No Cause, No Ally

[East Coast Hustle]

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

I think there are about 4 threads that could be summed up with this one post.

TP13, you win the coveted

[P3nT4gR4m]

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

I think there are about 4 threads that could be summed up with this one post.

TP13, you win the coveted

I will wholeheartedly second that motion.

[Juana]

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?

How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

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?

How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.

How can you change a problem that you ignore? I'd like someone to explain that to me, because it sounds like a crock of shit.

[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?

How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.

That was not why I took issue with the phrase.

However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.

[Juana]

Okay, acknowledged. That was mostly directed at Vex anyway.

"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.

What the actual fuck does this mean?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.

That was not why I took issue with the phrase.

However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.

Yeah, I think that the people who are on the pointy end of the stick don't really feel like they can relax about it and go with the flow, so much.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

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?

How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.

I mean trying to fix a problem by bolstering the thing that makes it a problem in the first place. You don't "fix" racism by passing laws that say "black people are entitled to XYZ because they are black." You pass laws that say "you are not allowed to consider race in XYZ situation." You eliminate the recognition of the divide, you don't focus on one or the other side of it.

I'm not campaigning for your equality, I'm living it, in the hopes that my indifference to differences catches on in the people around me. Nobody gets special consideration from me, positive or negative, due to any status they cannot control. That's all I'm saying.

[Juana]

I want to agree with that, but affirmative action is absolutely necessary.

And that's fine, I suppose.

[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?

How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.

That was not why I took issue with the phrase.

However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.

Yeah, I think that the people who are on the pointy end of the stick don't really feel like they can relax about it and go with the flow, so much.

Believe me, I understand completely. And when I find myself confronted with other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, I don't stay quiet, nor do I fail to act if I see someone being harassed or threatened because of other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, even if they're a stranger to me. But that's about as far as it goes. I have no interest in that kind of activism both for selfish personal reasons and because I generally can't stand the crowd it attracts. If that makes me a douchebag, I can live with that.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I want to agree with that, but affirmative action is absolutely necessary.

And that's fine, I suppose.

Affirmative action might be necessary so far as it exists only to force the issue of eliminating some asshole's persistent recognition of the divide. It should never override real egalitarianism, though, and that's fine because I've never really seen a case (outside of redneck straw-man arguments) where that's happened.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.

That was not why I took issue with the phrase.

However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.

Yeah, I think that the people who are on the pointy end of the stick don't really feel like they can relax about it and go with the flow, so much.

Believe me, I understand completely. And when I find myself confronted with other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, I don't stay quiet, nor do I fail to act if I see someone being harassed or threatened because of other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, even if they're a stranger to me. But that's about as far as it goes. I have no interest in that kind of activism both for selfish personal reasons and because I generally can't stand the crowd it attracts. If that makes me a douchebag, I can live with that.

I most expressly DON'T think people are douchebags for not becoming activists. Not everyone has the time/passion/inclination/motivation for activism, and by not tolerating bigotry in your life or presence, you are making a difference.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You're also not buying into the whole "I don't understand your experience so I'm against your thing because I don't like being told I don't understand" babboonery.

[East Coast Hustle]

Well of course not, that just seems silly. "I don't understand" is just as important a thing to be able to comfortably confront as "I don't know".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well of course not, that just seems silly. "I don't understand" is just as important a thing to be able to comfortably confront as "I don't know".

Yeah, I think so too. Also important is "I'll never really know what it's like to be in that situation but I get that it sucks and I'm willing to back you up".