this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
US Authoritarianism
868 readers
11 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, that "bit" of nuance is that it's not true.
Some banks forbade women from opening bank accounts in states where the right wasn't already guaranteed until the 1974 federal passing of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act guaranteed the right to all citizens.
It sucks. But, don't lie. We don't manipulate. We teach.
What would you call it when the ability to deny accounts to women was present and practiced?
Grave injustice.
Right, but because it occurred, that means it's true that women were denied the ability to open accounts. Black people did submit ballots before the voting rights act, but that doesn't mean it's untrue to say that black people weren't allowed to vote.
But the statement "women weren't allowed to get a bank account in the USA until 1974" is false. Women were allowed to. And banks, depending on the area, were allowed to deny them service merely for being women. That was the bad thing that got rectified in 1974.
The "women weren't allowed" is hyperbole at best, and lying at worst, to try to overemphasize what is already an injustice, and makes it easy for those that would argue with the general point being made by dismissing something that is clearly and demonstrably false. It hurts the argument.
And if the idea you are professing is that if even two women were denied access to bank accounts, then "women were not allowed to have bank accounts" was still true and accurate, then you (and the OP) are being deliberately misleading.
The reality is, it was shitty that it was legal and acceptable in the past to discriminate based on race, gender, or any of the other protected classes of today. It's bad enough as it was without suggesting "women weren't allowed to get bank accounts" or "black people weren't allowed to buy samdwiches" (because it was legal for a restaurant to deny service based on race).
Are you aware of why 1974 is significant?
It's the year my sister was born.
What's true for one is true for all! My God, how could I be so stupid? Thank you so much. Without your brilliant insight I might never have reasoned this out for myself.
Why do you feel that they're incomparable?
If it happened in some states, then it happened, nothing misleading about saying it happened.
That's not what was said, though. "Some banks weren't legally required to let women open bank accounts" is a very different statement than "women couldn't open bank accounts."
I don't think that's the point in dispute, but that's not what the quoted post is saying.
"Women weren't allowed to open a bank account in the USA until 1974" implies that, until the year 1974, there were no women in the US who had opened bank accounts.
The more accurate statement would be "The right for women in the US to open bank accounts wasn't nationally established until 1974," which aligns with the reality wherein many American women were still able to open bank accounts before then.
I disagree entirely, I understood it as "no women were allowed to have a bank account anywhere in America before 1974" and I guarantee I'm not the only one. The very existence of this discussion thread proves your statement wrong.
Correct.
You're wrong about this. Therefore you're wrong about everything.
I also can make hasty generalizations.
Thanks for the teaching opportunity.
Are you a bot? You just keep repeating the same statement over and over.
When one logical fallacy doesn't succeed, the next is almost always ad-hominem.
Once again, thank you for the teaching opportunity.
I took a look at your post history. You'd benefit quite a bit from learning your logical fallacies. If you're committing them then you're being deceived by them. Specifically I recommend a Phil 100 logic course. Should be free.
Why are you spending so much time (and yet so little effort cx) to deny that women had fewer rights back then?
Why are you attempting strawman fallacy?
So it was true in some parts of the US ...
All the more reason to just be accurate and say "banks were still allowed to deny opening accounts for a woman" rather than say "women couldn't hold bank accounts until 1974," which just isn't true. The truth is still plenty bad, we don't need to pull a Vance card.
Everyone from lemme.ee converses in bad faith because Bronzebeard makes hasty generalizations, just like the OP.
Thanks for the teaching opportunity.
I don't think people understood the joke of the hasty generalization you made there...
You underestimate "people". Better to overestimate them and invest into those that rise to the occasion.
The person I was responding to was just as unnuanced just in the opposite direction ofOP.
You're not making sense anymore. If you explain to me how you've made a hasty generalization then I'll continue to engage. If not that's also OK.