Post #2182423

2022-11-24 23:29 UTC

@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?

Replies (2)

@robinshipton@writing.exchange 2022-11-24 23:33

@BenAveling@mastodon.world @matunos@mastodon.social She makes no claims about the size of that inner circle she's identifying as worth studying. The implication is that it is a significant number and therefore worth studying. That last—significance worth studying—is entirely her judgment, since its her reading list and project. It imposes nothing on you, me, or anyone else.

Open ##2465069
@BenAveling@mastodon.world 2022-11-24 23:44

@robinshipton@writing.exchange @matunos@mastodon.social Feel free to use semantic notation. But remember, I'm not claiming that there's only one right way to parse her claim, only that it's reasonable to read: "the rich white men who hold power over us" as meaning "those who hold power over us are the rich white men"

Open ##2465070