[–] 21893899? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Point of contention acceptable.
Would argue that it's strongly implied though. We're at an impasse without clarification though I suppose.
Actually, scratch that for just a moment, seems I misread at the start there. Hold on.
Ah yep, I see where I made a mistake. I should have instead said:
- [Would it be] 'leftist' [if OP said] "fuck the patriarchy" in reference to aforementioned families/entity?
Good work on the quoting there, by the way.
[–] 21894186? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
we agree
Not necessarily. The underlying point I was alluding to acts as the TL;DR. (Excuse the long sentence (shitty grammar) ahead)
If OP, let's change it up slightly and go down the hypothetical route, a hypothetical right-winger who called the families/entity in question, "patriarchy", and our hypothetical leftist were to be specific in naming who they consider "patriarchy", chances are good that they'd both have so much overlap that all left/right lines would blur and they'd both finally realize that the same broader entity (by any name) is trying to pit them against one another.
At most you could split hairs and say the term "patriarchy" is popularly a leftist soundbite.
[–] 21893973? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
See edited response for proposal to address point of contention.