Interesting observation: When you become more amenable to new ideas, when you change your mind on a subject, two things appear to happen in the minds of the people you've agreed with. First, it is taken for granted that you are now 169% on board with every portion of every argument...And second, that you can now be safely treated with contempt, with less cordiality that people who never even considered changing their minds. People who outright oppose the aims of the people you've agreed with are given carte blanche, while those willing to meet them halfway are ground up into hamburger.
Now, we've discussed a lot of things in the last few days. I've agreed that certain swear words are inherently ugly. I haven't changed my mind again, or anything. I still say that labels are part of the politics of division, and I still stand against their use in any manner other than mere description. In fact, the idea of self-labeling or labeling others is abhorrent to me.
I have also said that being an eglatarian is part of what I am. I am not about to change that, because it's the right thing to do...And I don't need anyone's permission to be so. I do not require the approval of any other eglatarians (feminism, civil rights backers, anything).
And this is good, because I have decided that I can't and won't be anyone's ally in these matters. I will not tolerate non-eglatarian behavior around me, but that's as far as I'm interested in going, anymore. Anytime you organize, you bring in politics, and frankly I at this moment in time cannot tolerate any more politics. You can do that without me.
I am certainly not going to be anyone's dog for the privilege of being an "ally".
Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.
And can you explain to me, please, what the kind of label usage is that isn't for description? I don't entirely get that.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.
Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.
Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all. This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell). I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.
Obvious conclusion: "Alliances" are heirarchies. The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.
So I'll pass on this stuff. I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.
Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 11:19:57 PM
And can you explain to me, please, what the kind of label usage is that isn't for description? I don't entirely get that.
Yeah, we discussed this in the Label thread. Go look there. I am not interested in discussing it any further.
I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.
I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 11:24:00 PM
I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.
I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.
Yep. It was both threads, mind you, and it went on for some time (especially in the Patriarchy thread). I finally gave up, and decided that the best thing I can do is just do what I've been doing all along. The Cause will get by without me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.
Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.
Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all. This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell). I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.
Obvious conclusion: "Alliances" are heirarchies. The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.
So I'll pass on this stuff. I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.
I haven't gotten to any of those pages yet. I'll check them out.
I think the word choice of "allies" was meant to imply that a person who is working with a group (let's go back to women) is working hand in hand with them, but I can see what you're getting at. It might start out as "working with us' but it can become "working for us".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 11:24:00 PM
I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.
I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.
Yep. It was both threads, mind you, and it went on for some time (especially in the Patriarchy thread). I finally gave up, and decided that the best thing I can do is just do what I've been doing all along. The Cause will get by without me.
We should start an Egalitarian Movement, and then identify groups of people who do not meet the standard of Egalitarian, so we can shun them.
[/joke]
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.
Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.
Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all. This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell). I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.
Obvious conclusion: "Alliances" are heirarchies. The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.
So I'll pass on this stuff. I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.
I haven't gotten to any of those pages yet. I'll check them out.
I think the word choice of "allies" was meant to imply that a person who is working with a group (let's go back to women) is working hand in hand with them, but I can see what you're getting at. It might start out as "working with us' but it can become "working for us".
It's not the "working for us" thing, and it's not the nastiness. It's the idea that once you take one step, you have to jump all the way into lockstep or you're scum.
And I'm not willing to do that.
Like I said, I'm still gonna do what I've always done, but I'm not going to get involved in any movements, causes, or any other damn thing. The price tag is a little too rich for my blood.
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 11:32:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 11:24:00 PM
I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.
I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.
Yep. It was both threads, mind you, and it went on for some time (especially in the Patriarchy thread). I finally gave up, and decided that the best thing I can do is just do what I've been doing all along. The Cause will get by without me.
We should start an Egalitarian Movement, and then identify groups of people who do not meet the standard of Egalitarian, so we can shun them.
[/joke]
:lulz:
That would be funny, if only it were funny.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 11:24:00 PM
I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.
I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.
Yep. It was both threads, mind you, and it went on for some time (especially in the Patriarchy thread). I finally gave up, and decided that the best thing I can do is just do what I've been doing all along. The Cause will get by without me.
Been saying that, about any cause anyone has ever had, since I first became aware of the fucking things. I will mock any cause I'm presented with and the cause will get all pissy with me and do absolutely nothing aside from make angry little faces which, let's face it, is about as much as any cause can ever do about anything and, yeah, they seem to manage it quite well with or without my support.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.
Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.
Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all. This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell). I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.
Obvious conclusion: "Alliances" are heirarchies. The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.
So I'll pass on this stuff. I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.
I haven't gotten to any of those pages yet. I'll check them out.
I think the word choice of "allies" was meant to imply that a person who is working with a group (let's go back to women) is working hand in hand with them, but I can see what you're getting at. It might start out as "working with us' but it can become "working for us".
It's not the "working for us" thing, and it's not the nastiness. It's the idea that once you take one step, you have to jump all the way into lockstep or you're scum.
And I'm not willing to do that.
Like I said, I'm still gonna do what I've always done, but I'm not going to get involved in any movements, causes, or any other damn thing. The price tag is a little too rich for my blood.
And what you're doing is excellent. :) Can you give me an example of "lockstep", please?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:37:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 11:24:00 PM
I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.
I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.
Yep. It was both threads, mind you, and it went on for some time (especially in the Patriarchy thread). I finally gave up, and decided that the best thing I can do is just do what I've been doing all along. The Cause will get by without me.
Been saying that, about any cause anyone has ever had, since I first became aware of the fucking things. I will mock any cause I'm presented with and the cause will get all pissy with me and do absolutely nothing aside from make angry little faces which, let's face it, is about as much as any cause can ever do about anything and, yeah, they seem to manage it quite well with or without my support.
Yes, well, I've bought into that sentiment...But for a slightly different reason. I have enough power structures to deal with, and ANY organization or cause is a power structure. And the consequences for being in a power structure is a continual power struggle, and again, I have enough on my plate.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 11:19:57 PM
And can you explain to me, please, what the kind of label usage is that isn't for description? I don't entirely get that.
Yeah, we discussed this in the Label thread. Go look there. I am not interested in discussing it any further.
Umm okay, just you brought it up again here. I did read that thread patiently and don't think I missed anything. Unless you mean labels as uniforms, a concept which I understand and find useful. I just don't entirely get the holy rage against labels as a whole with the exception of description, when description sounds to me like almost all uses of labels ever.
In any case, if you don't want to continue discussing this, I'll just remain slightly confused, which I'm fine with.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:37:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 11:24:00 PM
I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.
I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.
Yep. It was both threads, mind you, and it went on for some time (especially in the Patriarchy thread). I finally gave up, and decided that the best thing I can do is just do what I've been doing all along. The Cause will get by without me.
Been saying that, about any cause anyone has ever had, since I first became aware of the fucking things. I will mock any cause I'm presented with and the cause will get all pissy with me and do absolutely nothing aside from make angry little faces which, let's face it, is about as much as any cause can ever do about anything and, yeah, they seem to manage it quite well with or without my support.
Yes, well, I've bought into that sentiment...But for a slightly different reason. I have enough power structures to deal with, and ANY organization or cause is a power structure. And the consequences for being in a power structure is a continual power struggle, and again, I have enough on my plate.
They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.
Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.
Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all. This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell). I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.
Obvious conclusion: "Alliances" are heirarchies. The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.
So I'll pass on this stuff. I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.
I haven't gotten to any of those pages yet. I'll check them out.
I think the word choice of "allies" was meant to imply that a person who is working with a group (let's go back to women) is working hand in hand with them, but I can see what you're getting at. It might start out as "working with us' but it can become "working for us".
It's not the "working for us" thing, and it's not the nastiness. It's the idea that once you take one step, you have to jump all the way into lockstep or you're scum.
And I'm not willing to do that.
Like I said, I'm still gonna do what I've always done, but I'm not going to get involved in any movements, causes, or any other damn thing. The price tag is a little too rich for my blood.
And what you're doing is excellent. :) Can you give me an example of "lockstep", please?
I think I did. Last few pages of Labels, and ALL of the patriarchy thread. The Patriarchy thread was originally about how the partriarchy affects men, and it also turned into a reeducation camp.
Specific example: No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be
1. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.
Enough is enough, you know?
1 For example, a senatorial candidate that flatly states that women can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 11:42:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: VERBL on August 19, 2012, 11:19:57 PM
And can you explain to me, please, what the kind of label usage is that isn't for description? I don't entirely get that.
Yeah, we discussed this in the Label thread. Go look there. I am not interested in discussing it any further.
Umm okay, just you brought it up again here. I did read that thread patiently and don't think I missed anything. Unless you mean labels as uniforms, a concept which I understand and find useful. I just don't entirely get the holy rage against labels as a whole with the exception of description, when description sounds to me like almost all uses of labels ever.
In any case, if you don't want to continue discussing this, I'll just remain slightly confused, which I'm fine with.
Worse things have happened at sea.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:44:37 PM
They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.
That's because - while the ethics wildly differ - it's the same old power structure.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.
Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.
Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all. This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell). I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.
Obvious conclusion: "Alliances" are heirarchies. The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.
So I'll pass on this stuff. I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.
I haven't gotten to any of those pages yet. I'll check them out.
I think the word choice of "allies" was meant to imply that a person who is working with a group (let's go back to women) is working hand in hand with them, but I can see what you're getting at. It might start out as "working with us' but it can become "working for us".
It's not the "working for us" thing, and it's not the nastiness. It's the idea that once you take one step, you have to jump all the way into lockstep or you're scum.
And I'm not willing to do that.
Like I said, I'm still gonna do what I've always done, but I'm not going to get involved in any movements, causes, or any other damn thing. The price tag is a little too rich for my blood.
And what you're doing is excellent. :) Can you give me an example of "lockstep", please?
I think I did. Last few pages of Labels, and ALL of the patriarchy thread. The Patriarchy thread was originally about how the partriarchy affects men, and it also turned into a reeducation camp.
Specific example: No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be1. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.
Enough is enough, you know?
1 For example, a senatorial candidate that flatly states that women can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
Ah. Sorry. Still haven't gotten there, lol.
I think we got caught up in the "empathy v. experience" debate more than was possibly necessary (sometimes I find it necessary to let something die to save the rest of the conversation).
*shrug*
I have a couple questions about egalitarianism, specifically certain elements of how you intend to practice it, but that might end up threadjacking hardcore. Perhaps a new thread?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:47:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:44:37 PM
They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.
That's because - while the ethics wildly differ - it's the same old power structure.
The ethics don't differ either or at least they do up to a point. To become effective a movement must dispense with ethics, meet the enemy on a level playing field, fight dirty. Blow up some supermarkets. Until that point it's not really a movement, it's just a bunch of weak minded fools, wishing their lives away. After that point it's just a bunch of weak minded fools fucking up a little bit of the world with their pathetic rage.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:54:50 PM
Ah. Sorry. Still haven't gotten there, lol.
I think we got caught up in the "empathy v. experience" debate more than was possibly necessary (sometimes I find it necessary to let something die to save the rest of the conversation).
*shrug*
I have a couple questions about egalitarianism, specifically certain elements of how you intend to practice it, but that might end up threadjacking hardcore. Perhaps a new thread?
Perhaps. Give it a shot. The moment it turns into mk IV of the same conversation, though, I'm bailing.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:47:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2012, 11:44:37 PM
They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.
That's because - while the ethics wildly differ - it's the same old power structure.
The ethics don't differ either or at least they do up to a point. To become effective a movement must dispense with ethics, meet the enemy on a level playing field, fight dirty. Blow up some supermarkets. Until that point it's not really a movement, it's just a bunch of weak minded fools, wishing their lives away. After that point it's just a bunch of weak minded fools fucking up a little bit of the world with their pathetic rage.
I gotta disagree, on account of MLK and Gandhi.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:56:41 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 19, 2012, 11:54:50 PM
Ah. Sorry. Still haven't gotten there, lol.
I think we got caught up in the "empathy v. experience" debate more than was possibly necessary (sometimes I find it necessary to let something die to save the rest of the conversation).
*shrug*
I have a couple questions about egalitarianism, specifically certain elements of how you intend to practice it, but that might end up threadjacking hardcore. Perhaps a new thread?
Perhaps. Give it a shot. The moment it turns into mk IV of the same conversation, though, I'm bailing.
Fair enough.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
Specific example: No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be1. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.
Enough is enough, you know?
Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:00:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
Specific example: No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be1. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.
Enough is enough, you know?
Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.
Yep. Sticking your neck out is an invitation for someone to shit on your head.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:01:16 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:00:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
Specific example: No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be1. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.
Enough is enough, you know?
Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.
Yep. Sticking your neck out is an invitation for someone to shit on your head.
It must be great to attack anyone who listens and ignore anyone who refutes it. Its the easy option.
Both of them people. Without MLK the black rights movement was getting nowhere and the panthers were already getting a bit blowy uppy. Same with the dieter. India was a fucking powder keg, headed toward an epic bloodbath.
Two bipeds stood up and raised their middle fingers. That's different from a movement. A movement may ride the coat tails of someone with the moxy of MLK of Gandhi but, without that, they just meet up in basements and compete to be most dedicated to the cause.
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:03:19 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:01:16 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:00:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
Specific example: No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be1. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.
Enough is enough, you know?
Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.
Yep. Sticking your neck out is an invitation for someone to shit on your head.
Isn't it great to attack anyone who listens and ignore anyone who refutes it.
Most religious violence occurs INSIDE each given religion, squabbling over the interpretation of a line of verse.
That's how we
Build The Dream.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 12:04:21 AM
Both of them people. Without MLK the black rights movement was getting nowhere and the panthers were already getting a bit blowy uppy.
Medgar Evers begs to differ, as do a couple of hundred other leaders and a few dozen thousand volunteers.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 12:04:21 AMTwo bipeds stood up and raised their middle fingers. That's different from a movement. A movement may ride the coat tails of someone with the moxy of MLK of Gandhi but, without that, they just meet up in basements and compete to be most dedicated to the cause.
It wasn't just the two of them.
But your main point is taken.
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:03:19 AM
Its the easy option.
And that, in reality, is what has put the bug up my arse.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:06:48 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:03:19 AM
Its the easy option.
And that, in reality, is what has put the bug up my arse.
Just yours? I just stopped reading that thread, and dismissed it because of what I saw. I wonder how many people will get as far as I did before they do the same?
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:08:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:06:48 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:03:19 AM
Its the easy option.
And that, in reality, is what has put the bug up my arse.
Just yours? I just stopped reading that thread, and dismissed it because of what I saw. I wonder how many people will get as far as I did before they do the same?
Well, it got pretty egregious right at the end, there.
I'm re-thinking a lot of things as a result.
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody' benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
I'm not going to go that far.
I have to say, though, that if PD.com, the collection of the smartest people I know, can't manage it, then I don't have much hope in general.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:21:20 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody' benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
I'm not going to go that far.
I have to say, though, that if PD.com, the collection of the smartest people I know, can't manage it, then I don't have much hope in general.
I know plenty of intelligent feminists who pioneer the issue, they are all in science but that is the first point of call for me. Most of them are lecturers and good public speakers so they might have an advantage over us but the key difference I see is their matter of fact tone, their use of Empiricism, statistics and psychology and never going for anecdotal or personal stories.
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:27:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:21:20 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody' benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
I'm not going to go that far.
I have to say, though, that if PD.com, the collection of the smartest people I know, can't manage it, then I don't have much hope in general.
I know plenty of intelligent feminists who pioneer the issue, they are all in science but that is the first point of call for me. Most of them are lecturers and good public speakers so they might have an advantage over us but the key difference I see is their matter of fact tone, their use of Empiricism, statistics and psychology and never going for anecdotal or personal stories.
A feminist is a feminist. Multiple feminists are a power structure.
An eglatarian is an eglatarian. Multiple eglatarians are a power structure.
And there's nothing really wrong with that. It's just not something I'm interested in joining.
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:27:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:21:20 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody' benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
I'm not going to go that far.
I have to say, though, that if PD.com, the collection of the smartest people I know, can't manage it, then I don't have much hope in general.
I know plenty of intelligent feminists who pioneer the issue, they are all in science but that is the first point of call for me. Most of them are lecturers and good public speakers so they might have an advantage over us but the key difference I see is their matter of fact tone, their use of Empiricism, statistics and psychology and never going for anecdotal or personal stories.
Might just be a bad taste in my mouth. But if this is what it is at the grassroots level, I don't want any part of it.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:34:53 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:27:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:21:20 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody' benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
I'm not going to go that far.
I have to say, though, that if PD.com, the collection of the smartest people I know, can't manage it, then I don't have much hope in general.
I know plenty of intelligent feminists who pioneer the issue, they are all in science but that is the first point of call for me. Most of them are lecturers and good public speakers so they might have an advantage over us but the key difference I see is their matter of fact tone, their use of Empiricism, statistics and psychology and never going for anecdotal or personal stories.
Might just be a bad taste in my mouth. But if this is what it is at the grassroots level, I don't want any part of it.
It's not the "feminist" part that's the trouble. It's the "grass roots" part.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:35:47 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:34:53 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 12:27:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 12:21:20 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody' benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
I'm not going to go that far.
I have to say, though, that if PD.com, the collection of the smartest people I know, can't manage it, then I don't have much hope in general.
I know plenty of intelligent feminists who pioneer the issue, they are all in science but that is the first point of call for me. Most of them are lecturers and good public speakers so they might have an advantage over us but the key difference I see is their matter of fact tone, their use of Empiricism, statistics and psychology and never going for anecdotal or personal stories.
Might just be a bad taste in my mouth. But if this is what it is at the grassroots level, I don't want any part of it.
It's not the "feminist" part that's the trouble. It's the "grass roots" part.
Yeah.
Still taking an extended hiatus. Ugh.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Interesting observation: When you become more amenable to new ideas, when you change your mind on a subject, two things appear to happen in the minds of the people you've agreed with. First, it is taken for granted that you are now 169% on board with every portion of every argument...And second, that you can now be safely treated with contempt, with less cordiality that people who never even considered changing their minds. People who outright oppose the aims of the people you've agreed with are given carte blanche, while those willing to meet them halfway are ground up into hamburger.
Now, we've discussed a lot of things in the last few days. I've agreed that certain swear words are inherently ugly. I haven't changed my mind again, or anything. I still say that labels are part of the politics of division, and I still stand against their use in any manner other than mere description. In fact, the idea of self-labeling or labeling others is abhorrent to me.
I have also said that being an eglatarian is part of what I am. I am not about to change that, because it's the right thing to do...And I don't need anyone's permission to be so. I do not require the approval of any other eglatarians (feminism, civil rights backers, anything).
And this is good, because I have decided that I can't and won't be anyone's ally in these matters. I will not tolerate non-eglatarian behavior around me, but that's as far as I'm interested in going, anymore. Anytime you organize, you bring in politics, and frankly I at this moment in time cannot tolerate any more politics. You can do that without me.
I am certainly not going to be anyone's dog for the privilege of being an "ally".
This is interesting, and I will note for the record that I wrote my "The Deciders" post before reading this, but it does reinforce some of the thoughts I laid out there.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics.
And that's the part in which I am no longer interested.
Someone else can fix the world.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
That goes way beyond feminism into the morally bleak area of what is acceptable to maintain our standard of living.
Ultimately, its not a choice that can be made politically because the tribe will always protect the tribe. less then 1% of the world uses the majority of it's refined silicone, uranium, gold and other precious metals necessary to keep the first world as the first world.
It will always be built on a backbone of exclusion because that's a choice no one is ever going to make.
You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?
I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
THIS?
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 07:35:12 PM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:27:25 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 19, 2012, 08:06:13 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:07:57 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:52:57 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 05:00:22 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 18, 2012, 02:21:46 AM
I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.
It's beginning to sound like a cause.
Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior. When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be. It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.
But here's the problem: In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you. It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.
After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown. People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds. By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.
So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation. It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets. These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.
In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.
So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.
For God's sake, BUMP.
Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.
I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.
3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again. Might be that people aren't being heard. Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.
In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.
I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".
I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.
And while we're doing that, shit like THIS happens:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/
What's your point? Is it that we shouldn't be wasting time talking about things like rape and gender inequality and trying to come to a point of mutual understanding and communication, because there are other fucked-up issues that need to be addressed?
Well fuck it. I don't belong on this board at all. I should be narrowing down my concerns to the one most important injustice, and focusing on that exclusively.
THAT'S what you're talking about? SERIOUSLY?
As for me not jumping on/engaging with ECH for his opinions, I DECIDED NOT TO BOTHER. I'm already burned out, I don't want to tackle his persona even if I do think it's bullshit, I've already addressed everything he had to say, and I was already engaged in conversation with you. YEAH, it pissed me off when you posted that link in response to what I thought was a pretty measured and thoughtful reply about why these conversations keep getting dragged out, because it seemed to me to imply that what I'd just said just wasn't important enough to register. So I got sarcastic. But if that's generated some kind of massive paradigm shift for you in which you're just not going to believe in anything anymore, I don't know what to say.
You know, it's finals week, I have three kids, orders to fill, an internship that has been kicking my ass, a belly full of tumors and an upcoming surgery. I have been trying to reply to as many people as possible as generically as possible in the threads I've been participating in, so I'm not writing the same thing out as individual posts to each person because I don't have time for that. I barely have time to be here at all. I'm sorry if it came across as singling you out because you are the person whose posts I reply to most often.
I think it's time for me to take a couple months off. And BTW, the only reason I didn't call you back the other day because I was in Molalla with some kids, and I didn't get home until LATE and then I had to make dinner for my kids.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics.
And that's the part in which I am no longer interested.
Someone else can fix the world.
I can understand that, even if I don't agree at all. *shrug*
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:27:51 AM
You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?
I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.
Interesting little trap, isn't it? If you do nothing, you're complicit. If you band together, you've just formed another part of the overall structure, and no matter WHAT that structure is, it's going to come down to "whose ideals are most important?" aka "who is the top dog?"...The only evidence that I need offer for this is the anti-war movement of 2003-2005, when everyone and their Grandmother showed up with signs that had NOTHING TO DO with the war. They just HAD to take the moment to pimp out their personal cause (PITA, WTO, whatever).
I am convinced that this has to be handled at the individual level. It's not VERY effective, but it's more effective than NOTHING AT ALL, which is what happens when you organize.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:27:51 AM
You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?
I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.
I'm not going on about the exploitation cycle, I am just confirming that equality will never be fully realised through politics.
Personal action on a case by case is all anyone can do.
And no, I haven't read anything of BiP2013.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:29:59 AM
THAT'S what you're talking about? SERIOUSLY?
It was the icing on the cake, yes. It was a lot of build up from many people. This wasn't an "I'M PISSED AT NIGEL" thread, it was an "Enough is enough" thread.
QuoteYou know, it's finals week, I have three kids, orders to fill, an internship that has been kicking my ass, a belly full of tumors and an upcoming surgery. I have been trying to reply to as many people as possible as generically as possible in the threads I've been participating in, so I'm not writing the same thing out as individual posts to each person because I don't have time for that. I barely have time to be here at all. I'm sorry if it came across as singling you out because you are the person whose posts I reply to most often.
No problem. I've got a stalker who apparently has dropped off the radar after buying a gun, a trip down to Louisiana to attend a "Communication Class" (read: Learn how to eat shit and like it), and about a million other things going on, so I can see where you're coming from.
But I have to say, it did LOOK like I was being singled out. If that's not the case, then I apologize for the tone in my last post.
QuoteI think it's time for me to take a couple months off. And BTW, the only reason I didn't call you back the other day because I was in Molalla with some kids, and I didn't get home until LATE and then I had to make dinner for my kids.
Again, no problem about the call. I automatically assume you're busy these days. I'd rather you didn't take the time off from here.
In any case, I'll be out of town for a few days, unless Jeff blows my head off, in which case I'll be IN town indefinitely. :lulz:
All right, I've cooled off and I'm back.
One reason I so often reply to your posts is because you're engaging, you're here consistently, and I know we can actually have a conversation that won't deteriorate into ad-hominem and strawmen. ECH is good for that too, but I was already engaged in conversation with you. I would also like to distance myself from any impression that I was speaking in league with anyone who shares some of my perspectives. Perhaps it came across as if I was endorsing someone else's posts, but unless I specifically posted an endorsement, assume that I was not. I'm not on a "side", in that sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:32:32 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:27:51 AM
You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?
I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.
Interesting little trap, isn't it? If you do nothing, you're complicit. If you band together, you've just formed another part of the overall structure, and no matter WHAT that structure is, it's going to come down to "whose ideals are most important?" aka "who is the top dog?"...The only evidence that I need offer for this is the anti-war movement of 2003-2005, when everyone and their Grandmother showed up with signs that had NOTHING TO DO with the war. They just HAD to take the moment to pimp out their personal cause (PITA, WTO, whatever).
I am convinced that this has to be handled at the individual level. It's not VERY effective, but it's more effective than NOTHING AT ALL, which is what happens when you organize.
Ignoring the first part for a moment (which is certainly true enough), unless I'm misunderstanding your "nothing at all happens when you organize" wrong, I have to seriously object because it's historically incorrect. No organization = no women's rights, no civil rights movement, no gay rights, no trans rights, no right to organize, none of the things unions gave us - nothing.
Frankly, without organization, I have no idea where we'd be but I'm pretty sure it'd be ugly as fuck, ground into a smear under the heel of whatever the equivalent of the 1% would be.
Organizing accomplishes some things. It also creates politics and exclusionary behavior.
Look at this so called "ElevatorGate". Even before we jump into the blog based warfare that followed, let's just look at the incidents that began it:
1. Woman gets on elevator, guy on elevator says "I liked what you said, would you like to come to my room for coffee and discussion?"
2. Woman feels uncomfortable, says 'No' and goes to her room.
3. Woman discusses this in a lecture as misogyny.
4. Another woman publicly disagree.
5. First woman publicly shits on second woman for disagreeing.
That's the problem with organized systems and hierarchies. Maybe the guy was being an asshole, maybe the guy was treating her like an equal, maybe the guy was trying to start something and thought a cup of coffee and discussion was a good way to break the ice. Different humans might have different opinions. If the organization, or those leading the organization don't allow for divergent opinion, then the organization is not going to accomplish what I would consider to be something successful.
For me, the above example is a perfect moment for Maybe Logic, maybe it appeared to her as X, and it appeared to someone else as Y and the intent of the guy was Z. Could have still made fantastic points about guys considering the perception of what they say and do, despite the intent. But, that doesn't make for good polemics.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.
But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?
And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.
I think the main reason we are arguing here is because some of see where all this is headed : tolerance of Furries. And I for one refuse to go there.
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 09:04:42 PM
I think the main reason we are arguing here is because some of see where all this is headed : tolerance of Furries. And I for one refuse to go there.
IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE! :lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 20, 2012, 05:28:33 PM
Organizing accomplishes some things. It also creates politics and exclusionary behavior.
Look at this so called "ElevatorGate". Even before we jump into the blog based warfare that followed, let's just look at the incidents that began it:
1. Woman gets on elevator, guy on elevator says "I liked what you said, would you like to come to my room for coffee and discussion?"
2. Woman feels uncomfortable, says 'No' and goes to her room.
3. Woman discusses this in a lecture as misogyny.
4. Another woman publicly disagree.
5. First woman publicly shits on second woman for disagreeing.
That's the problem with organized systems and hierarchies. Maybe the guy was being an asshole, maybe the guy was treating her like an equal, maybe the guy was trying to start something and thought a cup of coffee and discussion was a good way to break the ice. Different humans might have different opinions. If the organization, or those leading the organization don't allow for divergent opinion, then the organization is not going to accomplish what I would consider to be something successful.
For me, the above example is a perfect moment for Maybe Logic, maybe it appeared to her as X, and it appeared to someone else as Y and the intent of the guy was Z. Could have still made fantastic points about guys considering the perception of what they say and do, despite the intent. But, that doesn't make for good polemics.
I'd say that the ElevatorGate incident was a lot more complex than those 5 steps, Rat. Yopu missed out the part where Dawkins was a condescending ass, and the threats of rape and online harassment of Rebecca Watson that came after it.
Propositioning someone you don't know very well in a space where there is no escape route is intimidating, and in the atheist/skeptic movement sexual harassment and misogyny
are already rife. Some of the atheist dudes are involved with the MRA's and show some pretty gross attitudes, like the Amazing Athiest who
actively and purposefully set out to trigger PTSD in someone who had experienced a sexual assault.
Oh, and Stella, Gloria Stienem was part of the SECOND wave of feminism. The first one was the woman's suffrage movement. We're now at third wave.
If it wasn't for the second wave leading into the third wave, rape in marriage as a legal concept wouldn't exist, nor the anti-discrimination and equal pay acts.
Oh and congratulations on buying the straw feminist trope and swallowing it whole. Nice work in ignoring historical context too.
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.
But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?
And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 09:04:42 PM
I think the main reason we are arguing here is because some of see where all this is headed : tolerance of Furries. And I for one refuse to go there.
IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE! :lulz:
It's vex's favourite fallacy.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.
But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?
And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
Whereas acting like a stereotypical gay person is good reason to abuse them?
Riiiiight.
Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 09:12:24 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 20, 2012, 05:28:33 PM
Organizing accomplishes some things. It also creates politics and exclusionary behavior.
Look at this so called "ElevatorGate". Even before we jump into the blog based warfare that followed, let's just look at the incidents that began it:
1. Woman gets on elevator, guy on elevator says "I liked what you said, would you like to come to my room for coffee and discussion?"
2. Woman feels uncomfortable, says 'No' and goes to her room.
3. Woman discusses this in a lecture as misogyny.
4. Another woman publicly disagree.
5. First woman publicly shits on second woman for disagreeing.
That's the problem with organized systems and hierarchies. Maybe the guy was being an asshole, maybe the guy was treating her like an equal, maybe the guy was trying to start something and thought a cup of coffee and discussion was a good way to break the ice. Different humans might have different opinions. If the organization, or those leading the organization don't allow for divergent opinion, then the organization is not going to accomplish what I would consider to be something successful.
For me, the above example is a perfect moment for Maybe Logic, maybe it appeared to her as X, and it appeared to someone else as Y and the intent of the guy was Z. Could have still made fantastic points about guys considering the perception of what they say and do, despite the intent. But, that doesn't make for good polemics.
I'd say that the ElevatorGate incident was a lot more complex than those 5 steps, Rat. Yopu missed out the part where Dawkins was a condescending ass, and the threats of rape and online harassment of Rebecca Watson that came after it.
Which is why I said "before the blog based warfare"... the Dawkins dismissive attitude etc all came after those 5 highlights I mentioned above (at least according to the sources I've read).
Quote
Propositioning someone you don't know very well in a space where there is no escape route is intimidating, and in the atheist/skeptic movement sexual harassment and misogyny are already rife. Some of the atheist dudes are involved with the MRA's and show some pretty gross attitudes, like the Amazing Athiest who actively and purposefully set out to trigger PTSD in someone who had experienced a sexual assault.
Of course it could be intimidating, I don't disagree. If there's lots of misogyny in the skeptic movement that's absurd (but somehow fits with my view of the 'movement'). However, it was still an opinion that the act was misogynistic. Maybe a well informed opinion, but still an opinion. When the opinion was disagreed with (by another woman) it became heresy... which in turn spawned Dawkins dismissiveness, the Blog fights, the harassment etc etc etc
My point was that a difference of opinion was not tolerated because it didn't agree with Ms. Watson's beliefs.
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 09:28:21 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.
But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?
And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
Whereas acting like a stereotypical gay person is good reason to abuse them?
Riiiiight.
Because there is ever a good reason to mock or abuse someone?
Quote from: Pixie on August 20, 2012, 09:12:24 PM
Oh, and Stella, Gloria Stienem was part of the SECOND wave of feminism. The first one was the woman's suffrage movement. We're now at third wave.
If it wasn't for the second wave leading into the third wave, rape in marriage as a legal concept wouldn't exist, nor the anti-discrimination and equal pay acts.
Oh and congratulations on buying the straw feminist trope and swallowing it whole. Nice work in ignoring historical context too.
Now any female who chooses not to agree and jump on the bandwagon has "bought into the straw feminist trope". BECUZ EVERYBODY KNOWS GRRLS CAN'T THINK ON THEIR OWN AN' STUFF, HEE HEE.
Oh, and "equal pay act". :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Just thought I could point out that the whole point of an "insult" is to, well, insult someone. If someone's pissed me off enough to make me that angry, I'm probably not going to be overly concerned about protecting their feelings - quite the contrary, probably.
As for jokes/kidding around, ehhh...it's tough. I understand how things could be sensitive issues for certain people. I try my best to be sensitive to and aware of the people around me. If I offend someone, I'll apologize and try not to do it again. Certain things are a bit touchy for me too - sexual violence, being one. I won't flip out on someone for making a tasteless joke, but I'll let them know why it bothers me and go from there. The world's really fucked up, gotta laugh, I guess. After a while it feels like it gets to the point of "Fuck You, my mom died from being insensitive". Seems to me that context and intent are important. I don't think that makes me any less sensitive to the fact that everyone deserves to be treated equally
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
"Make." Am I correct?
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
No, there's something that bothers me about the idea of looking to MAKE people equal.
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.
But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?
And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.
I answered and explained my position in one of the related threads. And I wasn't the one who pointed out the inclusion of the word "retard" in her thread. Also, "retard" doesn't belong in the same category as "nigger" or "fag". "Retarded" isn't slang, it's an actual word. And, if you look at the definition, you'll see why mentally deficient people are called "retarded". I fail to see how it can be construed as a slur save by someone who's hell-bent on being on a super-righteous high horse.
Quote from: Faust on August 20, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 09:28:21 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 20, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 20, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?
I'm not hinting around at anything. I have directly stated what the problem is. You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.
I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said. ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass. This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.
It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day. It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right? Right right right?
Action/reaction. What else would you possibly expect from the universe? I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn. Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).
To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.
But will you toss around "faggot"? "N***er"? "Retard"?
And oh, look at that, I don't have slurs in my signature so you can't ignore this question like you did when Garbo asked it.
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
Whereas acting like a stereotypical gay person is good reason to abuse them?
Riiiiight.
Because there is ever a good reason to mock or abuse someone?
Have you ever come in contact with other humans? :lulz:
It's hard to find a good reason NOT to mock or abuse most people.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on August 20, 2012, 09:56:04 PM
Just thought I could point out that the whole point of an "insult" is to, well, insult someone. If someone's pissed me off enough to make me that angry, I'm probably not going to be overly concerned about protecting their feelings - quite the contrary, probably.
As for jokes/kidding around, ehhh...it's tough. I understand how things could be sensitive issues for certain people. I try my best to be sensitive to and aware of the people around me. If I offend someone, I'll apologize and try not to do it again. Certain things are a bit touchy for me too - sexual violence, being one. I won't flip out on someone for making a tasteless joke, but I'll let them know why it bothers me and go from there. The world's really fucked up, gotta laugh, I guess. After a while it feels like it gets to the point of "Fuck You, my mom died from being insensitive". Seems to me that context and intent are important. I don't think that makes me any less sensitive to the fact that everyone deserves to be treated equally
I think there are about 4 threads that could be summed up with this one post.
TP13, you win the coveted :potd:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on August 20, 2012, 09:56:04 PM
Just thought I could point out that the whole point of an "insult" is to, well, insult someone. If someone's pissed me off enough to make me that angry, I'm probably not going to be overly concerned about protecting their feelings - quite the contrary, probably.
As for jokes/kidding around, ehhh...it's tough. I understand how things could be sensitive issues for certain people. I try my best to be sensitive to and aware of the people around me. If I offend someone, I'll apologize and try not to do it again. Certain things are a bit touchy for me too - sexual violence, being one. I won't flip out on someone for making a tasteless joke, but I'll let them know why it bothers me and go from there. The world's really fucked up, gotta laugh, I guess. After a while it feels like it gets to the point of "Fuck You, my mom died from being insensitive". Seems to me that context and intent are important. I don't think that makes me any less sensitive to the fact that everyone deserves to be treated equally
I think there are about 4 threads that could be summed up with this one post.
TP13, you win the coveted :potd:
I will wholeheartedly second that motion.
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
How can you change a problem that you ignore? I'd like someone to explain that to me, because it sounds like a crock of shit.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
That was not why I took issue with the phrase.
However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.
Okay, acknowledged. That was mostly directed at Vex anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
What the actual fuck does this mean?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:21:01 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
That was not why I took issue with the phrase.
However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.
Yeah, I think that the people who are on the pointy end of the stick don't really feel like they can relax about it and go with the flow, so much.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
I mean trying to fix a problem by bolstering the thing that makes it a problem in the first place. You don't "fix" racism by passing laws that say "black people are entitled to XYZ because they are black." You pass laws that say "you are not allowed to consider race in XYZ situation." You eliminate the recognition of the divide, you don't focus on one or the other side of it.
I'm not campaigning for your equality, I'm living it, in the hopes that my indifference to differences catches on in the people around me. Nobody gets special consideration from me, positive or negative, due to any status they cannot control. That's all I'm saying.
I want to agree with that, but affirmative action is absolutely necessary.
And that's fine, I suppose.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:21:01 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
That was not why I took issue with the phrase.
However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.
Yeah, I think that the people who are on the pointy end of the stick don't really feel like they can relax about it and go with the flow, so much.
Believe me, I understand completely. And when I find myself confronted with other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, I don't stay quiet, nor do I fail to act if I see someone being harassed or threatened because of other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, even if they're a stranger to me. But that's about as far as it goes. I have no interest in that kind of activism both for selfish personal reasons and because I generally can't stand the crowd it attracts. If that makes me a douchebag, I can live with that.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:35:45 AM
I want to agree with that, but affirmative action is absolutely necessary.
And that's fine, I suppose.
Affirmative action might be necessary so far as it exists only to force the issue of eliminating some asshole's persistent recognition of the divide. It should never override real egalitarianism, though, and that's fine because I've never really seen a case (outside of redneck straw-man arguments) where that's happened.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:21:01 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
That was not why I took issue with the phrase.
However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.
Yeah, I think that the people who are on the pointy end of the stick don't really feel like they can relax about it and go with the flow, so much.
Believe me, I understand completely. And when I find myself confronted with other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, I don't stay quiet, nor do I fail to act if I see someone being harassed or threatened because of other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, even if they're a stranger to me. But that's about as far as it goes. I have no interest in that kind of activism both for selfish personal reasons and because I generally can't stand the crowd it attracts. If that makes me a douchebag, I can live with that.
I most expressly DON'T think people are douchebags for not becoming activists. Not everyone has the time/passion/inclination/motivation for activism, and by not tolerating bigotry in your life or presence, you are making a difference.
You're also not buying into the whole "I don't understand your experience so I'm against your thing because I don't like being told I don't understand" babboonery.
Well of course not, that just seems silly. "I don't understand" is just as important a thing to be able to comfortably confront as "I don't know".
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:55:36 AM
Well of course not, that just seems silly. "I don't understand" is just as important a thing to be able to comfortably confront as "I don't know".
Yeah, I think so too. Also important is "I'll never really know what it's like to be in that situation but I get that it sucks and I'm willing to back you up".
I file that under the larger umbrella of "I don't understand". People seem to get hung up on thinking that if they can't understand something, it must not be valid. And while I'm sure it's nice to be such an amazing super-genius that anything you don't understand is obviously horseshit and should be ignored, dismissed, or confronted with hostility, well....I'm just not that smart. And I never want to be.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 01:06:33 AM
I file that under the larger umbrella of "I don't understand". People seem to get hung up on thinking that if they can't understand something, it must not be valid. And while I'd like to be such an amazing super-genius that anything I don't understand is obviously horseshit and should be ignored, dismissed, or confronted with hostility, well....I'm just not that smart. And I never want to be.
Yeah, I think you're right about that, and that generates a lot of frustration.
In my opinion, a huge part of actually understanding the world is knowing that there is a shit ton that you can't understand.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:55:36 AM
Well of course not, that just seems silly. "I don't understand" is just as important a thing to be able to comfortably confront as "I don't know".
Yeah, I think so too. Also important is "I'll never really know what it's like to be in that situation but I get that it sucks and I'm willing to back you up".
Okay, I can buy that. How?
What sort of 'how' do you mean?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 01:49:56 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:55:36 AM
Well of course not, that just seems silly. "I don't understand" is just as important a thing to be able to comfortably confront as "I don't know".
Yeah, I think so too. Also important is "I'll never really know what it's like to be in that situation but I get that it sucks and I'm willing to back you up".
Okay, I can buy that. How?
Sort of like how my brother was in combat in Kuwait, and I can never know what that was like, but I will stand up for who he was for the rest of my life, to my death.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:22:54 AM
Okay, acknowledged. That was mostly directed at Vex anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
What the actual fuck does this mean?
For whatever reason, a lot of straight guys find the concept of fucking a man in the ass funny as hell. Most wouldn't deny a guy the right if that's his thing but, from my point of view at least, it's definitely funny. So when someone I'm with says something in conversation that could be construed (however tangentially) as a come on or something like that, we'll rag on him for his gayness.
You probably know how the retard thing works, right?
With "Nigger" however, that means black person. I think in america you have black stereotypes but not so much in my neck of the woods so I can't think of a situation where someone would do something that reminded me of a black person, aside from having dark skin which doesn't happen to white people.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 07:56:42 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:22:54 AM
Okay, acknowledged. That was mostly directed at Vex anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
What the actual fuck does this mean?
For whatever reason, a lot of straight guys find the concept of fucking a man in the ass funny as hell. Most wouldn't deny a guy the right if that's his thing but, from my point of view at least, it's definitely funny. So when someone I'm with says something in conversation that could be construed (however tangentially) as a come on or something like that, we'll rag on him for his gayness.
You probably know how the retard thing works, right?
With "Nigger" however, that means black person. I think in america you have black stereotypes but not so much in my neck of the woods so I can't think of a situation where someone would do something that reminded me of a black person, aside from having dark skin which doesn't happen to white people.
Huh, maybe somewhere elsewhere you can avoid being a baboon-hooting pussyflogging piece of shit.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:06:19 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 07:56:42 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:22:54 AM
Okay, acknowledged. That was mostly directed at Vex anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
What the actual fuck does this mean?
For whatever reason, a lot of straight guys find the concept of fucking a man in the ass funny as hell. Most wouldn't deny a guy the right if that's his thing but, from my point of view at least, it's definitely funny. So when someone I'm with says something in conversation that could be construed (however tangentially) as a come on or something like that, we'll rag on him for his gayness.
You probably know how the retard thing works, right?
With "Nigger" however, that means black person. I think in america you have black stereotypes but not so much in my neck of the woods so I can't think of a situation where someone would do something that reminded me of a black person, aside from having dark skin which doesn't happen to white people.
Huh, maybe somewhere elsewhere you can avoid being a baboon-hooting pussyflogging piece of shit.
Mayeb you could teach me some time :lulz:
What's so difficult about making a distinction between lived knowledge and vicarious knowledge?
In retrospect, discussing libertarianism wasn't so bad.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 09:21:51 AM
In retrospect, discussing libertarianism wasn't so bad.
Ah yes, the "rehashing" trope.
Communication breaks down around particular subjects, therefore I shan't ever discuss it again!
Rather than improve my communication skills, I'll just stand by and tsk-tsk the foolish attempts at understanding or making a point in an emotionally charged topic.
Actually not what I was implying.
But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous rush. I know you love rehasing the "Cain is being a dick" trope at every possible opportunity.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
Actually not what I was implying.
But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous rush. I know you love rehasing the "Cain is being a dick" trope at every possible opportunity.
What were you implying?
That the large amount of personally heated disagreement and drama these threads is apparently causing makes the libertarian threads seem a lot less worse by comparison. I could have used "anarchism" or "magick" just as well in the same sentence, and considered it.
Feminism: even worse than libertarian, anarchism, or magickque threads.
Got it.
When people argued for civil rights and it devolved into drama, they really ought to have just never rehashed the argument until it started to take.
Quote from: Net on August 21, 2012, 09:50:45 AM
Feminism: even worse than libertarian, anarchism, or magickque threads.
Got it.
It's disingenious to imply that is what was said. It is obvious that we as a forum are worse at discussing this topic then those other ones objectively without descending to bickering.
It's a failure on our part, feminist or no.
No, he's right, I really was criticizing all of feminism with my comments. By criticizing the conduct of the board in discussing feminism, what I am actually saying is that feminist philosophy is worse than a thousand Hitlers.
:lulz:
This is the most pathetic hatchet job ever, and I'm including The Cellar's attempts to misinterpret my comments in that assessment. That Net brought up "rehashing" again, when I clearly said it had nothing to do with that, tells you everything about the sincerity of his comments.
Of course, the real irony here is that Net is helping me in justifying my original comments.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 12:21:01 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:01:58 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 20, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 20, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 01:05:06 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 12:20:10 AM
All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"
I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".
At least "cunt" is honest.
We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.
All politics are exclusionary.
I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?
There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.
That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?
How else are you supposed to remedy them? How else are you supposed to help end the wage gap or shut down the prison-industrial complex or stop transphobic hate crimes? You have to acknowledge these problems AS problems in order to fix them.
That was not why I took issue with the phrase.
However, that aside, I missed the part where I was interested in fixing the world's problems. And I suspect there are alot of people here who feel the same. If it's something you aspire to, then I think that's fine and I hope you succeed. But my life is too short, I barely have enough time to enjoy it as it is. And yeah, I know, it's easy for me to say that because I'm a white man born in the right country.
Yeah, I think that the people who are on the pointy end of the stick don't really feel like they can relax about it and go with the flow, so much.
Believe me, I understand completely. And when I find myself confronted with other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, I don't stay quiet, nor do I fail to act if I see someone being harassed or threatened because of other peoples' bigotry or intolerance, even if they're a stranger to me. But that's about as far as it goes. I have no interest in that kind of activism both for selfish personal reasons and because I generally can't stand the crowd it attracts. If that makes me a douchebag, I can live with that.
This stuck in my mind. Been having a think about it and I'm pretty sure it's not "the crowd it attracts" that bugs me, pers se, it's that, after a point, any activist movement naturally attract a number of complete fucking idiots. This is no reflection on the valididty of whatever the cause is, merely a function of statistical mathematics but, once a cause has idiots in it, it's kinda like a wooden house having termites, the whole thing is headed directly to retard central.
After a certain point "strength in numbers" becomes a fallacy.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 11:43:44 AM
No, he's right, I really was criticizing all of feminism with my comments. By criticizing the conduct of the board in discussing feminism, what I am actually saying is that feminist philosophy is worse than a thousand Hitlers.
:lulz:
This is the most pathetic hatchet job ever, and I'm including The Cellar's attempts to misinterpret my comments in that assessment. That Net brought up "rehashing" again, when I clearly said it had nothing to do with that, tells you everything about the sincerity of his comments.
Of course you can't be wrong in your interpretation of my comments, and there's no way that I was referring to how we discuss feminism. I left off "thread" when I mentioned feminism, therefore I was making the ridiculous assertion you claim I was. Right.
And it's simply disingenuous of me to think that you left for a while after you threw a fit about the horrors of rehashed arguments that involve drugs (compared often on the board to other often rehashed topics such as libertarianism, anarchism, magickque, etc.).
CAN'T WE ALL JUST
get along?
Quote from: Net on August 21, 2012, 04:41:33 PM
Of course you can't be wrong in your interpretation of my comments, and there's no way that I was referring to how we discuss feminism. I left off "thread" when I mentioned feminism, therefore I was making the ridiculous assertion you claim I was. Right.
And it's simply disingenuous of me to think that you left for a while after you threw a fit about the horrors of rehashed arguments that involve drugs (compared often on the board to other often rehashed topics such as libertarianism, anarchism, magickque, etc.).
Truly pathetic. Your "got it" post is a direct reply to mine, and only an idiot would think otherwise. Why do you insist on treating me as an idiot, Net?
And do you mean the time I "left" because, oh, it was the last month of term, the busiest time of year for my job, and I had paperwork and emails coming out of every orifice? Newsflash: not every event in my life is tied into PD.
But since we're bringing things up from the past, I'd like you to all know Net's criticisms of me are just because I won't sleep with him.
Remember kids, Net wants us to have constructive discussions (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33050.0.html).
Except when we say something that upsets him, in which case making shit up, insults and interpreting what the other person says with ill intent is perfectly acceptable.
:lulz:
I would LIKE to say that this kind of discussion is the cancer killing PD, but that's so played out it isn't even a thing anymore.
I WILL say that whatever tangents we go off on, to whatever extremes we go to piss each other off, we should try not to lose sight of the fact that in the great sea of human cognitive feces that is the Internet, it is unlikely that you will find another place where you can alternate between Full Enlightenment to Full Baboon as quickly or with as much tolerance as you can here.
I will also say that somewhere, deep down, we all wish you would sleep with us, Cain.
This is a fact.
There is also a certain wry amusement in that what I was initially getting at was at least threads like the libertarianism one, which people traditionally dislike and complain about, do not cause the apparently huge fights the more recent threads have.
Which of course, sparked a fight. Life is nothing if not ironic.
It seems like I'm putting my foot in it all over the interwebs today/recently. :kingmeh:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 08:36:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:06:19 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 07:56:42 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:22:54 AM
Okay, acknowledged. That was mostly directed at Vex anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
What the actual fuck does this mean?
For whatever reason, a lot of straight guys find the concept of fucking a man in the ass funny as hell. Most wouldn't deny a guy the right if that's his thing but, from my point of view at least, it's definitely funny. So when someone I'm with says something in conversation that could be construed (however tangentially) as a come on or something like that, we'll rag on him for his gayness.
You probably know how the retard thing works, right?
With "Nigger" however, that means black person. I think in america you have black stereotypes but not so much in my neck of the woods so I can't think of a situation where someone would do something that reminded me of a black person, aside from having dark skin which doesn't happen to white people.
Huh, maybe somewhere elsewhere you can avoid being a baboon-hooting pussyflogging piece of shit.
Mayeb you could teach me some time :lulz:
That's OK, I already have one dog to train.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 09:21:51 AM
In retrospect, discussing libertarianism wasn't so bad.
Jesus, Cain, really? I didn't expect that from you.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 09:48:31 AM
That the large amount of personally heated disagreement and drama these threads is apparently causing makes the libertarian threads seem a lot less worse by comparison. I could have used "anarchism" or "magick" just as well in the same sentence, and considered it.
Thanks for making it abundantly clear that this board is not for me, or for any woman who isn't willing to take it like a man. :lol:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 09:48:31 AM
That the large amount of personally heated disagreement and drama these threads is apparently causing makes the libertarian threads seem a lot less worse by comparison. I could have used "anarchism" or "magick" just as well in the same sentence, and considered it.
Thanks for making it abundantly clear that this board is not for me, or for any woman who isn't willing to take it like a man. :lol:
Yeah, that's
exactly what I was saying.
:roll:
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 09:48:31 AM
That the large amount of personally heated disagreement and drama these threads is apparently causing makes the libertarian threads seem a lot less worse by comparison. I could have used "anarchism" or "magick" just as well in the same sentence, and considered it.
Thanks for making it abundantly clear that this board is not for me, or for any woman who isn't willing to take it like a man. :lol:
Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying.
:roll:
What I am getting from that comparison is that the discussion about feminism, equality, and egalitarianism is going to go around and around endlessly and never get anywhere because there's a contingent here who is against even HEARING what women have to say about their lives and experience, so we should SHUT THE FUCK UP. If that is not what you mean to say vis a vis that comparison, you might want to try clarifying, because YOU JUST MADE THAT COMPARISON.
You basically just stuck your dick in it, Cain, so don't EVEN fucking try to make it someone else's fault or claim we're deliberately misunderstanding you. That's BULL FUCKING SHIT.
No I did not. And if you had rest the rest of my posts, you would know that.
In fact, I made it explicitly clear I was not making an point about rehashing arguments. My point, if you had bothered to read on, was that a topic, traditionally disliked by many on this forum, would at this point be infinitely preferable to what is going on, which is posters at each other's throats for next to no reason, and people who were friends, or at least on a friendly basis, suddenly turning against each other.
I'd rather rehash any topic any day than deal with any topic on any day which produces the latter, regardless of content.
But no, it must be because I hate talking about such topics and think you should all stfu. That perfectly explains my contributions to the feminism threads thus far, or that I helped kick off the discussion about patriarchy and how it can affect men as well as women. Because I think it's silly and not worth discussing.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 06:13:04 PM
You basically just stuck your dick in it, Cain, so don't EVEN fucking try to make it someone else's fault or claim we're deliberately misunderstanding you. That's BULL FUCKING SHIT.
Sure it is. But go ahead, call me a sexist. Never mind it goes against all the available evidence and what everyone knows about me, you clearly feel the need to have a go at me for some reason, so have at it.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 06:18:56 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 06:13:04 PM
You basically just stuck your dick in it, Cain, so don't EVEN fucking try to make it someone else's fault or claim we're deliberately misunderstanding you. That's BULL FUCKING SHIT.
Sure it is. But go ahead, call me a sexist. Never mind it goes against all the available evidence and what everyone knows about me, you clearly feel the need to have a go at me for some reason, so have at it.
I DON'T think you're a sexist. What I DO think is that you said something stupid and ill-advised. I have a problem with what you said, not with who you are.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 06:18:13 PM
No I did not. And if you had rest the rest of my posts, you would know that.
In fact, I made it explicitly clear I was not making an point about rehashing arguments. My point, if you had bothered to read on, was that a topic, traditionally disliked by many on this forum, would at this point be infinitely preferable to what is going on, which is posters at each other's throats for next to no reason, and people who were friends, or at least on a friendly basis, suddenly turning against each other.
I'd rather rehash any topic any day than deal with any topic on any day which produces the latter, regardless of content.
But no, it must be because I hate talking about such topics and think you should all stfu. That perfectly explains my contributions to the feminism threads thus far, or that I helped kick off the discussion about patriarchy and how it can affect men as well as women. Because I think it's silly and not worth discussing.
And, I find topics like these very useful for helping me determine who I actually want to be my friend. This topic has helped me to weed a couple people out. In case anyone is feeling paranoid, it isn't anyone who doesn't know it for sure.
So why say this in response to me?
QuoteThanks for making it abundantly clear that this board is not for me, or for any woman who isn't willing to take it like a man.[/b
Looks to me like an accusation of sexism.
Not to mention "putting my dick in it".
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 06:23:11 PM
So why say this in response to me?
QuoteThanks for making it abundantly clear that this board is not for me, or for any woman who isn't willing to take it like a man.[/b
Looks to me like an accusation of sexism.
Not to mention "putting my dick in it".
That was my response to WHAT YOU SAID.
Do you want to clarify that it was a mistake, or do you want to flog me for reading it wrong? Pick one.
Well, I'd like an apology for the comment. I don't especially like being called sexist.
And how is that in any way a response to what I said? No, it was a response to what you thought I said, once you parsed it via context and subjective interpretation (incorrectly). Nothing in my comment directly says in any way that I think women should "take it like a man" or leave, and my explanation should have made that even more clear. There was no good basis for such a comment and I actually find it rather hurtful that you could suggest such a thing, given what I have previously said on the topic of feminism.
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 06:31:31 PM
Well, I'd like an apology for the comment. I don't especially like being called sexist.
And how is that in any way a response to what I said? No, it was a response to what you thought I said, once you parsed it via context and subjective interpretation (incorrectly). Nothing in my comment directly says in any way that I think women should "take it like a man" or leave, and my explanation should have made that even more clear. There was no good basis for such a comment and I actually find it rather hurtful that you could suggest such a thing, given what I have previously said on the topic of feminism.
You'll get an apology after you apologize for your dismissive and condescending comparison. Not before.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 07:56:42 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 12:22:54 AM
Okay, acknowledged. That was mostly directed at Vex anyway.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
"Faggot" yes, "retard" yes, "nigger" no. I've never seen a non-black person acting stereotypically dark skinned, which is how the others work as insults.
What the actual fuck does this mean?
For whatever reason, a lot of straight guys find the concept of fucking a man in the ass funny as hell. Most wouldn't deny a guy the right if that's his thing but, from my point of view at least, it's definitely funny. So when someone I'm with says something in conversation that could be construed (however tangentially) as a come on or something like that, we'll rag on him for his gayness.
You probably know how the retard thing works, right?
With "Nigger" however, that means black person. I think in america you have black stereotypes but not so much in my neck of the woods so I can't think of a situation where someone would do something that reminded me of a black person, aside from having dark skin which doesn't happen to white people.
Yeah, no. Thanks for contributing to the stigma of homosexuality.
No, actually. Enlighten me.
That makes precisely no sense in relation to your original comment.
Look, ignorance is one thing, but I refuse to accept that anyone here wants women, or anyone else feminism supports, to lick boots until I see a smoking gun. So far all see is overly-heated, poorly ventilated debate.
On that note, Pent:
I don't really care what the reasons are, whenever anyone says the word fag, faggot, or says that's gay in such a way that attempts to be funny or amusing I just get pissed off. It's not that I am offended. No, I have an instant reaction where my brain goes back in time to people using those words to try to turn me into nothing. To make me afraid, to put me in my place. That straight guys think it's funny is irrelevant to me.
Now, confronted with such a scenario I have two options. The first one, in order, is: go into a detailed history of gay rights and queer living in America before such rights were appropriated. This is a long process, but if the person has any brains at all they will realize they better remember who is in the room before they talk like that.
The other option, if the first fails, is to write them off as human and make sure I can make their life painful in some way for as long as possible.
I would never tell anyone not to talk like that. I would merely illustrate that it's a fucked up, backwards, Sarah Palin kind of thinking and if they can't or won't understand that...fuck em.
^^^ That.
I play around with the gay trope sometimes around my friends, but in a way that makes it a positive. That whole "glorious faggot" thing (although I still can't say "faggot" in a non-PD context with any sort of comfort).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 07:16:44 PM
I play around with the gay trope sometimes around my friends, but in a way that makes it a positive. That whole "glorious faggot" thing (although I still can't say "faggot" in a non-PD context with any sort of comfort).
Want to watch people have a hilarious mental freakout? Call someone not from PD a Glorious Faggot, and mean it. You do have to choose your audience wisely, but the expressions on people's faces when you use "faggot" as a lauding term are HILARIOUS. "He said a bad thing! But wait... he meant it as a compliment... SO CONFUSED."
I often have to be very careful with that, though, because saying "faggot" in the company I keep is a lot like a white guy saying "nigger" during Showtime at the Apollo.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 08:06:09 PM
I often have to be very careful with that, though, because saying "faggot" in the company I keep is a lot like a white guy saying "nigger" during Showtime at the Apollo.
:lulz:
A thought: seems like part of the reason this particular debate keeps going on and on despite the repeated shitstorms and thread drift is that everyone involved acknowledges the topic as important and actionable. In fact, even a few people who were not initially involved seem to me to have gotten more involved for this reason (ECH, Cain?).
Unlike topics like anarchism and libertarianism which are kinda pie-in-the-sky anyway, this has all been about how we individually comport ourselves in our everyday lives, and like it or not, there appear to be different views on this.
Quote from: VERBL on August 22, 2012, 08:08:46 AM
A thought: seems like part of the reason this particular debate keeps going on and on despite the repeated shitstorms and thread drift is that everyone involved acknowledges the topic as important and actionable. In fact, even a few people who were not initially involved seem to me to have gotten more involved for this reason (ECH, Cain?).
Unlike topics like anarchism and libertarianism which are kinda pie-in-the-sky anyway, this has all been about how we individually comport ourselves in our everyday lives, and like it or not, there appear to be different views on this.
I can get behind that.