Nothing to do with anything.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.

Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?

As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".

What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.

Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."

ISM = uniform

[Epimetheus]

Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.

Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?

As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".

What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.

Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."

ISM = uniform

So that would mean Discordianism is all pinealists, huh? Because it's an ISM.
Why do the worst individuals of a group get to define the group, and not the best? And why do certain parts define the whole at all? That doesn't make sense.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.

Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?

As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".

What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.

Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."

ISM = uniform

So that would mean Discordianism is all pinealists, huh? Because it's an ISM.
Why do the worst individuals of a group get to define the group, and not the best? And why do certain parts define the whole at all? That doesn't make sense.

When people assume uniforms, it brings out the worst.

But from a semantic point of view, "Discordianism" is an interesting word...possibly an oxymoron, since so much of it seems to be about NOT falling into isms.

[Epimetheus]

Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.

Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?

As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".

What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.

Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."

ISM = uniform

So that would mean Discordianism is all pinealists, huh? Because it's an ISM.
Why do the worst individuals of a group get to define the group, and not the best? And why do certain parts define the whole at all? That doesn't make sense.

When people assume uniforms, it brings out the worst.

But from a semantic point of view, "Discordianism" is an interesting word...possibly an oxymoron, since so much of it seems to be about NOT falling into isms.

Fair. It just seems to me "vegan" is just as much a uniform as "veganism."

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Semantics.

I think it is clear enough that the objection is to enforcing beliefs, not to having them. One person's idea of ideal feminism isn't more valid than another person's, regardless of gender. As a man I can have my own ideas about what would constitute effective feminism and those ideas can differ from anyone else's, even from a woman's. Now, my ideas might be flawed, or based on false assumptions, or come from privilege or whatever, and those are discussions worth having. But the notion that because I am a man I am not entitled to form my own opinions is just not correct.

[Faust]

Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.

I'd prefer to think of it as a good start.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Kind of  TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.

Might be semantics, but you get the idea.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Semantics.

I think it is clear enough that the objection is to enforcing beliefs, not to having them. One person's idea of ideal feminism isn't more valid than another person's, regardless of gender. As a man I can have my own ideas about what would constitute effective feminism and those ideas can differ from anyone else's, even from a woman's. Now, my ideas might be flawed, or based on false assumptions, or come from privilege or whatever, and those are discussions worth having. But the notion that because I am a man I am not entitled to form my own opinions is just not correct.

Horseshit postmodernism. If everyone's definition of feminism is equally valid then the term is meaningless.

No one is saying you can't have an opinion about what is effective feminism because you're a man any more than a white person can't have an opinion about what is an effective way to advance civil rights activism. But not being in the cohort of a group's struggle you're advocating for means you have to spend a lot of time listening very carefully to the people subjected to the oppression or you're going to come off as a self-centered, invalidating, asshole.

And discussing semantics is part of having an honest argument. If you refuse to define your terms you're likely to prove to be a goal-post-shifting weasel.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.

I'd prefer to think of it as a good start.

A good start at wearing a nudism uniform while thinking you're not a nudist.

[Faust]

Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.

I'd prefer to think of it as a good start.

A good start at wearing a nudism uniform while thinking you're not a nudist.

Because making the choice not to be something when you already share characteristics with it is impossible.
People Literally never change.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Kind of  TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.

Might be semantics, but you get the idea.

That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?

You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."

[Faust]

Kind of  TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.

Might be semantics, but you get the idea.

That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?

You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."

You can reject the isms but not all the characteristics of the isms, generally collectivist ideals should be questioned and the best way to do so is to initially reject them.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Kind of  TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.

Might be semantics, but you get the idea.

That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?

You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."

Quite the opposite, I said if you're thinking for yourself you won't be sucked in by ISMs. Re-read.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Kind of  TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.

Might be semantics, but you get the idea.

That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?

You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."

You can reject the isms but not all the characteristics of the isms, generally collectivist ideals should be questioned and the best way to do so is to initially reject them.

Uncritical rejection is no better than uncritical acceptance.

Admitting you don't know about something and withholding judgment until you've investigated it is far better than continuing a kneejerk response to a suffix.