Post #2182421

2022-11-24 23:20 UTC

@robinshipton@writing.exchange @matunos@mastodon.social She's allocating "power over all of us" to "the rich white men". There's certainly some truth in there - the rich do have more power, but it's hardly total. Moreover, "the rich" are not exclusively white, not exclusive male, not exclusively hetrosexual. There plenty of poor, powerless whites, plenty of rich powerful Asians. cont...

Replies (3)

@BenAveling@mastodon.world 2022-11-24 23:23

@robinshipton@writing.exchange @matunos@mastodon.social Further, in democracies, the power of the rich is, partially, counterbalanced by the power of the state, and other institutions. And in most of the world, most politicians (and indeed, most of the rich) are of the same race as the locals.

Open ##2182422
@robinshipton@writing.exchange 2022-11-24 23:29

@BenAveling@mastodon.world @matunos@mastodon.social I see your confusion and I hope I can show you without resorting to semantic notation. You're reading it backwards. It doesn't say all men are: rich, white, straight. That's clearly false. No worries, that is not what it claims at all. "The rich white men" is a set. Think of it as a circle that contain only people who are rich AND white AND men. It's further constrained by "who hold power over all of us". That's a smaller circle inside the larger. See it?

Open ##2182423
@matunos@mastodon.social 2022-11-24 23:30

@BenAveling@mastodon.world @robinshipton@writing.exchange she didn't use the word "total" in her tweet, nor did she say the rich are exclusively any of those things

Open ##2182424