No Cause, No Ally

[Signora Pæsior]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.

But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?

And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I think the main reason we are arguing here is because some of see where all this is headed : tolerance of Furries. And I for one refuse to go there.

[Signora Pæsior]

I think the main reason we are arguing here is because some of see where all this is headed : tolerance of Furries. And I for one refuse to go there.

IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE! 

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Organizing accomplishes some things. It also creates politics and exclusionary behavior.

Look at this so called "ElevatorGate". Even before we jump into the blog based warfare that followed, let's just look at the incidents that began it:

1. Woman gets on elevator, guy on elevator says "I liked what you said, would you like to come to my room for coffee and discussion?"
2. Woman feels uncomfortable, says 'No' and goes to her room.
3. Woman discusses this in a lecture as misogyny.
4. Another woman publicly disagree.
5. First woman publicly shits on second woman for disagreeing.

That's the problem with organized systems and hierarchies. Maybe the guy was being an asshole, maybe the guy was treating her like an equal, maybe the guy was trying to start something and thought a cup of coffee and discussion was a good way to break the ice. Different humans might have different opinions. If the organization, or those leading the organization don't allow for divergent opinion, then the organization is not going to accomplish what I would consider to be something successful.

For me, the above example is a perfect moment for Maybe Logic, maybe it appeared to her as X, and it appeared to someone else as Y and the intent of the guy was Z. Could have still made fantastic points about guys considering the perception of what they say and do, despite the intent. But, that doesn't make for good polemics.

I'd say that the ElevatorGate incident was a lot more complex than those 5 steps, Rat. Yopu missed out the part where Dawkins was a condescending ass, and the threats of rape and online harassment of Rebecca Watson that came after it.

Propositioning someone you don't know very well in a space where there is no escape route is intimidating, and in the atheist/skeptic movement sexual harassment and misogyny are already rife.  Some of the atheist dudes are involved with the MRA's and show some pretty gross attitudes, like the Amazing Athiest who actively and purposefully set out to trigger PTSD in someone who had experienced a sexual assault.

Oh, and Stella, Gloria Stienem was part of the SECOND wave of feminism. The first one was the woman's suffrage movement. We're now at third wave.

If it wasn't for the second wave leading into the third wave, rape in marriage as a legal concept wouldn't exist, nor the anti-discrimination and equal pay acts.

Oh and congratulations on buying the straw feminist trope and swallowing it whole. Nice work in ignoring historical context too.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.

But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?

And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.

"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I think the main reason we are arguing here is because some of see where all this is headed : tolerance of Furries. And I for one refuse to go there.

IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE! 

It's vex's favourite fallacy.

[Signora Pæsior]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.

But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?

And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.

"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.

Whereas acting like a stereotypical gay person is good reason to abuse them?

Riiiiight.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Organizing accomplishes some things. It also creates politics and exclusionary behavior.

Look at this so called "ElevatorGate". Even before we jump into the blog based warfare that followed, let's just look at the incidents that began it:

1. Woman gets on elevator, guy on elevator says "I liked what you said, would you like to come to my room for coffee and discussion?"
2. Woman feels uncomfortable, says 'No' and goes to her room.
3. Woman discusses this in a lecture as misogyny.
4. Another woman publicly disagree.
5. First woman publicly shits on second woman for disagreeing.

That's the problem with organized systems and hierarchies. Maybe the guy was being an asshole, maybe the guy was treating her like an equal, maybe the guy was trying to start something and thought a cup of coffee and discussion was a good way to break the ice. Different humans might have different opinions. If the organization, or those leading the organization don't allow for divergent opinion, then the organization is not going to accomplish what I would consider to be something successful.

For me, the above example is a perfect moment for Maybe Logic, maybe it appeared to her as X, and it appeared to someone else as Y and the intent of the guy was Z. Could have still made fantastic points about guys considering the perception of what they say and do, despite the intent. But, that doesn't make for good polemics.

I'd say that the ElevatorGate incident was a lot more complex than those 5 steps, Rat. Yopu missed out the part where Dawkins was a condescending ass, and the threats of rape and online harassment of Rebecca Watson that came after it.

Which is why I said "before the blog based warfare"... the Dawkins dismissive attitude etc all came after those 5 highlights I mentioned above (at least according to the sources I've read).

Propositioning someone you don't know very well in a space where there is no escape route is intimidating, and in the atheist/skeptic movement sexual harassment and misogyny are already rife.  Some of the atheist dudes are involved with the MRA's and show some pretty gross attitudes, like the Amazing Athiest who actively and purposefully set out to trigger PTSD in someone who had experienced a sexual assault.

Of course it could be intimidating, I don't disagree. If there's lots of misogyny in the skeptic movement that's absurd (but somehow fits with my view of the 'movement'). However, it was still an opinion that the act was misogynistic. Maybe a well informed opinion, but still an opinion. When the opinion was disagreed with (by another woman) it became heresy... which in turn spawned Dawkins dismissiveness, the Blog fights, the harassment etc etc etc

My point was that a difference of opinion was not tolerated because it didn't agree with Ms. Watson's beliefs.

[Faust]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.

But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?

And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.

"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.

Whereas acting like a stereotypical gay person is good reason to abuse them?

Riiiiight.

Because there is ever a good reason to mock or abuse someone?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Oh, and Stella, Gloria Stienem was part of the SECOND wave of feminism. The first one was the woman's suffrage movement. We're now at third wave.

If it wasn't for the second wave leading into the third wave, rape in marriage as a legal concept wouldn't exist, nor the anti-discrimination and equal pay acts.

Oh and congratulations on buying the straw feminist trope and swallowing it whole. Nice work in ignoring historical context too.

Now any female who chooses not to agree and jump on the bandwagon has "bought into the straw feminist trope". BECUZ EVERYBODY KNOWS GRRLS CAN'T THINK ON THEIR OWN AN' STUFF, HEE HEE.

Oh, and "equal pay act". 

[trippinprincezz13]

Just thought I could point out that the whole point of an "insult" is to, well, insult someone. If someone's pissed me off enough to make me that angry, I'm probably not going to be overly concerned about protecting their feelings - quite the contrary, probably.

As for jokes/kidding around, ehhh...it's tough. I understand how things could be sensitive issues for certain people. I try my best to be sensitive to and aware of the people around me. If I offend someone, I'll apologize and try not to do it again. Certain things are a bit touchy for me too - sexual violence, being one. I won't flip out on someone for making a tasteless joke, but I'll let them know why it bothers me and go from there. The world's really fucked up, gotta laugh, I guess. After a while it feels like it gets to the point of "Fuck You, my mom died from being insensitive". Seems to me that context and intent are important. I don't think that makes me any less sensitive to the fact that everyone deserves to be treated equally

[President Television]

All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"

I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".

At least "cunt" is honest.

We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.

All politics are exclusionary.

I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?

There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.

"Make." Am I correct?

[East Coast Hustle]

All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"

I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".

At least "cunt" is honest.

We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.

All politics are exclusionary.

I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?

There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.

That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?

No, there's something that bothers me about the idea of looking to MAKE people equal.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.

But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?

And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.

I answered and explained my position in one of the related threads. And I wasn't the one who pointed out the inclusion of the word "retard" in her thread. Also, "retard" doesn't belong in the same category as "nigger" or "fag". "Retarded" isn't slang, it's an actual word. And, if you look at the definition, you'll see why mentally deficient people are called "retarded". I fail to see how it can be construed as a slur save by someone who's hell-bent on being on a super-righteous high horse.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.

But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?

And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.

"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.

Whereas acting like a stereotypical gay person is good reason to abuse them?

Riiiiight.

Because there is ever a good reason to mock or abuse someone?

Have you ever come in contact with other humans?

It's hard to find a good reason NOT to mock or abuse most people.