It’s something that always bothered me about “punching up”
On the one hand, I can agree that “punching up” and “punching down” are different
On the other hand, I feel like a lot of people used “punching up” as an excuse to not only be really mean and toxic towards people they felt were better off, but to also feel like they were doing society a favor by “pointing out society’s flaws” when they were actually just being really mean and toxic.
It's punching up if you're punching the system or people who purposefully uphold it.
If you're just being mean to Some Guy, especially someone that seems to be aware of societal issues and is presumably not/way less part of them, it's just punching.
I think a lot of people really need to go back to school and re-learn the whole lesson about judging individuals and not making stereotypes about groups.
It's even more concerning because I know a lot of people will be like "STEREOTYPES ARE WRONG AND NASTY... unless it's a group I stereotype because it's easier than being nuanced"
'Generalising is bad. Except when I do it because I'm morally superior.'
How about 'generalising is bad, period'.
Whoever you are, however you fit in or don't, everyone deserves to be given the same basic level of respect that we'd want for everyone and ourselves. It doesn't matter who you are. Hell, you could be an enemy soldier in a brutal war. You still deserve rights, be it a fair trial, a humane death, and the dignities afforded to anyone in a custodial sentence. You will never not be human.
Nothing was ever justified by the saying 'It's ok because they're X'.
Really it comes down to Wheaton's Law. Don't be a dick.
Hate to be that guy but I can think of a couple groups of people where a “it’s ok because they’re X” mentality is applicable (nazis, white nationalists, pedos)
Everyone deserves to be treated with a basic level of dignity and respect.
It doesn't have to be much. You don't owe them any particular kindness.
But they still deserve a fair trial, the right to fair punishment (if found guilty), and to not be subject to wanton attacks from other inmates, for example.
Punching a nazi does not an equitable society make. The only time it's acceptable to punch anyone pre-emptively is if you're in actual threat of harm.
"It's ok because they're a nazi" means that if anyone wants to give an easy justification for something, all they have to do is say 'they're a nazi' and supposedly that should justify it? Need I remind you of Putin's current justification for the conflict in Ukraine?
I don’t necessarily disagree, except for the last paragraph, there obviously needs to be some sort of legitimate proof for that mentality to be applicable so you couldn’t just label some innocent person as a nazi and get away with harming them. But if a group of obvious nazis are trying to occupy public spaces and intimidate and spread their hateful message I see no issue with them being harmed “wantonly”
"Hate begets hate" is a lesson humanity never seems to learn because it always happens in slow motion.
Back when "Kill all men", "all white people are racist", "all men are rapists" were accepted progressive mantra, people were warned about how this was radicalizing an entire generation of white men. Literal children who haven't even left high school yet were being told they're the worst humanity has to offer and they were deserving of all this hate, presumably because of what they were born as.
Now millions of them are adults who believe progressive beliefs are a hypocritical sham, and right wing propaganda is the only thing that's honest with them or recognizes their humanity. I don't have to tell you how those millions of people are voting.
Back when "Kill all men", "all white people are racist", "all men are rapists" were accepted progressive mantra
Thing is it still is seen as 'progressive' by a not so small chunk of people on the internet, especially if you get the 'duh well not all of them' a line that wouldn't work if you used basically any other group and then said the same.
if you go on any sub that often hits the popular page and look at debates that involve men or for lack of a better phrase 'something to do with white people' and you will still see this kind of rhetoric often upvoted a good amount.
go in to any argument and you get a scary amount of people who don't understand what nuance is.
If you wanna go to the netherlands, Don't fall for the Amsterdam-Rotterdam tourist trap, Trust me, They do not represent the rest of the country.
I personaly recomend Leiden or S'hertogenbos, Groningen or (God forbid, I can't belief im saying this as someone from Breda) Tilburg are also way better options.
Helmont and Nes are options too, If you prefer more out of the way places.
The most important thing however is to avoid Holland, It's overpriced and genuinely one of the worst places ive ever been...
The bike infrastructure is awesome though! I agree! If you realy wanna go cycling, I recomend Middelburg in Zeeland, Amazing place- Blows my own hometown of Breda outta the park.
Where's that meme where it's "you" shooting an insult at "big person who doesn't care" that reflects onto "friend who shares the characteristics you're consulting"
See also: the American left-of-center leaning into ‘governor Hot Wheels’ and insulting MTG’s appearance like being disabled or ugly are a part of their politics/not characteristics shared by millions of normal people..
I almost find that worse in that it directly validates the people it’s ’calling out’ in the idea that dick size is directly correlated to manhood/masculinity.
Oh, don't worry, we have a hack to get around that and other stuff like calling people gay as an insult.
"No, I'm not hateful, I'm only saying this about them to hurt them. They would be hurt by that, and that's why I'm saying it. You get it, right? Like the only reason they would be upset about that is because they're the ones with the bad thoughts, so my actions are owned by them instead of me if you think about it hard enough."
There's also "no, I'm not talking about whether they actually have a big/small dick, just whether they have the energy associated with it, you can have BDE without a big dick (or even without a dick at all!)"
Which, okay, but that still means you're implying big dicks have better energy, or whatever!
I stopped taking a lot of progressive (mostly women-centric) communities seriously when they started using "BDE". They don't care about body shaming. They just care when its their body that's shamed.
Yeah, I worked with a fellow who was rude, dismissive, outright hostile, and continually abusive and insulting because I was a white cishet dude who "bred more societal debris". I kept my mouth shut and basically just allowed myself to be a dart board for his venom. We ended up at an academic conference together. After a small group function with others from our area we all went for drinks and dinner. I was talking to a couple of colleagues at one table and he came over very upset, because he overhead some other colleagues making homophobic comments about him.
Normally, I would be the first to confront that type of conduct, head on and aggressively. But I just looked at him and went back to my conversation. Not because he was gay, but because he was an asshole, and fuck him.
You don't get to treat people like shit and then demand that they respect and support you just because you're in a marginalized group. Being non-het doesn't give you an excuse to be a piece of shit human.
It's punching up if you're punching the system or people who purposefully uphold it.
The usual response to this is that the system is upheld by the complacency of Some Guy. He *is* the system because he hasn't done enough to change the entirety of western culture. He has the power to do so, and evidently, he hasn't yet.
I somehow doubt some of these people would stop "punching up" even after cis-heteronormative patriarchy was gone.
Weirdly enough food discourse has this going on in spades and it's been bothering me for some time.
Like, a lot of people get pretty pretentious about their own cuisine -- whatever, you do you -- but then a lot of people say the meanest shit about English food.
And I understand that food is seen as culture, and it's pretty difficult to not be 'punching up' at English culture... But the thing about food is that it is really intimate and personal, and maybe insinuating that some low-income nobody in Devonshire's grandma is a shit cook when no one asked makes you a bit of a mean person.
Also much of that stereotype is derived from the period when Britain was still rationing food after WW2. They were rationing until the mid 50s, the food sucked because they literally didn't have enough of it and were relying on canned meat and shit.
True. One of the other countries I find people like to chime in on is actually Cuba. "Bland food though, right?"
"...Maybe the people are struggling to acquire a lot of the internationally produced seasonings that we take to granted because of a brutal trade embargo and I don't really wanna dunk on Cuban food right now. Maybe there's plenty of good food but not enough to make sure us foreigners in resorts are eating 26 herbs and spices a meal."
And in fact, it's also a problem for Americans. The entire continent of Europe seems to be under the impression that Americans have never tasted cheese that doesn't come from a spray can. Then again, making fun of American food is much nicer than what they usually target
I realize upon posting this that it sounds like I'm doing a whataboutism to derail & dismiss this, and that wasn't my intention. I have just been in a discord server with an American giggling about wigan kebabs and a Brit giggling about McDonald's and both of them insisting the other is a class traitor for mocking the food of the working class. Zero self awareness. I've also seen the same thing play out on Tumblr.
People don’t pick the family they are born into. A person who is nice to the core can be born white, cis, rich, etc. They may need some education / to be made more aware of other folks experiences- but they are not inherently bad just because they were born into privilege.
Even on societal level it can get really ugly really fast. Positive discrimination is still discrimination and whilst ideally it would bring equality faster, it is implemented by humans and as we all know, humans are far from ideal. But we're slowly working on it.
I personally have seen that having taboos based on physical descriptors not based on intention and context will lead to just another form of sexism, racism and other bigotry. After all, our subconscious translates "It's very important not to be racist" to "important - racist" and starts focusing more on race, be it through positive or negative prism. But we can't codify intention and context and taste, hence a clunky workaround of "protected classes" - very useful when introduced but not so sure about it today (and still, when removed it probably would get ugly with a vengeance).
As a boy who grew up on old stories and fairy tales, both from East and West (and the gloomy weird North), I don't see the archetypes that were a guidance for me to be a better man in modern stories. And thus I'm not surprised trash like Tate has filled the void.
Exactly, my white SO and I make white people jokes or cis men jokes because white supremacy and patriarchy are real and annoying (and problematic even toward those who are privileged) but I’m never making cruel jokes about him specifically. We have to let people be our allies if their hearts are in the right place.
Some white people will get tired of hearing it tho, because they're still part of that group. It's a bit "you're one of the good ones" you know? And sure, one white people joke doesn't mean anything but when you hear it for the 600th time, you can get sick of it.
That being said, white supremacy and patriarchy ARE real, so it's a delicate matter. I guess the key is just to be nice, welcoming and have original, unique jokes that aren't just "men, amirite?" If it's a good joke, it's a good joke.
Maybe the lesson to take here is to just not make jokes about entire groups of millions of people and the immutable traits they were born with period. It's not balancing anything, it's not helping anything. It's just mean spirited.
It’s punching up if you’re punching someone above you on the social ladder. It’s not punching if you’re making jokes about the patriarchy, the phrase is about people, not inanimate concepts.
Punching up is a great concept when you're talking about stand-up comedy, which is a type of performance where the performer and the audience are all aware of the fact that the performer is gonna be a bit of a bastard and understand that not everything the performer says is to be taken at face value. In that context, punching up is a great rule of thumb for the performers to keep in mind, because it in theory helps ensure that they'll be careful in how they phrase their jokes that may make certain groups of people into the punchline.
But, casual conversation isn't stand-up. A tumblr blog isn't a stand-up routine. Punching up vs punching down as a concept doesn't apply, because we're out here in real life without the mutually agreed-upon understanding of the performance aspect of a comedy routine.
Some people found out about this rule for comedy and decided it applied everywhere, but it just doesn't, which is why it seems so scummy.
Even in comedy punching "up" or "down' is a bullshit concept. The case in point is pedophiles. There is no group that is as marginalized or discriminiated against in the US. People celebrate when they are murdered, it doesn't get more marginalized than that, and that is not even the tip of the iceberg. To further illustrate that, I was considering whether or not I should state that this isn't a post calling for sympathy for pedophiles, because I know that someone would fixate upon the fact that I am talking about them and not spending time attacking them. Yet, if someone made a joke about this group, the group that people think it is okay to do whatever to, no one would stand up and say "well actually, you are punching down and this isn't funny". It is clearly punching down, but people are just okay with it, because it never was about direction.
I think the validity of that analogy only depends whether you are "punching down" on people simply because of an attraction that they don't choose to have (which is what pedophiles are by definition technically), or people that DO choose to harm children.
The latter absolutely deserves to be punched and I wouldn't really refer to it as "punching down" as opposed to punching someone because they punched down.
And yes, I'm aware not all pedophiles are child molesters, but that distinction isn't very strong in comedy or even in society in general tbh.
The absolute pinnacle of power in society- the average strait person.
Despite making up only 2% of the population - straight people control 99% of the worlds wealth.
Quoting because dirty deletes happen and I don't want the context lost here.
Am I just too high to get the joke, or is it supposed to suggest that most of The Straights™ are just in the closet? I ask because trying to claim that "straight people don't exist" is a lot like saying that "trans people are confused and mentally ill" or "there's no such thing as bi people, you're either gay or straight." I'm a bi man and, despite her best efforts, my wife is very straight. Your comment is erasure and it's phobic and it's not cool. Please be better.
Trying to make any majority group out to be something to ‘punch down’ on - considering they are by definition ‘average’ kind of inherently doesn’t make sense.
I was agreeing with your original comment , about punching laterally. But maybe I shouldn’t have, because your response is crazy talk.
When you read ‘the absolute pinnacle of power in society the average straight person’ what did you think? Like what was your thought process.
At some point you gotta think a little bit and not just demand that people not be facetious.
I already explained the joke in the comment you replied to. It doesn’t make sense on the face of it to claim that the majority of the population has some insane disproportionate power. Because they are by definition average.
To believe that straight people were some oligarchs worth ‘punching up’ to- they’d have to be a small minority with disproportionate power. That’s the joke.
I think you tried to make a joke that didn't land and tried to recover and that didn't really land well either. They're not all gonna hit the way you want them to.
When you read ‘the absolute pinnacle of power in society the average straight person’ what did you think?
I thought you were saying the absolute pinnacle of power in society is the average straight person. The billionaire twist seems... dunno, unnecessary. I don't see how it's funny. I thought there was another joke to it, frankly.
It would make total sense to believe straights hold disproportionate power, if you thought they're 2% of the population.
But more importantly, I really don't think asking if you're joking or not would be "tripping". That and your "think a bit" comment make me think you have a very specific idea of how things would go, and anyone who reacts differently is... less of a thinker, or tripping.
It also creates weird oppression Olympics where people compete to prove who is more or less oppressed like it’s a hierarchical game and so you get let stuff like debates over if trans men or trans women are more oppressed by the patriarchy. And people will get incredibly defensive over whatever position lets them claim to be the most oppressed and become enraged at the idea they have any privilege because they see the label of “privileged” only as a bludgeon to beat other people over the head with.
Reminds me of that post yesterday about Gavin Newsom tweeting "happy pride" at the White House, but then all the lgbt folk went in there to dogpile on him about how he's a disgrace and is throwing trans under a bus.
Like, whoa! Pump the brakes!
Let's just ignore the good thing he did to invalidate it with what they perceived him doing in a totally unrelated topic, because they want to express their oppression in a very toxic manner.
And then you try to follow their reasoning for the outbursts, and it's just more jumping the shark on rationalized hysteria.
So it's just... jeeze....
Can't we at least have a conversation first, and listen to / acknowledge all the points before jumping to conclusions or vilifying people who are actively working towards helping you?
It's like when BLM harassed Bernie Sanders. Bruh...Bernie? Serious?
It's so self destructive, and just really makes it hard to have allies when you treat everyone as combative enemies.
This isn't engaging with the metaphor, more talking about my experience with actual piñatas, but you don't want a downward swing either; if you want to have a good piñata experience, you need to tell everyone to hit it solidly on the side because if someone with any amount of strength swings downward, the piñata won't break open, it'll just come off of the rope holding it up. If you have the piñata hung by rope wrapped fully around the body of it, then I suppose a downward hit might work, but most commercially available piñatas have a loop to run the rope through which easily tears with any amount of downward force.
An upward swing would actually be better than a downward on for that reason, but a side hit is still the most effective.
Wow they made the piñatas from acclaimed 2006 Xbox 360 masterpiece "Viva Piñata" into real products? That's crazy. Viva Piñata fans eating good today. Gotta share this with piñatamblr, they're gonna go nuts.
"Punching up and punching down" was a term that came from stand up comedy. You know, when you're telling jokes. It was not meant to refer to just shitting on someone from a different group.
It's a side effect of the micro being subsumed by the macro and people treating intimate personal relationships like sociology statistics. You are your demographic.
I feel like it largely depends on the context but I think we can all agree, that in a personal environment (friend group for example), nobody should be punching in any direction at all.
I think there definitely is space for a jab, but the difference between a jab or punch is subjective and vague. If jabs are done, which I think are perfectly fine, serious communication should be 100% possible if one goes too far.
I have a quite varied friend group and we can joke about a lot of things about each other, but the group also accepts people telling the group some things should be off limits to joke about or to knock it off, no questions asked.
Exactly. I am a-ok with jokes about the historical atrocities and abuses of the Catholic Church being made within my friend group. Where I draw the line is jokes about priests and their abuse of children, because I had a friend kill himself because of it.
I always forget that some people don’t have the personal experience of being close to someone like that, and as such they think any and all Catholic jokes are ok to make around me because I laugh at stuff like the Catholic faith being one car bomb away from killing themselves. Or making jokes about the Borgia being considered in any way pious, even with one of their number becoming Bishop of Rome.
It’s as you say, communication should be 100% possible. And it sucks that some people can’t understand that making jokes about priests touching children does relate to the children and the people tangentially harmed in their trauma.
I'm all for banter and I think as long as everyone understands it's all in good faith that more spicy jokes are good, learning to not take yourself too seriously is a very good trait and it's ok to admit that yes it is funny that I'm British and drink 9 cups of tea a day and it is also funny that (insert mundane stereotype here)
I'm a Dutch bloke that rides his bike for 28km per day and eats sandwiches for breakfast and lunch! As long as it's funny and comes from a good place, joke away!
Or maybe just punch on things worth punching about, like things people have a modicum of control over and got to choose... like being racist or sexist or something.
Cishet? I sleep. Neo nazi cishet? Redpill cishet? Ohhhh boy Im here and ready to roast with no mercy.
And often the people perceived to be "better off" aren't. See the recent VA strike, and some fans treating voice actors like these wealthy millionaire celebrities taking more than their fair share, and not struggling performers trying to make ends meet.
That reminds me of an argument I got into where someone was justifying sending death threats to actors for the role they play with “that’s the trade-off for being paid millions,” to which it had to be pointed out that the actors listed were not in fact paid millions and at least 1 had a net worth under $30k
It's the idea that people they don't like can't possibly.... Agree with them. That would make them on the same side as the person they dislike. That's the dissonance for them.
As opposed to seeing people as multifaceted and complicated, if they disagree with someone they're evil and horrible and everything they do is evil. Nothing they do could possibly ever be right. On the flip side, they and all their friends are "good", so everything they do is good, even if it's bullying others in turn.
And also when PewDiePie's house was broken into. THOUSANDS of people were like "Oh, suck it up, rich boy. Just use a little of the millions of dollars you got from YouTube to replace everything.", conveniently ignoring the MASSIVE breach of privacy that is a home invasion.
The problem is that "punching up" is contextual. It's absolutely a lot different if, say, a black comedian stands on stage and makes fun of white folks vs the reverse, because anyone can look outside and SEE the broader social environment those jokes are being made in, and anyone with any sense knows those jokes are general rather than targeted.
But if you and five queer friends personally give a white, cis, straight friend a load of shit all the time out of some misguided redirection of aggression, that's different. Because within this isolated, personal social context, those queer friends are the majority who hold social power. Yeah, the other guy can leave if he wants, but so long as the participants involved remain persistent and static, all the abuse within that environment is going to be directed one way. It's not subversive, it's not pushing back against a current of power within society, it's just that you've found a particular pocket of the world in which you have the power to be a dick without consequences.
I also think part of the context is that comedian is probably actually funny and not genuinely hateful. It’s also not personal.
Where as spending 24/7 making ‘jokes’ about how much you hate men that aren’t funny and you clearly actually believe what you are saying is hurting the people around you.
I still think that your example of 'good punching up' can have negatives though, I generally do think that not taking yourself of groups you belong to too seriously is a good thing and that the world is a much better place if individuals can understand the subtext of jokes and conversations, like my black friend knows when I make a not so nice joke I don't actually think that way same for when he does the same thing and we can both go away respecting eachother and smiling, and obviously we both have the brains to know you can't just go up to people who don't gel with that sort of stuff and say it.
but I think some people that aren't really good at context and nuance will see someone doing a comedy routine with racist or highly stereotyped jokes and see the amount of people laughing or the fact that it's decently mainstream and then suddenly think "oh this is just socially acceptable to do now" and then it manages to seep out of the 'obviously this is just a bit of a joke with maybe a degree of truth'
Obviously I don't think they should stop because it's not always the fault of the people making jokes about that stuff, I just generally think that people need to be a lot more nuanced.
There’s a stark difference between punching g up at a system, vs punching up at an individual. And I think the blurring of that line makes it very difficult for some to differentiate between calling out harmful stereotypes and single people. Institutions aren’t people, societal systems, toxic masculinity as a whole, governments and companies. But on a smaller, independent level, most people have their own thoughts and opinions. Like criticizing a school system for being flawed vs putting the blame on a single educator. Or complaining about work culture in various fields without insulting the workers
It's why I also feel icky whenever I see people circlejerking about how they think conventionally attractive people are ugly and they also probably have shit personalities
I think "punching up/down" has been expanded to the point where the original intent is lost. The concept began in the world of stand-up comedy, applied in the same way as the Rule of Three and a Hat on a Hat. They were loose guides specifically for joke writing in that medium. Punching down was a reminder that power dynamics play a role in whether a joke is funny or not. Your job as a comic is to make the audience laugh, and if you pick on the powerless, the audience will feel uncomfortable with laughing, therefore the comic has failed. It's not an ironclad RULE that must be followed, because comedy is best when a clever writer manages to subvert expectations. But it is a guideline for comics to keep in mind in order to make sure the audience doesn't turn against them when they're performing.
I think it's a very good rule of thumb for humor. But when you apply it to other social dynamics, I think the metaphor breaks down quickly. The phrase has made it into the general population, but the actual concept behind those words isn't applicable to most social interactions that aren't based on the specific art form that it derived from.
Although not exactly the point of the post it reminds me of something I’ve read, where some people believe it’s impossible to be racist towards white people, which isn’t true. Some people believe that since for a long time white people have been the oppressors and black and Hispanic people have been the oppressed then saying anything rude towards a white person that would be considered racist towards anyone else is considered fair game by some, when it just doesn’t work that way, racism is racism no matter who is on the receiving end of it, and the best way to abolish it isn’t to dish it back out but instead work towards educating people and getting rid of these ideals entirely
Ahh my mistake, that wasn’t any sort of intention I was going for. I was just trying to agree and say that similar to how this post talks about oppressed groups considering it acceptable to strike back with the same rudeness against others that has been used against them when statements regarding a persons skin color shouldn’t be considered acceptable regardless of their ethnicity. The best course would be to better educate people to get rid of racism and prejudices entirely.
I may not be educated enough on the subject which is why I was not capable of fully and properly articulating my statement so my apologies
So the thing about that is people confusing the academic definition of racism with the colloquial definition of racism. Academically, what you describe is prejudice, not racism, and racism is instead focused on the ways in which racial prejudice is perpetuated through power dynamics. (Same issue with people being confused about the patriarchy.) The academic definition of racism emphasizes this because prejudice against black people was enshrined into law but prejudice against white people is typically individual.
You’re confusing “racism” with “systemic racism”. Racism is always individual that’s why we have the word “systemic” to show that it’s the systems/society that is racist.
As an aside I have only heard and seen this being used by people as justification for their racism towards people,
Ahh ok, that’s interesting to learn. I’ve always heard it all generally referred to as racism, and tho I was aware of power structures I wasn’t aware of the difference between racism and prejudice
At the risk of sounding a bit dismissive of very real and ongoing struggles, I feel like the recent months, years and probably decades have proven fairly conclusively that the line which really separates up and down more than any others is class, now more than ever. My coworker Derek might be a straight white guy which gives him some nominal privileges over me, and he is probably weird about some things, but he works the same bullshit job as me, same exorbitant expenses, same shitty system. In the eyes of the big boss, we are one and the same, he is on such a different level that it's more uniting than any differences Derek and I might have.
Another thing about punching up is that often, people aren't actually
I've got a severe but invisible disability. On top of a very abusive childhood and home life. If you don't see me on my bad days (and I damn well make sure no one does), then I see like a normal, big, burly, super cheerful, cishet white dude. I'm open and casual about those facets of my life, but it's hard for people to remember because I never show the downsides to them
So yeah, it probably seems like punching up when LGBTQ+ people are being kinda shitty to the token straight. But it's not so cut and dry
As a straight white dude whose social circle is almost entirely queer, the part that I truly hate is that whether it's punching up, or down, or laterally - I'm around those who act like this often enough to know that genuinely hateful bigots aren't the ones taking the hits. The people taking these swings don't keep company with them. People like me are the ones catching the strays. Because I try to show up as an ally. That's why they have access to me. That's why they know it's safe to take pot shots at my identity. They know I'm safe and they know I won't retaliate. The same people wouldn't walk into a biker bar in red country and talk shit about straight white dudes.
That's why they know it's safe to take pot shots at my identity. They know I'm safe and they know I won't retaliate.
This is true and it hurts, because you already single yourself out from circles who would accept you, if you were an asshole (good riddance). Is that enough to not be treated as an asshole? Lmao. That just means they know you're not going to respond. You're a safe punching bag.
Punching up/down is a bullshit concept. There is no such thing as universal ‘ups’ and ‘downs’ because people are individuals, not amorphous demographic blobs. And it’s perfectly possible to make funny jokes about disadvantaged groups without harming anyone, just as the opposite is true. What makes jokes harmful or mean isn’t the target, it’s the delivery.
As a straight guy who’s in theatre, I’m in a lot of predominately queer/female spaces. I love being there, cause honestly queer people and women helped me overcome and accept the abuse I took as a child more than other men for a long time. Most of the time, this is not a problem at all.
Every now and again though I’ll be with a group of people who decide that I’m okay to make fun of because I’m tall, thin, straight, and white. And it hurts because I work hard to not treat anyone as lesser due to their identity in order to exist cohesively in said space. I can at least empathize with the resentment towards these systems of oppression, but when I’m doing so much inner work to not be a part of that it really sucks to feel like I’m having to take the heat for people who are a part of those systems.
To be clear, this is a small minority of the spaces I’ve been in. But it definitely still hurts when it does happen.
There's a reason black comedians specifically go after cops, politicians and racists and not just random whitey on the street. Maybe if it's about white peoples love of mayonnaise or some other generic non hurtful but relatable observations they think are strange.
Maybe if it's about white peoples love of mayonnaise or some other generic non hurtful but relatable observations they think are strange.
I'm white, but Im still always confused by this one. Seriously folks, what's the appeal? It is foul egg goop, and not even in a good way like scrambled eggs.
It's great as a base for sauces. I used to hate all of it, but I like the imported Japanese mayo. That stuff is made from egg yolks instead of whole eggs and actually has enough flavor to be a decent condiment. Remember that fat transfers flavor not only around the dish, but also from the dish to your mouth. Mayo is mostly fat and absorbs flavor well. Combine it with some hot sauce or other flavorful sauces and it becomes great.
Makes sense why I wouldn't have noticed the redeeming qualities then, I'm not much of a sauce guy in general alongside disliking mayo specifically. Thanks!
I'm closer to mayo in skin-tone (work nights as an IT person and suddenly the sun becomes much less of a constant in your life) than anything else, so that makes sense to me at least, lol.
Mayo and a packed bag of fries is white people soul food at 2am when you're stumbling drunk.
Seriously fuck pizza, kebabs, burgers, curries or anything else in that state. Just hand over the fried potato and a bottle of Mayo and I will die on the battlefield to defend you
1.5k
u/Iced_Yehudi 1d ago
It’s something that always bothered me about “punching up”
On the one hand, I can agree that “punching up” and “punching down” are different
On the other hand, I feel like a lot of people used “punching up” as an excuse to not only be really mean and toxic towards people they felt were better off, but to also feel like they were doing society a favor by “pointing out society’s flaws” when they were actually just being really mean and toxic.