It has been discussed at great length whether or not it is acceptable for members of oppressed or underprivileged groups to make statements about privileged groups that would normally be considered offensive or simply rude.
Typically, this takes the form of "fuck [straight/white/cisgendered/male] people" or some variety thereof, followed by a lengthy explanation about why such statements are dangerous from the privileged, but harmless from the oppressed. I fully accept and acknowledge that hate speech, or even merely callous speech, from the privileged creates a more toxic environment and leads to vastly greater harm in the grand scheme. Frankly, I don't gave a shit if a couple of pissants want to say shitty things about the various demographic categories I belong to. My skin is thicker than that.
However, there is a very sinister problem behind this kind of thinking. When you say "it doesn't matter if I say these things," what are you really saying?
You are claiming that your hurtful-sounding words are not actually hurtful. You are claiming that your words do not affect your environment in a meaningful way.
You are affirming, even celebrating, your own powerlessness.
This is a form of surrender.
Either that, or it's just exceptionalism on the march.
The short & skinny is, the moment someone spouts off like that, I immediately stop taking them seriously.
Unless they're talking about the Irish or the Welsh, of course. That's just good sense.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 16, 2014, 03:42:01 AM
Either that, or it's just exceptionalism on the march.
The short & skinny is, the moment someone spouts off like that, I immediately stop taking them seriously.
Unless they're talking about the Irish or the Welsh, of course. That's just good sense.
Sure. Exceptionalism definitely plays a big part in a lot of that kind of thinking. I guess I'm just experimenting with trying to tinker with that mindset from the inside.
If I was a spag, I'd probably call it counter-memetics or something.
Murder doesn't happen to white people.
Sure, some white people are killed by other races, which is unfortunate, but it's important to remember that murder is institutionalized power, plus killing. Since only white people hold this coveted position of institutionalized power, ergo murder doesn't happen to white people. White people just get killed sometimes. Check your privilege.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on January 16, 2014, 04:16:42 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 16, 2014, 03:42:01 AM
Either that, or it's just exceptionalism on the march.
The short & skinny is, the moment someone spouts off like that, I immediately stop taking them seriously.
Unless they're talking about the Irish or the Welsh, of course. That's just good sense.
Sure. Exceptionalism definitely plays a big part in a lot of that kind of thinking. I guess I'm just experimenting with trying to tinker with that mindset from the inside.
If I was a spag, I'd probably call it counter-memetics or something.
"I am a special snowflake. I have license to do this."
Quote from: Hoopla on January 16, 2014, 01:28:51 PM
Murder doesn't happen to white people.
Sure, some white people are killed by other races, which is unfortunate, but it's important to remember that murder is institutionalized power, plus killing. Since only white people hold this coveted position of institutionalized power, ergo murder doesn't happen to white people. White people just get killed sometimes. Check your privilege.
The last time I checked my privilege, they tried to give me someone else's when I left. And when I DID get mine back, someone swiped my smokes.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on January 16, 2014, 01:12:19 AM
It has been discussed at great length whether or not it is acceptable for members of oppressed or underprivileged groups to make statements about privileged groups that would normally be considered offensive or simply rude.
Typically, this takes the form of "fuck [straight/white/cisgendered/male] people" or some variety thereof, followed by a lengthy explanation about why such statements are dangerous from the privileged, but harmless from the oppressed. I fully accept and acknowledge that hate speech, or even merely callous speech, from the privileged creates a more toxic environment and leads to vastly greater harm in the grand scheme. Frankly, I don't gave a shit if a couple of pissants want to say shitty things about the various demographic categories I belong to. My skin is thicker than that.
However, there is a very sinister problem behind this kind of thinking. When you say "it doesn't matter if I say these things," what are you really saying?
You are claiming that your hurtful-sounding words are not actually hurtful. You are claiming that your words do not affect your environment in a meaningful way.
You are affirming, even celebrating, your own powerlessness.
This is a form of surrender.
I like your thinking. This is good, and useful, and I'm gonna come back to it after yoga.
Have you been reading TumblrInaction* again Cainad?
I like what you have to say. There is something very pernicious about such a worldview, as you point out. It's not just the affirmation of powerlessness, though that's certainly an aspect. I sometimes think such people are hooked on the catharsis of posing themselves as underdogs, freed of all responsibility and normal limits on behaviour. "I'm oppressed by such vast and all encompassing powers, I have to use every method to struggle for freedom/equality/buzzword".
Hence why such behaviour seems to mirror that of online trolls so much. Freedom to treat certain people in whatever manner you want, because they are worth less/the oppressor/public enemy plus internet anonymity invariably goes to strange extremes. That's why I've always insisted on certain ethnical standards when I go trolling - it's far too easy to fall into the trap of assumed superiority, and end up becoming not only a bigot or jerk, but stupid as well. Because extreme measures require stronger and stronger rationalizations, and eventually those rationalizations become an excuse to say anything you please.
I mean, to use an extreme and rare example, I've seen male rape victims being mocked by so-called feminist activists, because men can't be raped, all men are oppressors and the men in question probably did something to deserve it anyway. You can't reach that level of severe cognitive dissonance without some kind of extreme licence to justify yourself.
I have some more thoughts on this, but I have a paper to write, so it may take a few days to collect my thoughts.
*I'm starting to find TiA almost as unbearable and ridiculous as the people they criticize. It seems like certain rightwingers are latching onto the stupidity of the far left to discredit equality as a whole. Something the idiots they criticize seem more than happy to help out with.
Cainad, may I have permission to repost this? I think it will add to the conversation I'm having with a black mama friend of mine who is in the process of writing about some of the bullshit expectations placed on black women, not just by the dominant white male society but by other black women.
Quote from: Cain on January 16, 2014, 05:06:18 PM
Have you been reading TumblrInaction* again Cainad?
I like what you have to say. There is something very pernicious about such a worldview, as you point out. It's not just the affirmation of powerlessness, though that's certainly an aspect. I sometimes think such people are hooked on the catharsis of posing themselves as underdogs, freed of all responsibility and normal limits on behaviour. "I'm oppressed by such vast and all encompassing powers, I have to use every method to struggle for freedom/equality/buzzword".
Hence why such behaviour seems to mirror that of online trolls so much. Freedom to treat certain people in whatever manner you want, because they are worth less/the oppressor/public enemy plus internet anonymity invariably goes to strange extremes. That's why I've always insisted on certain ethnical standards when I go trolling - it's far too easy to fall into the trap of assumed superiority, and end up becoming not only a bigot or jerk, but stupid as well. Because extreme measures require stronger and stronger rationalizations, and eventually those rationalizations become an excuse to say anything you please.
I mean, to use an extreme and rare example, I've seen male rape victims being mocked by so-called feminist activists, because men can't be raped, all men are oppressors and the men in question probably did something to deserve it anyway. You can't reach that level of severe cognitive dissonance without some kind of extreme licence to justify yourself.
I have some more thoughts on this, but I have a paper to write, so it may take a few days to collect my thoughts.
*I'm starting to find TiA almost as unbearable and ridiculous as the people they criticize. It seems like certain rightwingers are latching onto the stupidity of the far left to discredit equality as a whole. Something the idiots they criticize seem more than happy to help out with.
I really like your line of thinking on this, I hope you do find time to write more about it. I don't think that "othering" the dominant demographic is constructive, positive, or justified at all. It is complicit with the problem.
What my friend is writing about is her experience of being a not-angry, nerdy black woman who has more in common with nerds (of any color) than with the Angry Black Women she is expected to be one of. Refusing to "other" white people has gotten her called an Uncle Tom, a house nigger, and a white man's whore, in those words. However, how the fuck are black women supposed to gain entry to society if we insist on standing apart from it? Do we want to be seen as multifaceted interesting people who have a depth of skills and interests, or do we want to perpetuate stereotypes that leave us with a two-dimensional image?
America is still a frontier country for black women. We have yet to make significant forays into science, medicine, media, and art. We say that we're excluded, but I think that it's quite possible that the exclusion is, to some degree, mutual.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 16, 2014, 05:25:24 PM
Cainad, may I have permission to repost this? I think it will add to the conversation I'm having with a black mama friend of mine who is in the process of writing about some of the bullshit expectations placed on black women, not just by the dominant white male society but by other black women.
Yes, and feel free to make edits as you see fit to get the message across.
I'll comment further when I'm not on my phone. This is like typing through molasses.
Quote from: Cain on January 16, 2014, 05:06:18 PM
Have you been reading TumblrInaction* again Cainad?
I like what you have to say. There is something very pernicious about such a worldview, as you point out. It's not just the affirmation of powerlessness, though that's certainly an aspect. I sometimes think such people are hooked on the catharsis of posing themselves as underdogs, freed of all responsibility and normal limits on behaviour. "I'm oppressed by such vast and all encompassing powers, I have to use every method to struggle for freedom/equality/buzzword".
Hence why such behaviour seems to mirror that of online trolls so much. Freedom to treat certain people in whatever manner you want, because they are worth less/the oppressor/public enemy plus internet anonymity invariably goes to strange extremes. That's why I've always insisted on certain ethnical standards when I go trolling - it's far too easy to fall into the trap of assumed superiority, and end up becoming not only a bigot or jerk, but stupid as well. Because extreme measures require stronger and stronger rationalizations, and eventually those rationalizations become an excuse to say anything you please.
I mean, to use an extreme and rare example, I've seen male rape victims being mocked by so-called feminist activists, because men can't be raped, all men are oppressors and the men in question probably did something to deserve it anyway. You can't reach that level of severe cognitive dissonance without some kind of extreme licence to justify yourself.
I have some more thoughts on this, but I have a paper to write, so it may take a few days to collect my thoughts.
*I'm starting to find TiA almost as unbearable and ridiculous as the people they criticize. It seems like certain rightwingers are latching onto the stupidity of the far left to discredit equality as a whole. Something the idiots they criticize seem more than happy to help out with.
Actually a fair amount of crap crosses my Tumblr dashboard on a regular basis. And I follow other Tumblrs almost exclusively for LARP, Dark Souls, or similarly nerdy content. It's so pervasive that I see it pretty much daily, although usually not the extremes that get picked for TumblrInAction.
While it's perfectly clear to ME, and no doubt to most of PeeDee, why the raving Social Justice Asshat attitude and mentality is asinine at best and toxic at worst, it can be a very tough thing to express to people mired in
Cartesian Dualism the echo chamber. It certainly doesn't help that a lot of people who most actively speak against them are, in fact, racist/sexist/basically everything that MRAs are routinely guilty of. Extremists bouncing off extremists.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 16, 2014, 05:35:11 PM
What my friend is writing about is her experience of being a not-angry, nerdy black woman who has more in common with nerds (of any color) than with the Angry Black Women she is expected to be one of. Refusing to "other" white people has gotten her called an Uncle Tom, a house nigger, and a white man's whore, in those words. However, how the fuck are black women supposed to gain entry to society if we insist on standing apart from it? Do we want to be seen as multifaceted interesting people who have a depth of skills and interests, or do we want to perpetuate stereotypes that leave us with a two-dimensional image?
America is still a frontier country for black women. We have yet to make significant forays into science, medicine, media, and art. We say that we're excluded, but I think that it's quite possible that the exclusion is, to some degree, mutual.
That's pretty interesting. Being a black woman in America is about as far from my own life experience as you can get (other than the 'American' part), so it's a perspective I'm interested in hearing from.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on January 16, 2014, 08:05:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 16, 2014, 05:25:24 PM
Cainad, may I have permission to repost this? I think it will add to the conversation I'm having with a black mama friend of mine who is in the process of writing about some of the bullshit expectations placed on black women, not just by the dominant white male society but by other black women.
Yes, and feel free to make edits as you see fit to get the message across.
I'll comment further when I'm not on my phone. This is like typing through molasses.
Awesome, thank you!
Quote from: Hoopla on January 16, 2014, 01:28:51 PM
Murder doesn't happen to white people.
Sure, some white people are killed by other races, which is unfortunate, but it's important to remember that murder is institutionalized power, plus killing. Since only white people hold this coveted position of institutionalized power, ergo murder doesn't happen to white people. White people just get killed sometimes. Check your privilege.
Forgot to give :mittens:
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on January 17, 2014, 12:22:34 AM
That's pretty interesting. Being a black woman in America is about as far from my own life experience as you can get (other than the 'American' part), so it's a perspective I'm interested in hearing from.
I'll link you to her blog, it's pretty good.
Here are her parts 1 and 2 on race and beauty:
hxxp://buildameworkshop.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/race-and-beauty-part-1/
hxxp://buildameworkshop.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/race-and-beauty-part-2/
Gracias!
Also her picture on the right there is wonderful.
Isn't it great? She's great.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 17, 2014, 01:27:59 AM
Isn't it great? She's great.
I just read both articles. She's
really great. This is stuff that is 100% out of my realm of experience.
DAMMIT NIGEL! NOW I HAVE A NEW BLOG TO FOLLOW!
Quote from: :regret: on January 17, 2014, 09:34:23 PM
DAMMIT NIGEL! NOW I HAVE A NEW BLOG TO FOLLOW!
:thanks:
I think my most basic objection to this type of thinking - aside from the charge of hypocrisy, of course - is that it speaks to an understanding of society which I simply don't share, and in fact that I find somewhat dangerous.
My basic approach to society could be summed up as Machiavelli meets Marx - power and class are the two determining factors. Of course there are other factors, but IMO those are the overriding ones. By contrast, the POV that seems to be put forward by these people is one of racial identity primacy.
To use the language of tumblr, I find that extremely, uh, problematic. I'll try and write up some objections tonight - the problem is, when I tried drafting it in my head earlier I was dividing it into chapters. I think it's a cultural antipathy thing as much as political/philosophical disagreement, which makes it really hard to tell the more valid complaints from, say, bitching at people who think Doctor Who and Sherlock are the best things since sliced bread (as you know, the fandom overlap with these kind of views is pretty large).
Looking forward to it, when you get the chance.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2014, 09:18:40 PM
I think my most basic objection to this type of thinking - aside from the charge of hypocrisy, of course - is that it speaks to an understanding of society which I simply don't share, and in fact that I find somewhat dangerous.
My basic approach to society could be summed up as Machiavelli meets Marx - power and class are the two determining factors. Of course there are other factors, but IMO those are the overriding ones. By contrast, the POV that seems to be put forward by these people is one of racial identity primacy.
To use the language of tumblr, I find that extremely, uh, problematic. I'll try and write up some objections tonight - the problem is, when I tried drafting it in my head earlier I was dividing it into chapters. I think it's a cultural antipathy thing as much as political/philosophical disagreement, which makes it really hard to tell the more valid complaints from, say, bitching at people who think Doctor Who and Sherlock are the best things since sliced bread (as you know, the fandom overlap with these kind of views is pretty large).
Picking these apart in my own head gets pretty messy. :lulz: The overlap of obnoxious fandoms with social justice, combined with the echo chamber effect and the generally "faceless" nature of the medium make it all seem like one big blur of misguided tween stupidity.
So, my objections somewhat expanded in scope as I tried to write out a fuller reply to this. It became something of a rant against...well, what is called the "Social Justice Warrior" subculture, though I dislike that particular name (I happen to think social justice is a worthy cause, and would rather it not be associated with juvenile nitwits and subaltern extremists).
My first problem could be with what could charitably be called "privilege theory" and how it is deployed. Despite all the talk about "intersectionality", privilege theory involves taking racially and gender essentialist concepts and weighing them in a perpetual oppression Olympics to discover who is the least privileged by society.
There are a number of issues with that. First is the concept of "privilege" itself. It's...not a good word to use. A lot of what is described as privilege are rights that should be extended to everyone. In other words, male privilege or white privilege are only bad because they are restricted to whites or males. However, I've rarely ever seen it put in those terms. Instead, the way in which privilege is used by those who write about it...well, it's deployed in a very negative context and way, as something to be condemned and avoided. It suggests any form of advantage is necessarily bad, and the people who have it should feel bad, and while that may not always be explicitly stated, it is in some quarters.
The second problem is the gender and race essentialism that accompanies this. There are often strong, if frequently unspoken assumptions about what is considered female or black or asian or similar, and works from the assumption that this identity is, in all social circumstances, the most important determining factor. The possibility of other factors, such as class, education, religion, sexual identity, political affiliation etc are either erased or, occasionally, fetishised. As are the possibilities of varying import in different social milieus that make up this vast, incomprehensible beast we call "society".
Intersectionality theory, if correctly deployed, might mitigate against this tendency. However, intersectionality as it currently exists does nothing more than add reified and naturalized identities into an ahistorical understanding of society. Furthermore, the way intersectionality is used is inherently divisive, it brings up greater divisions between apparently oppressed groups who have similar goals in aiming for liberation. Ironically intersectionality therefore becomes a reinforcement tool for racial and gender essentialism, by focusing on those threads of commonality rather than shared commonality of oppression in a late capitalist system which unites those differing genders, racial identities and classes.
When these identities are taken into account, they are often weighted in, shall we say...questionable ways. In a capitalist society, there is one overriding advantage: capital. However, when intersectionality is deployed, it often "stacks" identities of oppression in such a way that it would not be hard to conclude that a homeless white man is more "privileged" than Condi Rice, since she is both black and a woman (but is rich). Identity trumps materiality, despite identity being very much a product of materiality.
So, yeah, privilege theory is, to talk like the yoof of today, "problematic".
Some of the blame for how this has come about can be laid at the feet of Critical Race Theory. Again, a charitable if questionable (ab)use of that word...theory. According to La Wiki, CRT is "an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory, a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power."
CRT was the brainchild of Derrick Bell, an Africa-American academic with a sideline in science fiction stories about white Americans selling blacks to space aliens to pay off the national debt. Bell pioneered much of what passes as discourse in this circles nowadays, including the concept of "microaggressions". According to UCLA, where Bell was a professor;
QuoteCRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
Somewhat ironically, Bell's own name for his theory was "Race Realism". I wonder if David Duke is aware of this?
Bell believed that it was impossible for blacks to gain full equality in America, due to the essentially racist structure of its society and government: "Black people will never gain full equality in this country. Even those Herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than 'temporary peaks of progress,' short lived victories that slide into irrelevance as racial patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance."
Interestingly, Bell was, unlike many African-Americans at the time, not very interested in Marx or socialism in general. This may explain why his theory managed to gain currency during a period when black/socialist politics were extremely suspect in American society, as it provided a "safe" alternative to the more radical message of Malcolm X and MLK. It also throws some doubt on what is meant by "critical" in the "critical race theory", as "critical theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Theory)" is a Neo-Marxist approach to analysing society and culture. Of course, it's possible that this meant "critical" in the more general sense, but given "critical theory" has a well known meaning in academia, I do wonder about that name...
The name itself was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who applied CRT's analytical lense to racism more generally, as well as feminism and was critical in the formation of "intersectionality". She is currently a professor in UCLA's Law School, and studied under Bell.
So, there are a lot of problems with the theoretical background these people draw from.
Onto their behaviour....
One aspect that could explain this is groupthink. In fact, look at this paragraph:
QuoteThe member's firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that "we are a wise and good group" inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. "Since our group's objectives are good," the members feel, "any means we decide to use must be good." This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group
That's from Irving L. Janis in
Victims of Groupthink. It's almost a perfect description of the kind of behaviour these people engage in.
Being on the internet exacerbates the first symptom of groupthink, the feeling of invulnerability which results both from anonymity and the righteousness of their cause. The nature of social networking, which allows dissenting voices to be easily excluded conforms to the second symptom or sign, the collective effort to rationalise behaviour. They stress the righteousness of their cause and stereotype their enemies as unforgivably evil, which justifies the extreme measures taken. Members are encouraged to stifle disagreement through abuse of the idea of "safe spaces", which creates an illusion of conformity which dissuades some from voicing their doubts (see: Asch conformity experiments).
In some ways, their strategy does work. Rude and abusive behaviour does polarize readers, often causing a negative reaction to what is being protested against. Sadly, most people on tumblr and similar are not actually going out of their way to attack actual racists or homophobes or whatever, but instead "allies" who said something which could be misconstrued or was impolitic (but not necessarily offensive or morally reprehensive).
This angry use of language often causes the amygdala to hijack the frontal lobe, making rational thinking harder and exacerbating abusive behaviour. This is because that language can be seen as threatening, causing us to react in a threatened manner, even where no physical threat exists. Anthropologists have also described a process of "altruistic punishment (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3531.long)" which the brain apparently finds rewarding.
And now I feel like a dirty Marxist, after writing all that.
And not in a "we should maybe keep some of the chains" kind of dirty Marxist, either.
Fuckin' (https://imageshack.com/a/img519/5774/mittens2xi0.gif)
Really enjoyed the look into the historical context of the ideas that have filtered into Social Network Justice Asshat communities (is that a better term? Because it certainly seems like these communities spend a lot more time fighting within the sphere of social networks themselves than anywhere else).
That last bit brings up what I think I find most bothersome about these kinds of "activists." It's not that I feel threatened, or hurt more than feeling mildly put-out when they make sweeping negative generalizations about white heterosexual males. It's that there's a lot of people out there who don't give a fuck about social justice and will quite cheerfully leverage their power as a social majority to whip up antipathy for minorities in response to these statements.
Talking unnecessary shit about whites/men/heterosexuals isn't a threat to said whites/men/heteros. It's a threat to the people who don't realize how much worse things will get for them if they aren't going to be smart about their cause.
That was good. I have to disagree with your analysis of the word "privilege", though, because those rights are only privileges when there is an inequity in how they are applied and who receives them that is based in factors beyond individual people's control. The word that describes that inequity is "privilege". The fact that people frequently misuse it does not necessitate reinventing the wheel by coming up with another word for it; in my opinion it is adequate simply to use it correctly.
Maybe. I'm not especially attached to the way I approached it there, but I thought I'd throw it out as a possibly different interpretation. I'll think about it a bit more.
Cain, that was very, very good. I appreciate you writing it.
I totally, totally agree on the effects of groupthink, and the way these very insular groups tend to cannibalize. They have already shut avenues of communication with anyone who might disagree with or question them; left with no one to attack who will actually engage with them, they're left to seek targets within their own group. The result is that while they may be highly visible, they are also increasingly marginalized and have a difficult time recruiting new members; for example, the core of the self-identified Atheist movement, which is doing a bang-up job of alienating women and people who may be atheist but are insufficiently antagonistic toward religious people or toward religion itself. Another example is the black community in America, which Jessica, the blogger I linked to earlier, has been tackling in her recent blog posts.
I can't help but wonder if that also has to do with how internet social networking has become a perpetual outrage machine, built on clickbait and manufactured drama.
The end results are broadly the same as groupthink, and it would explain a rational incentive to behave in such a fashion. Attention becomes clicks becomes discussion becomes clicks becomes advertising revenue and influence. A lot of this interaction is online, which makes me think that is likely a contributing factor to how this is occuring. It happens IRL, of course, but in different ways and usually with less speed and viciousness.
Anyway, I found this cartoon on Tumblr, and thought it was relevant:
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/87a26f24aa6c38f9cef79cbc1787dbde/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo3_250.jpg)(http://31.media.tumblr.com/bb0cca8971b671653460a172d6351ad8/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo4_250.jpg)
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/c70e2c6a4527f28131a9ce8a714a0eb6/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo5_250.jpg)(http://25.media.tumblr.com/c2f83dc5286fd71e5b6823c060a83d2b/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo6_250.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/ee0c1228ac77cff27b08c8b091d7e64f/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo7_250.jpg)(http://24.media.tumblr.com/e37198bb7996c936e07f02240e02295f/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo1_250.jpg)
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/34e25a376e98fbd3a717485c2e48c614/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo10_250.jpg)(http://24.media.tumblr.com/87c3f4c3fc0ddfb7347c8acfc74670d0/tumblr_mz4o2rHMGu1tp837jo2_250.jpg)
(https://24.media.tumblr.com/d440d1ff6cfe3b9e331c9645ffdc79b4/tumblr_mz4mxg8X4H1rvxwnno1_500.jpg)
Which got this reply:
Quote from: http://fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com/post/72863877851/howaboutnohmm-from-me-to-you-please-stopThis is well intentioned, I know.
But let me make this clear: YOU do not get to decide whether or not your actions are oppressive. YOU do not get to decide whether or not you are a good ally. YOU benefit from homophobia and heteronormativity and transphobia every single day, whether you want to or not. You benefit from that and it is very likely that you are complicit in those systems without even realizing it. This is normal, but it is true.
If you look at LGBTQIAP+ who don't play nice with you, you don't cry about how mean they are being. For many of us, treating cis hetero people with default distrust is a survival mechanism. You need to understand that. You want to be an ally? Then you don't start crying when the people you want to help don't treat you like a delicate flower.
Being a good ally is listening. Posts like this? Aren't listening. Posts like this are busting onto the stage and trying to make it about you, bargaining for your support.
Which I think rather sums up everything Cainad was saying in the OP in a nice, easy to understand example of how this plays out.
Uuugh yeah standard Tumblr... that's even fairly tame and reasoned, relatively speaking.
"Survival mechanism" is a typical fallback, as if constantly posting "FUCK ALL CISHET PEOPLE" is somehow equivalent to protecting yourself from the kind of people who are a threat to them.
Because as we all know, black people protect themselves from skinheads by screaming "FUCK YOU, HONKEY" at random white people.
Yeah, I mean "survival mechanism"? Not only is that more than a bit hyperbolic, but it's a misuse of basic psychology, where mechanisms like displacement, repression of memories and similar are actual survival mechanisms. Furthermore, psychologists and counsellors would probably agree that survival mechanisms, while possibly useful as a child, are terrible behaviour patterns for adults to allow themselves to perpetuate.
But then, most people on tumblr are children, so that's not a major problem.
Quote from: Cain on February 01, 2014, 07:13:47 PM
So, my objections somewhat expanded in scope as I tried to write out a fuller reply to this. It became something of a rant against...well, what is called the "Social Justice Warrior" subculture, though I dislike that particular name (I happen to think social justice is a worthy cause, and would rather it not be associated with juvenile nitwits and subaltern extremists).
My first problem could be with what could charitably be called "privilege theory" and how it is deployed. Despite all the talk about "intersectionality", privilege theory involves taking racially and gender essentialist concepts and weighing them in a perpetual oppression Olympics to discover who is the least privileged by society.
There are a number of issues with that. First is the concept of "privilege" itself. It's...not a good word to use. A lot of what is described as privilege are rights that should be extended to everyone. In other words, male privilege or white privilege are only bad because they are restricted to whites or males. However, I've rarely ever seen it put in those terms. Instead, the way in which privilege is used by those who write about it...well, it's deployed in a very negative context and way, as something to be condemned and avoided. It suggests any form of advantage is necessarily bad, and the people who have it should feel bad, and while that may not always be explicitly stated, it is in some quarters.
The second problem is the gender and race essentialism that accompanies this. There are often strong, if frequently unspoken assumptions about what is considered female or black or asian or similar, and works from the assumption that this identity is, in all social circumstances, the most important determining factor. The possibility of other factors, such as class, education, religion, sexual identity, political affiliation etc are either erased or, occasionally, fetishised. As are the possibilities of varying import in different social milieus that make up this vast, incomprehensible beast we call "society".
Intersectionality theory, if correctly deployed, might mitigate against this tendency. However, intersectionality as it currently exists does nothing more than add reified and naturalized identities into an ahistorical understanding of society. Furthermore, the way intersectionality is used is inherently divisive, it brings up greater divisions between apparently oppressed groups who have similar goals in aiming for liberation. Ironically intersectionality therefore becomes a reinforcement tool for racial and gender essentialism, by focusing on those threads of commonality rather than shared commonality of oppression in a late capitalist system which unites those differing genders, racial identities and classes.
When these identities are taken into account, they are often weighted in, shall we say...questionable ways. In a capitalist society, there is one overriding advantage: capital. However, when intersectionality is deployed, it often "stacks" identities of oppression in such a way that it would not be hard to conclude that a homeless white man is more "privileged" than Condi Rice, since she is both black and a woman (but is rich). Identity trumps materiality, despite identity being very much a product of materiality.
So, yeah, privilege theory is, to talk like the yoof of today, "problematic".
Some of the blame for how this has come about can be laid at the feet of Critical Race Theory. Again, a charitable if questionable (ab)use of that word...theory. According to La Wiki, CRT is "an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory, a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power."
CRT was the brainchild of Derrick Bell, an Africa-American academic with a sideline in science fiction stories about white Americans selling blacks to space aliens to pay off the national debt. Bell pioneered much of what passes as discourse in this circles nowadays, including the concept of "microaggressions". According to UCLA, where Bell was a professor;
QuoteCRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
Somewhat ironically, Bell's own name for his theory was "Race Realism". I wonder if David Duke is aware of this?
Bell believed that it was impossible for blacks to gain full equality in America, due to the essentially racist structure of its society and government: "Black people will never gain full equality in this country. Even those Herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than 'temporary peaks of progress,' short lived victories that slide into irrelevance as racial patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance."
Interestingly, Bell was, unlike many African-Americans at the time, not very interested in Marx or socialism in general. This may explain why his theory managed to gain currency during a period when black/socialist politics were extremely suspect in American society, as it provided a "safe" alternative to the more radical message of Malcolm X and MLK. It also throws some doubt on what is meant by "critical" in the "critical race theory", as "critical theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Theory)" is a Neo-Marxist approach to analysing society and culture. Of course, it's possible that this meant "critical" in the more general sense, but given "critical theory" has a well known meaning in academia, I do wonder about that name...
The name itself was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who applied CRT's analytical lense to racism more generally, as well as feminism and was critical in the formation of "intersectionality". She is currently a professor in UCLA's Law School, and studied under Bell.
So, there are a lot of problems with the theoretical background these people draw from.
Onto their behaviour....
One aspect that could explain this is groupthink. In fact, look at this paragraph:
QuoteThe member's firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that "we are a wise and good group" inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. "Since our group's objectives are good," the members feel, "any means we decide to use must be good." This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group
That's from Irving L. Janis in Victims of Groupthink. It's almost a perfect description of the kind of behaviour these people engage in.
Being on the internet exacerbates the first symptom of groupthink, the feeling of invulnerability which results both from anonymity and the righteousness of their cause. The nature of social networking, which allows dissenting voices to be easily excluded conforms to the second symptom or sign, the collective effort to rationalise behaviour. They stress the righteousness of their cause and stereotype their enemies as unforgivably evil, which justifies the extreme measures taken. Members are encouraged to stifle disagreement through abuse of the idea of "safe spaces", which creates an illusion of conformity which dissuades some from voicing their doubts (see: Asch conformity experiments).
In some ways, their strategy does work. Rude and abusive behaviour does polarize readers, often causing a negative reaction to what is being protested against. Sadly, most people on tumblr and similar are not actually going out of their way to attack actual racists or homophobes or whatever, but instead "allies" who said something which could be misconstrued or was impolitic (but not necessarily offensive or morally reprehensive).
This angry use of language often causes the amygdala to hijack the frontal lobe, making rational thinking harder and exacerbating abusive behaviour. This is because that language can be seen as threatening, causing us to react in a threatened manner, even where no physical threat exists. Anthropologists have also described a process of "altruistic punishment (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3531.long)" which the brain apparently finds rewarding.
I'm going to go ahead and bump this in case anyone missed it.
I don't have much to add at this point besides a thank you to Cain for putting a lot of this conversation into a historical context.
Also it's good to see people making headway on the topic.
I hafta confess, i was guilty of this as recent as two days ago. A friend of mine had me over to RP. My friend is a registered libertarian, and his wife is a homeschooled Baptist Republican, and after one more Mexican joke than i was fully comfortable with, I busted out and called him a wop dego. Granted, i don't think he'll really hold it against me, but it does bother me that i went there.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on February 02, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
Uuugh yeah standard Tumblr... that's even fairly tame and reasoned, relatively speaking.
"Survival mechanism" is a typical fallback, as if constantly posting "FUCK ALL CISHET PEOPLE" is somehow equivalent to protecting yourself from the kind of people who are a threat to them.
Because as we all know, black people protect themselves from skinheads by screaming "FUCK YOU, HONKEY" at random white people.
:mittens:
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on February 03, 2014, 04:39:15 AM
I hafta confess, i was guilty of this as recent as two days ago. A friend of mine had me over to RP. My friend is a registered libertarian, and his wife is a homeschooled Baptist Republican, and after one more Mexican joke than i was fully comfortable with, I busted out and called him a wop dego. Granted, i don't think he'll really hold it against me, but it does bother me that i went there.
Well, I assume you're talking about in person?
That's at least more earnest than the way Tumblr works, wherein people pull this shit so that they can get Internet high-fives from people who agree with them. The person being told off might as well not even be real (and sometimes they aren't; it's an insanely easy community to troll).
Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2014, 12:51:58 PM
Which got this reply:
Quote from: http://fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com/post/72863877851/howaboutnohmm-from-me-to-you-please-stopThis is well intentioned, I know.
But let me make this clear: YOU do not get to decide whether or not your actions are oppressive. YOU do not get to decide whether or not you are a good ally. YOU benefit from homophobia and heteronormativity and transphobia every single day, whether you want to or not. You benefit from that and it is very likely that you are complicit in those systems without even realizing it. This is normal, but it is true.
If you look at LGBTQIAP+ who don't play nice with you, you don't cry about how mean they are being. For many of us, treating cis hetero people with default distrust is a survival mechanism. You need to understand that. You want to be an ally? Then you don't start crying when the people you want to help don't treat you like a delicate flower.
Being a good ally is listening. Posts like this? Aren't listening. Posts like this are busting onto the stage and trying to make it about you, bargaining for your support.
Communication took place here. Of a sort.
Let's send this through the translator.
QuoteBut let me make this clear: YOU do not get to decide whether or not your actions are oppressive. YOU do not get to decide whether or not you are a good ally.
Crawl. Thanks.
QuoteIf you look at LGBTQIAP+ who don't play nice with you, you don't cry about how mean they are being. For many of us, treating cis hetero people with default distrust is a survival mechanism. You need to understand that. You want to be an ally? Then you don't start crying when the people you want to help don't treat you like a delicate flower.
We here at Tumbler, etc, will shit on you when you crawl. If you don't like it, you're a basher.
QuoteBeing a good ally is listening. Posts like this? Aren't listening. Posts like this are busting onto the stage and trying to make it about you, bargaining for your support.
If you don't like the crawling and the poop, then you aren't an ally. We here at Tumbler view "allies" the same way George W Bush did; as vassals.
I give the above quote 3 out of 4 Garbos. The remaining point was lost because CISHET MAN TEARS were not referenced.
Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2014, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: http://fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com/post/72863877851/howaboutnohmm-from-me-to-you-please-stopThis is well intentioned, I know.
But let me make this clear: YOU do not get to decide whether or not your actions are oppressive. YOU do not get to decide whether or not you are a good ally. YOU benefit from homophobia and heteronormativity and transphobia every single day, whether you want to or not. You benefit from that and it is very likely that you are complicit in those systems without even realizing it. This is normal, but it is true.
If you look at LGBTQIAP+ who don't play nice with you, you don't cry about how mean they are being. For many of us, treating cis hetero people with default distrust is a survival mechanism. You need to understand that. You want to be an ally? Then you don't start crying when the people you want to help don't treat you like a delicate flower.
Being a good ally is listening. Posts like this? Aren't listening. Posts like this are busting onto the stage and trying to make it about you, bargaining for your support.
Which I think rather sums up everything Cainad was saying in the OP in a nice, easy to understand example of how this plays out.
I would have absolutely no moral qualms with oppressing whoever wrote that. If anything it is so counter-intuitive and abrasive to the goals of equality it makes me question if those are actually the outputs that person wants, and makes me suspect that it is far more likely looking to perch themselves in some kind of perceived position of moral superiority.
I mean if you put that person and Ramesses the second into a debate on equality, Ramesses II would come out looking like Martin Luther King
My sister-in-law (and, let's be honest, the majority of my wife's side of the family) is of the racist-not-really-racist-ha-ha-racism-not-really-just-kidding tribe; or as Roger's recently put it, "not racist BUT". I'm finding it increasingly difficult not to troll the ever-loving shit out of some of her Facebook posts. Over the weekend, I couldn't help it. I replied to a post of hers
"I think your account has been hacked, and someone has been posting a lot of racist shit on your wall."
So far, there's been no response.
Quote from: Faust on February 03, 2014, 02:46:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2014, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: http://fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com/post/72863877851/howaboutnohmm-from-me-to-you-please-stopThis is well intentioned, I know.
But let me make this clear: YOU do not get to decide whether or not your actions are oppressive. YOU do not get to decide whether or not you are a good ally. YOU benefit from homophobia and heteronormativity and transphobia every single day, whether you want to or not. You benefit from that and it is very likely that you are complicit in those systems without even realizing it. This is normal, but it is true.
If you look at LGBTQIAP+ who don't play nice with you, you don't cry about how mean they are being. For many of us, treating cis hetero people with default distrust is a survival mechanism. You need to understand that. You want to be an ally? Then you don't start crying when the people you want to help don't treat you like a delicate flower.
Being a good ally is listening. Posts like this? Aren't listening. Posts like this are busting onto the stage and trying to make it about you, bargaining for your support.
Which I think rather sums up everything Cainad was saying in the OP in a nice, easy to understand example of how this plays out.
I would have absolutely no moral qualms with oppressing whoever wrote that. If anything it is so counter-intuitive and abrasive to the goals of equality it makes me question if those are actually the outputs that person wants, and makes me suspect that it is far more likely looking to perch themselves in some kind of perceived position of moral superiority.
I mean if you put that person and Ramesses the second into a debate on equality, Ramesses II would come out looking like Martin Luther King
What I love is that asking to not be called rotten names is "bargaining".
Quote from: Faust on February 03, 2014, 02:46:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2014, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: http://fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com/post/72863877851/howaboutnohmm-from-me-to-you-please-stopThis is well intentioned, I know.
But let me make this clear: YOU do not get to decide whether or not your actions are oppressive. YOU do not get to decide whether or not you are a good ally. YOU benefit from homophobia and heteronormativity and transphobia every single day, whether you want to or not. You benefit from that and it is very likely that you are complicit in those systems without even realizing it. This is normal, but it is true.
If you look at LGBTQIAP+ who don't play nice with you, you don't cry about how mean they are being. For many of us, treating cis hetero people with default distrust is a survival mechanism. You need to understand that. You want to be an ally? Then you don't start crying when the people you want to help don't treat you like a delicate flower.
Being a good ally is listening. Posts like this? Aren't listening. Posts like this are busting onto the stage and trying to make it about you, bargaining for your support.
Which I think rather sums up everything Cainad was saying in the OP in a nice, easy to understand example of how this plays out.
I would have absolutely no moral qualms with oppressing whoever wrote that. If anything it is so counter-intuitive and abrasive to the goals of equality it makes me question if those are actually the outputs that person wants, and makes me suspect that it is far more likely looking to perch themselves in some kind of perceived position of moral superiority.
I mean if you put that person and Ramesses the second into a debate on equality, Ramesses II would come out looking like Martin Luther King
I think there may be something else at play here, in particular some sort of persecution complex and fucked up idea of superiority due to your difference.
As Faust says, many of these people act in ways that will obviously piss most people off. They're not looking for allies, they're looking for
attention. "I am X. You are not X. Ergo, I, and I alone can define what is the proper way to treat X. Oh, he's not X, he's just Xa and irrelevant to this discussion. She's Xb so again irrelevant. Only the true X can define appropriate behaviours here."
Part of what makes me think this is the fact that LBGT is now LGBTQIAP+. I'd like to think I'm a fairly progessive chap but I can't say for certain what QIAP+ even is. I'm not even inclined to try and find out because the chances are I probably treat QIAP+ people roughly the way I treat everyone else. Badly.
There's something else here too about the politics of inclusion/exclusion but I need to think about that more. Something along the lines of automatically excluding people from being with you will almost invariably turn them against you, eventually.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 03, 2014, 03:36:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on February 03, 2014, 02:46:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 02, 2014, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: http://fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com/post/72863877851/howaboutnohmm-from-me-to-you-please-stopThis is well intentioned, I know.
But let me make this clear: YOU do not get to decide whether or not your actions are oppressive. YOU do not get to decide whether or not you are a good ally. YOU benefit from homophobia and heteronormativity and transphobia every single day, whether you want to or not. You benefit from that and it is very likely that you are complicit in those systems without even realizing it. This is normal, but it is true.
If you look at LGBTQIAP+ who don't play nice with you, you don't cry about how mean they are being. For many of us, treating cis hetero people with default distrust is a survival mechanism. You need to understand that. You want to be an ally? Then you don't start crying when the people you want to help don't treat you like a delicate flower.
Being a good ally is listening. Posts like this? Aren't listening. Posts like this are busting onto the stage and trying to make it about you, bargaining for your support.
Which I think rather sums up everything Cainad was saying in the OP in a nice, easy to understand example of how this plays out.
I would have absolutely no moral qualms with oppressing whoever wrote that. If anything it is so counter-intuitive and abrasive to the goals of equality it makes me question if those are actually the outputs that person wants, and makes me suspect that it is far more likely looking to perch themselves in some kind of perceived position of moral superiority.
I mean if you put that person and Ramesses the second into a debate on equality, Ramesses II would come out looking like Martin Luther King
I think there may be something else at play here, in particular some sort of persecution complex and fucked up idea of superiority due to your difference.
As Faust says, many of these people act in ways that will obviously piss most people off. They're not looking for allies, they're looking for attention. "I am X. You are not X. Ergo, I, and I alone can define what is the proper way to treat X. Oh, he's not X, he's just Xa and irrelevant to this discussion. She's Xb so again irrelevant. Only the true X can define appropriate behaviours here."
So, basically, it's just one elaborate & huge No True Scotsman argument.
QuotePart of what makes me think this is the fact that LBGT is now LGBTQIAP+. I'd like to think I'm a fairly progessive chap but I can't say for certain what QIAP+ even is. I'm not even inclined to try and find out because the chances are I probably treat QIAP+ people roughly the way I treat everyone else. Badly.
Many would like it if you'd take the "A" out. "A" gets in the way of the histrionic posturing.
QuoteThere's something else here too about the politics of inclusion/exclusion but I need to think about that more. Something along the lines of automatically excluding people from being with you will almost invariably turn them against you, eventually.
"Immediately."
QuoteSo, basically, it's just one elaborate & huge No True Scotsman argument.
Well, yes. At least from some from what I've seen.
QuoteMany would like it if you'd take the "A" out. "A" gets in the way of the histrionic posturing.
A:
Asexual?
Alaskan?
I'm going to assume it's one of those and refuse to hear any corrections.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 03, 2014, 04:23:55 PM
QuoteSo, basically, it's just one elaborate & huge No True Scotsman argument.
Well, yes. At least from some from what I've seen.
QuoteMany would like it if you'd take the "A" out. "A" gets in the way of the histrionic posturing.
A:
Asexual?
Alaskan?
I'm going to assume it's one of those and refuse to hear any corrections.
"Allies", last time I heard.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 03, 2014, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 03, 2014, 04:23:55 PM
QuoteSo, basically, it's just one elaborate & huge No True Scotsman argument.
Well, yes. At least from some from what I've seen.
QuoteMany would like it if you'd take the "A" out. "A" gets in the way of the histrionic posturing.
A:
Asexual?
Alaskan?
I'm going to assume it's one of those and refuse to hear any corrections.
"Allies", last time I heard.
A lot of them will get super butturt that you heard that and allowed such an idea to enter into your consciousness.
It's asexuals, not allies, how dare you ever allow yourself to think that it's allies, thinking that makes you a shitty ally, DIAF.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on February 03, 2014, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 03, 2014, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 03, 2014, 04:23:55 PM
QuoteSo, basically, it's just one elaborate & huge No True Scotsman argument.
Well, yes. At least from some from what I've seen.
QuoteMany would like it if you'd take the "A" out. "A" gets in the way of the histrionic posturing.
A:
Asexual?
Alaskan?
I'm going to assume it's one of those and refuse to hear any corrections.
"Allies", last time I heard.
A lot of them will get super butturt that you heard that and allowed such an idea to enter into your consciousness.
It's asexuals, not allies, how dare you ever allow yourself to think that it's allies, thinking that makes you a shitty ally, DIAF.
It used to be allies.
I should have known that would change.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 03, 2014, 02:49:12 PM
My sister-in-law (and, let's be honest, the majority of my wife's side of the family) is of the racist-not-really-racist-ha-ha-racism-not-really-just-kidding tribe; or as Roger's recently put it, "not racist BUT". I'm finding it increasingly difficult not to troll the ever-loving shit out of some of her Facebook posts. Over the weekend, I couldn't help it. I replied to a post of hers
"I think your account has been hacked, and someone has been posting a lot of racist shit on your wall."
So far, there's been no response.
:lulz:
My kid and I were laughing about all this last night. The reality is, most of the people who pull the "We distrust all _____ people as a defense mechanism" don't actually know what that means, and are aping minorities who have been systematically oppressed and abused, categorically, by a colonial culture. I know there are queer people who have never found support or friendship from nonqueer people, but the vast majority have friends, family, and even lovers who are not queer but who are supportive. It's a needless us vs. them distinction, an artificial division that many of these tumblbots are striving to create so that they can have something to fight against.
My kid (who is trans/agender) and I decided that we're spicegendered and spicesexual. I personally am only attracted to other spicesexual people, and would prefer that you refer to me using the pronouns spi, spice, and spiceself.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on February 03, 2014, 05:13:40 PM
My kid and I were laughing about all this last night. The reality is, most of the people who pull the "We distrust all _____ people as a defense mechanism" don't actually know what that means, and are aping minorities who have been systematically oppressed and abused, categorically, by a colonial culture. I know there are queer people who have never found support or friendship from nonqueer people, but the vast majority have friends, family, and even lovers who are not queer but who are supportive. It's a needless us vs. them distinction, an artificial division that many of these tumblbots are striving to create so that they can have something to fight against.
My kid (who is trans/agender) and I decided that we're spicegendered and spicesexual. I personally am only attracted to other spicesexual people, and would prefer that you refer to me using the pronouns spi, spice, and spiceself.
:lulz:
Portland Spice, little-known 6th member of the Spice
Girls Persons, was thrown out of the group for Juice Balling in public in 1996.
Spi also objected to their motto "GIRL POWER" as it was not inclusive of the spice community.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 03, 2014, 05:20:18 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on February 03, 2014, 05:13:40 PM
My kid and I were laughing about all this last night. The reality is, most of the people who pull the "We distrust all _____ people as a defense mechanism" don't actually know what that means, and are aping minorities who have been systematically oppressed and abused, categorically, by a colonial culture. I know there are queer people who have never found support or friendship from nonqueer people, but the vast majority have friends, family, and even lovers who are not queer but who are supportive. It's a needless us vs. them distinction, an artificial division that many of these tumblbots are striving to create so that they can have something to fight against.
My kid (who is trans/agender) and I decided that we're spicegendered and spicesexual. I personally am only attracted to other spicesexual people, and would prefer that you refer to me using the pronouns spi, spice, and spiceself.
:lulz:
Portland Spice, little-known 6th member of the Spice Girls Persons, was thrown out of the group for Juice Balling in public in 1996.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 03, 2014, 05:54:09 PM
Spi also objected to their motto "GIRL POWER" as it was not inclusive of the spice community.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Just FYI, the Sugar community fucking hate you all.
OH IM SORRY ARE WE NOT 'EVERYTHING NICE' ENOUGH FOR YOU NAZI ASSHOLES?
IT'S SWINE LIKE YOU THAT THINK THEY HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON NICE THINGS.
Relevant: I just finally blocked Sam Sutler on Facebook. He has gone from bog-standard hyper-atheist to repeating the newest version of the anti-semetic "blood libel" in a frenzy of insane lefty-ism.
Some people can't feel like they're a believer in something unless they find a reason to hate people.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on February 03, 2014, 05:13:40 PM
My kid (who is trans/agender) and I decided that we're spicegendered and spicesexual. I personally am only attracted to other spicesexual people, and would prefer that you refer to me using the pronouns spi, spice, and spiceself.
I'm going to
guess pray this isn't a new sexuality based around the Guild navigators from David lynches dune.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT63umQ_QVIZVpPeFkgfFJlpzXnTST2thKu2PGzeDAiPv4_-fKv1w)
Quote from: Faust on February 03, 2014, 06:50:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on February 03, 2014, 05:13:40 PM
My kid (who is trans/agender) and I decided that we're spicegendered and spicesexual. I personally am only attracted to other spicesexual people, and would prefer that you refer to me using the pronouns spi, spice, and spiceself.
I'm going to guess pray this isn't a new sexuality based around the Guild navigators from David lynches dune.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT63umQ_QVIZVpPeFkgfFJlpzXnTST2thKu2PGzeDAiPv4_-fKv1w)
Frank Herbert is crying somewhere. Crying bitter, bitter tears.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 03, 2014, 06:43:29 PM
Relevant: I just finally blocked Sam Sutler on Facebook. He has gone from bog-standard hyper-atheist to repeating the newest version of the anti-semetic "blood libel" in a frenzy of insane lefty-ism.
Some people can't feel like they're a believer in something unless they find a reason to hate people.
That's some Truth, right there.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 03, 2014, 06:55:15 PM
Quote from: Faust on February 03, 2014, 06:50:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on February 03, 2014, 05:13:40 PM
My kid (who is trans/agender) and I decided that we're spicegendered and spicesexual. I personally am only attracted to other spicesexual people, and would prefer that you refer to me using the pronouns spi, spice, and spiceself.
I'm going to guess pray this isn't a new sexuality based around the Guild navigators from David lynches dune.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT63umQ_QVIZVpPeFkgfFJlpzXnTST2thKu2PGzeDAiPv4_-fKv1w)
Frank Herbert is crying somewhere. Crying bitter, bitter tears.
So long as I get to be Sting in a speedo, I don't really care.
He's been crying ever since they kept churning out "Dune" books for reasons best known to publishers anyway.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 03, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
He's been crying ever since they kept churning out "Dune" books for reasons best known to publishers anyway.
Considering how crappy the original was, he deserves it.
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4731753834940893&pid=1.7)
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on February 03, 2014, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 03, 2014, 06:43:29 PM
Relevant: I just finally blocked Sam Sutler on Facebook. He has gone from bog-standard hyper-atheist to repeating the newest version of the anti-semetic "blood libel" in a frenzy of insane lefty-ism.
Some people can't feel like they're a believer in something unless they find a reason to hate people.
That's some Truth, right there.
That caught my eye too.
I mean, it's always gotta be
someone's fault, right?
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on February 04, 2014, 12:00:45 AM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on February 03, 2014, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 03, 2014, 06:43:29 PM
Relevant: I just finally blocked Sam Sutler on Facebook. He has gone from bog-standard hyper-atheist to repeating the newest version of the anti-semetic "blood libel" in a frenzy of insane lefty-ism.
Some people can't feel like they're a believer in something unless they find a reason to hate people.
That's some Truth, right there.
That caught my eye too.
I mean, it's always gotta be someone's fault, right?
It's a very simple formula - you either have the strength of character to admit you are a complete fuckhead (we all are) or else all your worldly woes are someone or everyone else's fault.
Protip: Everyone is surrounded by idiots. You are one of them.