This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that’s not the point.

Let’s use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there’s a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn’t bother you at all (you don’t like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.

You’re walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they’re wearing a vanilla perfume.

Would that upset you? Why, or why not?


My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn’t bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.

My brother, however, would say no! He couldn’t explain his reasoning to me.

I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.

  • Instantnudel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Yes absolutely. Thats called Solidarity and is a big part of what I stand for as a leftist. Its not all about me and not everything has to only bother me for me to fight it. Im a withe men. Sexim or Racism aren’t issues for me personally. Im lucky. But im obviously still against Sexim and Racism even tho only other people are suffering from it.

      • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Most people who have sexist or racist opinions don’t know their behavior is sexist or racist, most of it is conditioned socially.

        So maybe the perfume analogy is good?

        A person might not be aware is harmful, but there’s information about it, they just don’t seek it out. Maybe someone tried to explain their perfume is overwhelming, making it difficult for a small group of people to concentrate, but they’ve ignored them. When they see groups trying to get their perfume banned from public places they think those people are overreacting because they like the perfume. The perfume clearly isn’t hurting anyone because anyone who would be affected by it has left their workplace, or decided not to say anything because they keep getting ignored, and management thinks they complain too much, and they can’t lose their jobs. Socially, anyone who doesn’t like the perfume already avoids them. The perfume can’t be that big of a deal.

      • Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Those feel different. One is active hate towards others (that’s the point of it), and the other is doing/using something you enjoy that happens to negatively affect others. They may be adjacent, but not the same.

        • Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          Neither sexism nor racism needs to be active hate towards someone. If you just absentmindedly select a white person for a job, you might not even be aware you did it nor do you need to hate the black applicant. Some biases are stealthily part of our psyche.

        • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          I’m pretty sure some people enjoy being sexist/racist and some even get off of watching people being sexist/racist. However, there are people in both groups who also understand it’s a problem and stand against it, except with consent in private.