought. Just as we have evolved from archaic practices and beliefs, our language must evolve to reflect a more inclusive and respectful understanding of our shared human experience. In summary, clinging to "mankind" is not a mere linguistic preference; it's a refusal to fully acknowledge and respect the equal humanity of women.
Sure, but this kind of advocacy doesn't belong in conversations about respect for the dead.
Go after corporate and government uses of words used that way.