Tennessee getting ready to throw poor students under the bus.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Listen to the rest of the video, Johnny. There's a reason he says what he says - responding with butthurt to underprivileged groups' anger at privileged groups is indicative of a person who doesn't understand their privilege.

Yeah, except I'm not pissed at your anger, I'm pissed at a fucking bigoted statement.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Vex, I wasn't accusing Roger/other known allies of cookie seeking. No one on this board has, to my knowledge, been a cookie seeker, because I think PD does a fairly good job at biped-ery.

So we're the GOOD cishets.

I see.

And everyone else is a cookie seeker until proven otherwise.  I mean, me, I want a better life for my daughter, who isn't CIS.  I also like to look in the mirror every morning without wincing.

I mean, to be perfectly honest, I don't give a fuck about your validation ("cookies"), and I don't see why anyone else would, either. 

The whole cookie-seeker thing, to me, seems like a means by which to be able to hate on "cishets" even if they wish to be supportive.  It enables bigotry.

My daughter's comment, by the way, as of 5 minutes ago, was this:

"I feel lucky that, in this awful town, I have 10 close friends that are fully supportive of me.  I don't think they would be if they met Juana before they met me."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I have to say, I would feel bad if I thought this were motivated by anything other than Roger's butthurt, because a) if it weren't, you probably would have taken exception to the REST of the comment and b) it wasn't even directed at him. That smells like left over butthurt to me.

Oh, dear.

I don't need to have a bigoted comment directed at me to be offended by it, especially if I am in the population subset that you are talking about.

But I can't possibly be offended by something YOU said, right?  It must be "old butthurt".

Hey, Garbo, how about you and I never fucking speak again, okay?   I don't much like you, anymore.  I sort of lump you in with the homophobes, etc, now.

[Sita]

No, my comment was directed at ONE shit head who was acting in a manner typical of white cishet male privilege (WCHMP) as an institution. You continue to conflate criticism of the institution of WCHMP with criticism of the individual.

Which really doesn't make any sense to me, since my very limited understanding of this CIS nonsense is that it's all what gender/orientation you see yourself as. How that is an institution I don't know.
But with that in mind would you be fine if someone made the same statement using the word(s) gay, bi or trans? If they said it was the institution they were talking about?
Because I really see no difference.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Roger, they are so far away from identical, they're not even on the same planet.

IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT.

Last time: any criticisms I have made have been directed at institutions. The one and only personal comment I have made was directed at someone I think that we both, all other differences aside, can agree is an asshole.

Then use words that refer to institutions, not people. Being 100% serious about that.


If I wanted to be lumped in with people I consider abhorrent, I could go to Tumblr.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Let's just try that out, Sita:

Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt.

Hell hath no fury like a transgendered person with his feelings hurt.

Hell hath no fury like a Black woman with her feelings hurt.

Yep.  Nailed it one, Sita.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've argued the drug testing thing with a few people who are in favor of it so far and although it probably actually WILL lead to people's benefits being reduced the fact that it CAN lead to more taxes is an important part of the conversation.  If you can get the person who doesn't want to help poor people buy drugs to realize that there is a definite possibility he's going to be paying more taxes to make sure that no welfare  money goes to drugs then he's less likely to push the position as aggressively.  It also means that he has to actually embrace the "take grandma's grocery money to pay to drug test" position which is morally difficult for most people.  Of course most cling to "it'll save us money" and screech.

This baffles me. It's been shown to always cost more, fuck people over and help no one. Especially the sectors it is actually trying to help. Is it a perception thing? Like it should save money and help filthy addicts?

It's a side effect of shame. "I'm not like THEM. I'm different and better than THEM. I'm not black or on drugs or a single mom like THEM. I'M DIFFERENT".

If they can convince themselves that they're better, more worthy, more deserving, different from the OTHER assistance recipients, then they can align themselves with the idea that really, they're more like the wealthy, the worthy, the "job-creators". But in order to do that, they have to demonize the THEM who is all the other people on assistance that everyone looks down on. It also makes them feel like they have some measure of control over their lives and their future, because THOSE OTHERS were BAD, and since they're not BAD like THEM, they will someday be better off.

It's a hard and painful reality to accept that actually, the majority of people receiving assistance are pretty much just like you, or have other extenuating circumstances that justify the assistance, because that makes the world look like a pretty shitty and fucked-up place where a lot of decent, hardworking people can't seem to make life better for themselves even if they try real hard.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

After reading the replies to this thread, I can say that there is absolutely nothing resembling credibility concerning the way I now view the opinions of the persons who made reply to me.

Certainly their were logical arguments here and there, but when I literally got told the most stereotypical liberal trope (one I wished had only been a simple stereotype) -- check your privilege -- I couldn't help but stop reading, and begin to promptly laugh until I shit my pants with the throbbing force of 1000 moons.

When the thread started speaking of racism, classism, sexism and then began making implications leaning towards steering the argument towards birth control, again, another 1000 moons of shit pulsed forth from my now-bleeding asshole at the sheer hilarity of what I was reading. Bonus points when someone piped up and assumed that Glenn Beck was someone I look up to.

Between taking quote out of context and the rabble of screams for the death of this poor, redneck, racist, CIS-scum, I can't help but laugh at how terribly accurate the stereotypes concerning liberal thinkers are.

Anyway, to make mention of the BIP...

Even years ago when I was still the dirty pot-smoking, wealth redistributing, welfare queen faggot, the BIP literally came off as nothing but a pale, gloom and doom, post-modern garbagecan-rehash of a little yellow book written by a stoned, schizophrenic hippy, and a slightly autistic UNIX programmer, who denounced the whole shitstain he'd created in the end anyway.

As for you Nigel, if you were paying as much in taxes as you claim (and no doubt these figures are true), then I can aptly say that the disparity of wealth between myself and you at the time of your prime, is such that in your failure and subsequent poverty, the old me would have been the one revelling in the fall of "just another rich fuck". Current CIS-scum capitalist me sees your use of the welfare system as a positive use of the system...the me that would have agreed with this thread sees it as just desserts for making more money than myself and my compatriots.

Anyway, I hope great prosperity in the future arguements of the whole lot of you. Perhaps one day, when by winning, you tax my working class ass back into the underclasses, you can marvel at the fact that you'll be paying for my food, taking care of my ails, and providing me housing...regardless of intellectually deformed or unworthy of your assistance you may deem me. You will be financing the existance of pure scum that is nothing but an ideological and fiscal drain on society...and this is what you get in WINNING your argument!

So I take it that you don't care for it much when uninformed, derogatory stereotypes (sorta like the ones you spout about welfare recipients) are applied to you? 

Yeah, I kind of figured as much. Check your assumptions at the door, monkey-boy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt.

Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.

Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.

Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.

Ah that's better.

This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded. Your whole position that the poor should get some sort of assistance is literally the definition of entitlement...look anywhere that isn't PD for that definition, and you'll see that you're the entitled fuck.

And I will enjoy driving on my company's roads...because so long as my company is profitable enough to maintain those roads, I'll have a motivation to form a voluntary association with them.

Also, fuck you librul joo, imma go fuck mah sister, drink sum beer and watch nascar now, k?

Child, you won't leave here until your arse is red raw. But do enlighten me, why is the definition retarded?

Do you think your corporation will choose to voluntarly associate with you for long? You seem to offer nothing to the table. Why are you worth anything, let alone 9.50 again?

Well, I'm worth my wage because the company has need of what I do. I'm unconcerned with how long they choose to maintain that association; the market for my job is actually quite under-saturated and there are positions available from a plethora of companies offering the same type of work.

In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand

Uhhhh

at $9.50/hour, it can't be THAT high of demand.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As for you Nigel, if you were paying as much in taxes as you claim (and no doubt these figures are true), then I can aptly say that the disparity of wealth between myself and you at the time of your prime, is such that in your failure and subsequent poverty, the old me would have been the one revelling in the fall of "just another rich fuck". Current CIS-scum capitalist me sees your use of the welfare system as a positive use of the system...the me that would have agreed with this thread sees it as just desserts for making more money than myself and my compatriots.

Dude, stop now.

Ehhh, don't worry about it. He's too dumb to understand the difference between "quit working a $30k/year job to go back to school so I can make $100+k/year again" and "welfare queen".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.

Yes.  I have noticed that.

And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.

There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".

FFS, Roger. I apologized for that comment months ago and meant it. I don't have any contempt for people who are cisgender, just because they're cis. It's a thing, just like being trans* is. Nor am I lumping anyone, and my comment is very much different than his. Mine was a comment about a typical reaction in this situation by a non-biped like him, and his was, well, a typical non-biped response.

Yeah, sorta like if I called you a typical privileged honkey.

I'm sure that would not at all undermine any of the points I've made about bigotry or prejudice or stereotype over the years.

Don't you think you have better credibility when you can engage in a discussion about privilege without resorting to stereotyping and bigotry via derogatory use of labeling words?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I miss seeing Phoxy here.
Phoxy never whined about CIShet and cookies.
She'd just RIP YOUR HEAD OFF AND EAT IT if you acted like a dick. Other than that, everybody was just people.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,

Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?

Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers".  You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it. 

Or maybe you couldn't.

Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.

Fuck you, the two situations are IDENTICAL.  So take your "privilege" shut-down comment and shove it up your arse.  The fact that *I* may have privilege you don't have does NOT give *you* an excuse to make bigoted fucking statements.

Roger, they are so far away from identical, they're not even on the same planet.
I wasn't going to post this one, because the dude is, hmm, a little angrier than I think is possibly constructive and perhaps a little dismissive of cishets, but I think it's pretty apt, since this is now about cis-ness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
FTR, I don't find cishets/straight people annoying until they prove to be annoying as individual people. I also think you're conflating anger at the system and with the institutions with anger at individuals. The only time I'm angry with an individual - and I don't think I'm unique - is when that person behaves as part of the system.

No, I am not wild about certain kinds of people who claim it because they do it as if saying "I'm for equal marriage!" makes them an exceptional person who deserves cookies, instead of a person who meets the basic criteria for a decent human being.

Some people might do it out of principle.  But don't let that stand in the way of your contempt.

Look, the system destroys the lives of the underprivileged. It oppresses and kills and rapes them. They have every right to resent the system. To penalize the people who vent about those issues is to ignore the fact that the people who benefit from the system (whatever intersection of race, class, gender, etc.) don't face those issues. We've already gone over what those issues are, so I won't beat a dead horse and repeat them, but it is still a fact that a member of privileged group A becoming upset when underprivileged group A complains about them as a group is making the issues about them as a person.

The obvious answer, of course, is to drive away anyone who is interested in helping with passive bigotry, so that you can continue to be the very, very special rebel, tirelessly fighting the powers that be...Solo.  Far more dramatic that way.

We had this debate and I'm not interested in rehashing it.

I am really not understanding why you cannot grasp that the way you insist on labeling people is offensive. "Cishets"?

Have you taken any psychology classes? Do you know the reasons why psychologists try really hard to avoid referring to people by the names of their disorders? We don't have "a Bipolar" or "a Borderline" because it's completely, utterly dehumanizing.

It's the same thing when we try to be sensitive to the fact that trans and queer people are, first and foremost, people. It is a PERSON who is trans or gay or bi or whatever. Sort of like we don't say "this Black I know".

Is it making any more sense?

When you make a sweeping derogatory statement using "cishet" as a label, you are including all cisgendered heterosexual people in your statement by association, whether that's what you intended or not. VERY VERY much as if  you said "That's just like a negro".

You can try to dilute this with arguments about privilege and entitlement, but although I agree that derogatory statements by an oppressed class have less power (and that is debatable, because if you use them to alienate the empowered, they can have a great deal of power), I do not agree that the lack of power makes them less derogatory or more acceptable.

To paraphrase Leslie Marmon Silko, all you are doing is speaking the enemy's language.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt.

Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.

Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.

Thing is, this is one of those moments where a person (me) has to step back and say "this person does not represent the position".