Dear Savior,
You're sitting there bitching about some son of a bitch who fucked up someone's pronouns or might have fucked up someone's pronouns. Nobody complained but you worry that they are too intimidated to complain and it's your fucking job to call that shit out. Your vocation. Jerks ain't gonna act right, you're gonna save the day by slapping them down. Bastards won't put content warning/trigger warnings on top of the post, you're gonna see to that...Even if the warning itself is basically as triggering as the content, that's not the important bit. The important bit is...
...Your validation.
Let's just face facts: In a world in which you have no agency, being a self-appointed tone cop looks pretty damn good, right? You can transfer all of your rage at your asshole boss, your shitty living conditions, your lack of opportunity, yes you can transfer them all right onto that fucker over there and at the same time be on the side of the angels. But I gotta say...
...I see you.
I mean, it's understandable. You want some control over your environment. All humans do. That is in fact what politics is. But as an old slave-trading religious bigot once said, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." You employ the injustice of the world as a hammer to get the other primates to react to you to get that control, and the reaction is that they hate you. And eventually they hate your message. I am not talking about the proudboys and 4Chan freaks and MRA/Incel dweebs here, I am talking about people that want to be on your side. People for whom you have coined a term to prevent them from getting into the little tent of your politics...
...Cookie seekers.
Aka "point whores," aka "YT saviors (ironically enough almost always said by YT saviors)". One of a grab-bag of derisive terms used to ensure that YOU are the lone voice in the wilderness, decrying the injustices of the world, regardless of the cost. Regardless of what the original subject was.
An example would be 365 Portland. This is an organization started to bring attention to climate change. One of the prominent old-school Subgenius guys, Huey, was asked by them to do a poster art (gratis, of course) advertisement for an upcoming event. Huey was happy to help, and he drew up one that REALLY conveyed urgency. It involved a picture of a young lady holding a sign that read "Wake up, the house is on fire!" or something similar. The person who had requested the art rejected the piece with the explanation "It conveys too much urgency, which might exclude members of marginalized populations."
No shit, that's what she said. As if somehow the marginalized populations won't suffer first as climate change progresses. To top it all off, the lady in the pic was either Hispanic or Native American in the first Goddamn place. But that didn't matter, because the committee member dealing with Huey delivered her actual message, even if it was at the expense of both the climate change effort AND the people she had fetishized. And make no mistake, that's precisely what it was.
When I saw screencaps of the exchange, I was horrified to realize that I wasn't horrified. I had expected EXACTLY that result, because in a time of ecological disaster and rising fascism, the hip and obviously correct thing to do is address everything EXCEPT the disasters and the fascism. To show just how fucking pure you are. To validate yourself. To maximize your potential as a Goddamn vulture that lives on the pain of others, and must, in a not-so-subtle manner, perpetuate that misery to gain more of that sweet, sweet validation.
So when you work yourself into a righteous froth about those sons of bitches, just keep in mind that YOU are one of those sons of bitches.
Yours truly,
Ferdinand Marcos
"It conveys too much urgency, which might exclude members of marginalized populations."
Was there anything clarifying what the hell she meant by that? I'm confused.
Quote from: LMNO on February 07, 2020, 04:44:48 PM
"It conveys too much urgency, which might exclude members of marginalized populations."
Was there anything clarifying what the hell she meant by that? I'm confused.
No, but it isn't actually necessary. The phrase "might exclude members of marginalized populations" has been a stock phrase for several months, now. Years, if you allow for slightly different wording that says the exact same shit.
At that point Huey told her to fuck right off and terminated the conversation. Can't blame him. That had to have been 6 hours of graphic art work, which was discarded so that committee member could display the correct religious symbology.
:mittens:
Had some trouble finding a solid definition of "YT saviour" through google. Is it perhaps a reference to something like "YouTube Savior"?
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on February 07, 2020, 05:17:44 PM
Had some trouble finding a solid definition of "YT saviour" through google. Is it perhaps a reference to something like "YouTube Savior"?
YT = "white"
also,
:mittens:
I was called a racist the other day for making fun of leprechauns.
:lulz:
YT peepl! I phonetically get it now.
Quote from: tyrannosaurus vex on February 07, 2020, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on February 07, 2020, 05:17:44 PM
Had some trouble finding a solid definition of "YT saviour" through google. Is it perhaps a reference to something like "YouTube Savior"?
YT = "white"
also,
:mittens:
I was called a racist the other day for making fun of leprechauns.
I was called racist yesterday for saying that you can walk across Panama in a weekend. :lulz:
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on February 07, 2020, 05:31:50 PM
:lulz:
YT peepl! I phonetically get it now.
It's a Facebook dodge. If you say "White People" on facebook, you will get an automatic flag, because Zucc has to protect the po'buckers from systemic racism.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on February 07, 2020, 05:17:44 PM
:mittens:
Had some trouble finding a solid definition of "YT saviour" through google. Is it perhaps a reference to something like "YouTube Savior"?
It is people who think that by shouting down every single discussion, regardless of topic, with "But PoC", they can expiate their share of 400 years of chattel slavery and abuse.
So they go one step beyond paternalism and fetishize PoC, which is all on its own CREEPY AS FUCK.
AND ANOTHER THING:
Do not presume to tell me how to be a "good ally". I am not your ally. You and I merely share common enemies. Think of it as the USA and the USSR in 1943. They didn't like each other, but they both hated the Nazis. So they kicked the Nazi's asses, and then mean-mugged each other for 75 years. That is where we are. Not because you are a minority or disabled or whatever it is, but because you are a human and I don't like humans. They fuck too much and they don't even enjoy it because they feel guilty for feeling good. They cannot stand their own odor. They are fucking stupid, and I want them to all die from harpoon injuries. Like now. Like right fucking now.
So that being said, does it seem reasonable to coach me on being a proper "ally"? No. No, it fucking does not. You hate the Nazis and the religious fanatics and I hate the Nazis and religious fanatics and we both want to give them a great big kick in the business, and let's just leave it at that.
What I find funny is that despite how I act (hey Johnny, remember your return?) I've never been accused of tone policing or whatever by anyone but myself.
And as someone who has to be on the other, other side of this (cis women and men telling me what I find upsetting), the very people you're talking about are who I consider "cookie seekers". People who are there purely to give evidence to their own eventual sainthood. They're the white folks who tell a black person not to use the n-slur or appropriate AAVE online. Their only purpose is to show how good they are: they contribute nothing but "Look at me! I'm good! Recognize me!"
As for urgency, no one is as urgent as a marginalized community. If you bring up a high-medium problem to a well-off cishet white person, they add it to the agenda. The to do list. If you bring up a high-medium problem to a marginalized person, they're like "I do not have the time, energy or patience for that right now. We have thirty other dumpster fires we are trying to solve: I do not give a fuck."
This is not specific to any particular community. Everyone I know who is in a marginalized group is like this. If you are marginalized, by definition you have more problems than you know what to do with.
The house is on fire, yes, it's on fire all day every day. The house has never not been burning. You pick the most important rooms to try to save and let the siding bubble and warp because you don't need siding anyway. You run yourself to the blood-slick bones and then eat lunch and get back to it.
Anyone who worries about being offputting to marginalized communities due to an excess of urgency is a person who has never known hardship first hand.
Quote from: altered on February 07, 2020, 08:35:39 PM
Anyone who worries about being offputting to marginalized communities due to an excess of urgency is a person who has never known hardship first hand.
:mittens:
Quote from: altered on February 07, 2020, 08:35:39 PM
What I find funny is that despite how I act (hey Johnny, remember your return?) I've never been accused of tone policing or whatever by anyone but myself.
It was more about content than tone, and not policing, but like, "how aware are you of what you're repeating like an automaton".
And Idk, regarding OP...
American politics (in the broadest sense of the term) are so fucked up and divisive that it's practically trench warfare.
I live in a different "world" (country) from you people but, fighting over preferred pronouns in the context of a dialogue or debate which primary theme is not that, its like fighting over spelling and grammar in a text argument. Surely there needs to be a basic standard of quality of writing for the purpose of intelligibility and making communication a possibility, but answering entire paragraphs of arguments with "I'ts spelled <<you're>>, not <<your>>", to me, just communicates that the main debate is over either because of lack of interest or because they lost and are looking to divert the attention elsewhere - so when in the middle of a debate im interrupted to tell me that im using the wrong pronouns, it's telling me that our attention is divided to different topics... perhaps in text it's more of a reasonable request, but in live speech its like, what the fuck are we even doing.
And already we are seeing the negative aspects of this trend, they're not "fascists" they're "alt-right", and all of a sudden we're fighting over pronouns and identity instead of the underlying issues, each one respectively on their own side of "No Man's land".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 07, 2020, 08:57:15 PM
Quote from: altered on February 07, 2020, 08:35:39 PM
Anyone who worries about being offputting to marginalized communities due to an excess of urgency is a person who has never known hardship first hand.
:mittens:
:mittens:
Quote from: The Johnny on February 08, 2020, 12:16:16 AM
And Idk, regarding OP...
American politics (in the broadest sense of the term) are so fucked up and divisive that it's practically trench warfare.
I live in a different "world" (country) from you people but, fighting over preferred pronouns in the context of a dialogue or debate which primary theme is not that, its like fighting over spelling and grammar in a text argument. Surely there needs to be a basic standard of quality of writing for the purpose of intelligibility and making communication a possibility, but answering entire paragraphs of arguments with "I'ts spelled <<you're>>, not <<your>>", to me, just communicates that the main debate is over either because of lack of interest or because they lost and are looking to divert the attention elsewhere - so when in the middle of a debate im interrupted to tell me that im using the wrong pronouns, it's telling me that our attention is divided to different topics... perhaps in text it's more of a reasonable request, but in live speech its like, what the fuck are we even doing.
And already we are seeing the negative aspects of this trend, they're not "fascists" they're "alt-right", and all of a sudden we're fighting over pronouns and identity instead of the underlying issues, each one respectively on their own side of "No Man's land".
Let's talk about pronouns real quick. Sure.
First of all, what you're talking about with you're vs your is not the pronouns problem we are having. That's attacking the messenger so you can tiptoe around the message. It's irrelevant.
The pronouns problem we are having is equivalent to someone dropping n-bombs to every black person they meet hoping to get punched so they can parade it around as proof that black people are inherently violent. It's about dehumanizing and infuriating the enemy. (This comparison is more apt than most between misgendering and racial slurs, as both TERFs and white supremacists have done this exact thing.)
Let's talk about pronouns when it's NOT obviously the enemy. Let's talk about people saying they're on your side while dropping anti-Hispanic slurs into every sentence that has anything to do with you. Let's talk about if you correct them, they say it doesn't matter because they're trying to help, why not let them help, why attack them, you're being so mean. Then saying that clearly you don't want to be treated like people when you tell them where they can stick it.
That's the pronouns problem. It is an actual problem deserving of being brought up. When a trans woman talks about misogyny and someone says "but you're a man," it hurts everyone.
It matters, even if it derails the discussion. If some white kid dropped the N-bomb on a black opponent in a supposedly civil discussion, while not quoting people, it would derail that. As it should.
They aren't the same, mind you, and this comparison is a quick and easy way of bypassing the long winded explanation that causes people to try and find a billion gotchas, but they are similar and have similar effects on people. They should be treated similarly: ad hominem, for the sake of dehumanizing and infuriating the target.
Quote from: The Johnny on February 08, 2020, 12:16:16 AM
American politics (in the broadest sense of the term) are so fucked up and divisive that it's practically trench warfare.
It's even worse than it appears from a distance.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 08, 2020, 04:47:19 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on February 08, 2020, 12:16:16 AM
American politics (in the broadest sense of the term) are so fucked up and divisive that it's practically trench warfare.
It's even worse than it appears from a distance.
Before, I could only imagine but it's starting to happen in my own country.
It was a long time where we had a one-party regime with "free elections" or whatever that means, were the results were rigged... the PRI (neoliberal authoritarian) "won" elections for 71 years... then the PAN (ultra conservatives that started the Drug War) won, then the PRI won again, and finally a third real contender came into being, MORENA which won... our current president allegedly, and probably, lost by fraud the previous two elections.
Before, leftist discourse was deemed and dismissed as an irrelevant joke, because it literally was, since it had no muscle nor practical implications on the political reality.
But now that the "opposition" won, the dismissiveness and haha lol, turned extremely quickly to some kind of venomous media vendetta. Since "leftist discourse" won a seat in power, it became a real threat, and every single fucking word or gesture has become a point of contention like its celebrity gossip. We have "opinion farms" of random paid losers that are on a salary to spread misinformation, I've even met some of them in person.
The new president isnt even completely clean and non-corrupt to the point that hes rationally or justly worthy to be defended... so in just a year, ive found myself in the middle of the screeching from both sides amongst party lines, and i cant imagine how loud its going to get in another year of time.
Quote from: altered on February 08, 2020, 01:16:58 AM
Let's talk about pronouns real quick. Sure.
First of all, what you're talking about with you're vs your is not the pronouns problem we are having. That's attacking the messenger so you can tiptoe around the message. It's irrelevant.
The pronouns problem we are having is equivalent to someone dropping n-bombs to every black person they meet hoping to get punched so they can parade it around as proof that black people are inherently violent. It's about dehumanizing and infuriating the enemy. (This comparison is more apt than most between misgendering and racial slurs, as both TERFs and white supremacists have done this exact thing.)
Let's talk about pronouns when it's NOT obviously the enemy. Let's talk about people saying they're on your side while dropping anti-Hispanic slurs into every sentence that has anything to do with you. Let's talk about if you correct them, they say it doesn't matter because they're trying to help, why not let them help, why attack them, you're being so mean. Then saying that clearly you don't want to be treated like people when you tell them where they can stick it.
That's the pronouns problem. It is an actual problem deserving of being brought up. When a trans woman talks about misogyny and someone says "but you're a man," it hurts everyone.
It matters, even if it derails the discussion. If some white kid dropped the N-bomb on a black opponent in a supposedly civil discussion, while not quoting people, it would derail that. As it should.
They aren't the same, mind you, and this comparison is a quick and easy way of bypassing the long winded explanation that causes people to try and find a billion gotchas, but they are similar and have similar effects on people. They should be treated similarly: ad hominem, for the sake of dehumanizing and infuriating the target.
I hope you can see how I see things more abstractly... the biggest manifestation of "language" in discussions over here has been about using neutral plural pronouns "todes" "nosotres" (normally the plural is "todos/todas", "nosotros"/"nosotras", which is the male and female plurals, while using the letter "E" is an invention to make it neutral... "todes" = "all of them", "nosotres= all of us")
And here in the middle of Mexico, I can tell you that I dont know any black, jewish, asian person... its so very strange how its all so homogeneous when i recall times when i lived in border cities... all my homosexual friends/aquaintances are closeted for the most part.
What i mean is, i guess i understand it in a general abstract way, but not fully since that doesnt exist here yet, or because of the homogeneity.
I'll just leave this here (https://youtu.be/8aTAPSh7QOw)
It's possible for someone to be on the right side of the argument and still be a complete fucking asshole.
Just mentioning it because it took me ages to figure this out for myself.
Quote from: rong on February 08, 2020, 03:31:35 PM
I'll just leave this here (https://youtu.be/8aTAPSh7QOw)
Fuck off, Rong. :lulz:
Fucking parasite.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 08, 2020, 10:45:35 PM
It's possible for someone to be on the right side of the argument and still be a complete fucking asshole.
Just mentioning it because it took me ages to figure this out for myself.
It's also possible to be on the right side of the argument and harm that side of the argument.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2020, 05:12:27 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 08, 2020, 10:45:35 PM
It's possible for someone to be on the right side of the argument and still be a complete fucking asshole.
Just mentioning it because it took me ages to figure this out for myself.
It's also possible to be on the right side of the argument and harm that side of the argument.
This is the exact phrasing I was looking for in response to the stuff Johnny was talking about.
I was aware of the Spanish e-pronoun people, and I support the concept, and yet! And yet, it sounds like it's being approached in a way that ensures it gets public backlash, and sets everyone who can benefit from it back 40 years or more.
I'm all for spitting vitriol at people who willfully misgender anyone, including by repeatedly using the wrong pronouns. But when it's an honest slip, or someone who is new to the particulars of whatever situation they're in, it shouldn't derail the whole conversation unless the person obstinately refuses to adjust their behavior - because, if they're a person who does that, there's little point in any sort of conversation with them. Someone who outright refuses to respect other people's identities is unlikely to have worthwhile opinions in other areas anyway.
But it's true there's disingenuous tactics used, and it's maddening. People who don't support Buttigieg are immediately cast as homophobes and can't live it down, people who don't like Hillary or Warren are immediately regarded as sexist for no reason except their lack of political support. I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that identity is by far the primary motivator for a lot of people. Buttigieg should be president because he is gay; Warren should be president because she is a woman. And, people project their own motivations onto others so if someone doesn't support Buttigieg, in their minds it must likewise be because he is gay. And of course it happens everywhere, not just political campaigns. It makes it impossible, sometimes, to have substantive conversations because anyone with an identity ticket becomes immune to criticism of any kind because identity overrides every other aspect. And you can't even talk about this state of affairs, because identity per se is supposed to be the only issue we care about.
Quote from: tyrannosaurus vex on February 10, 2020, 03:48:15 PM
I'm all for spitting vitriol at people who willfully misgender anyone, including by repeatedly using the wrong pronouns. But when it's an honest slip, or someone who is new to the particulars of whatever situation they're in, it shouldn't derail the whole conversation unless the person obstinately refuses to adjust their behavior - because, if they're a person who does that, there's little point in any sort of conversation with them. Someone who outright refuses to respect other people's identities is unlikely to have worthwhile opinions in other areas anyway.
But it's true there's disingenuous tactics used, and it's maddening. People who don't support Buttigieg are immediately cast as homophobes and can't live it down, people who don't like Hillary or Warren are immediately regarded as sexist for no reason except their lack of political support. I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that identity is by far the primary motivator for a lot of people. Buttigieg should be president because he is gay; Warren should be president because she is a woman. And, people project their own motivations onto others so if someone doesn't support Buttigieg, in their minds it must likewise be because he is gay. And of course it happens everywhere, not just political campaigns. It makes it impossible, sometimes, to have substantive conversations because anyone with an identity ticket becomes immune to criticism of any kind because identity overrides every other aspect. And you can't even talk about this state of affairs, because identity per se is supposed to be the only issue we care about.
Yeah, that's the fetish bit.
I maintain that being a member of a minority group doesn't mean anything except that you are a member of a minority group. I refuse to consider the fact that a minority lacks the agency to be a complete prick.
This tends to cause problems. "Once Again Satan" is a prime example of that, and also of this sort of fetishization ruining everything it touches.
Over the past few months, I, a gay trans woman who lived in Boston happily for awhile, have mocked Pete and reluctantly admitted Warren might be a shitty option.
I have been told this shows my internalized self hatred. In fact, it shows that Pete is a shitty baby and that Warren doesn't have the spine to call her own staff out. But I don't know as much about my problems as some dingus in Chicago who met me once and once only and who knows nothing about me except that I'm a gay trans woman, most recently from Boston.
I'm familiar with the bad tactics in active use. There's too much of people just hanging their bigotry out for all to see.
Oh, yeah. It's bigotry. You only need to have their "preferred" target loudly disagree with them to see that. Gay men versus Pete fans. Women who aren't pro-Warren. Show a white Obama fan a black person saying Obama sucks and they immediately assume they are The Enemy, because how could you be left of Pinochet and not love Obama — if you are black???
And they assume these things, and have a REALLY HARD TIME parsing information that disagrees with these things, because it's how their minds work. "My In-Group foremost." They're making a conscious decision to put their in-group second and they assume everyone else has to do the same thing. When they get shat on for being a moron, they assume everyone else is the problem for not breaking "their bigoted mindsets".
Once you see the pattern, you can't ignore it.
Quote from: altered on February 10, 2020, 08:09:08 PM
I have been told this shows my internalized self hatred.
This is why I am a fan of the
externalized "Fuck you, Jack."
Seriously, there is a limit to the amount of bullshit that people can be expected to take.
Because I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people who mentioned that "internalized self-hatred" are themselves cis/hetero. MINIMUM half. It's that fucking savior thing again, and fuck how much it hurts actual attempts to change things for the better, because it's the postmodern Olympics and first one to the validation trough wins.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 10, 2020, 08:53:20 PM
Quote from: altered on February 10, 2020, 08:09:08 PM
I have been told this shows my internalized self hatred.
This is why I am a fan of the externalized "Fuck you, Jack."
Sic Wisdom.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 10, 2020, 08:56:32 PM
Seriously, there is a limit to the amount of bullshit that people can be expected to take.
Because I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people who mentioned that "internalized self-hatred" are themselves cis/hetero. MINIMUM half. It's that fucking savior thing again, and fuck how much it hurts actual attempts to change things for the better, because it's the postmodern Olympics and first one to the validation trough wins.
It was every single one of them that was cishet. I don't know a single LGBT person who is pro-Pete. Not one. We are unified in our absolute hatred of him.
Quote from: altered on February 11, 2020, 06:16:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 10, 2020, 08:56:32 PM
Seriously, there is a limit to the amount of bullshit that people can be expected to take.
Because I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people who mentioned that "internalized self-hatred" are themselves cis/hetero. MINIMUM half. It's that fucking savior thing again, and fuck how much it hurts actual attempts to change things for the better, because it's the postmodern Olympics and first one to the validation trough wins.
It was every single one of them that was cishet. I don't know a single LGBT person who is pro-Pete. Not one. We are unified in our absolute hatred of him.
Isn't thoughtful of those people to issue your opinion to you and stick you in a comfy box?
:lol:
Given that Pete literally sold his own minority group out for a chicken sandwich, I can't figure out why the LGBT crowd doesn't love him.
The thing about Mayor Pete is he's gay but he sure as fuck ain't queer.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 11, 2020, 08:08:19 PM
The thing about Mayor Pete is he's gay but he sure as fuck ain't queer.
:potd:
https://twitter.com/sassyolli/status/1227157129988960257
The image is so fucking good and sums up my feelings on Pete.
Oh, right.
For the folks at home, I don't have one.
Bump for revamping.