Anecdote tiem:
I was just in a bar. The Blue Fox, to be exact. I love this place and me and my future wife play dominoes on Saturdays there. Feel free to join us.
I was pretty upset about certain discussions regarding feminism. But I was getting over it using a Internet vacation (minus my feeds, which frighten me [thanks, Cain]) and some beer and some familiar places. At some point, my fiancé was killing me 2 out of 3. I got up and used the bathroom. On my way was a pool table where two hispanic gentlement were playing. One of them gave a good long look. As the bathroom door shut behind me I heard the all too familiar word:
"Maricon."
I did nothing. I was walking to the bathroom. And I realized FEMINISM can do nothing to help me. In this situation, a non-white male calling a white male a faggot... You know what that is? It's an asshole being an asshole. So I'll keep a watch out for assholes, and you can fucking KEEP feminism.
OR KILL ME.
Offer to style his hair since that is the literal translation.
I know thats no help. That sucks man. I honestly dont know what i would do in tht situation.
I used to work in a restaurant where the cooks were all Mexican. One of the gay Mexican servers once told me that the Mexican culture is incredibly more macho-oriented than we are in America. I've been called 'Maricon' many many times there because I'm kinda fabulous. I mean I'm not THAT fabulous, but apparently fabulous enough for them.
Many of these guys would send money back to their families at home while working two, sometimes three jobs and sleep on a hard floor with a bunch of others (according to my server pal).
During this time I would go home, enjoy my children, make love to my wife and even be able to screw around on the internet if I wanted.
One way of looking at this scene is that I'm not sacrificing enough for my family...another way of looking at this scene is that they are slaves to their roles.
I'm certainly not a faggot and I also don't feel the need to be wrapped up in so much machismo that it prevents me from being as fabulous as I wanna be, enjoy my family. I also don't go around calling people faggot because I feel this obsessive urge to reinforce my own macho reality.
I'm not sure if this is really relevant to your thread or not, but it seemed like that at first and it's also where my head is at right now.
You can take your fucking gay rights and cram them up your ass then, if you want to play bullshit divisive games with it. Is that what you really want? To play the game of "who has it worse than who"?
I'LL TELL YOU, NIGGERS IN THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH COULDN'T HAVE HAD IT ANY WORSE THAN WHITE MEN TODAY.
Fuck you. This place is not for me.
Maybe you fucks can find some way to make your mental acrobatics justify the shitty treatment Mexican immigrants are receiving in the US, because somewhere a Mexican immigrant did something shitty to a white American.
It IS shitty--but this isn't about Mexicans.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 09, 2012, 04:51:09 AM
You can take your fucking gay rights and cram them up your ass then, if you want to play bullshit divisive games with it. Is that what you really want? To play the game of "who has it worse than who"?
I'LL TELL YOU, NIGGERS IN THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH COULDN'T HAVE HAD IT ANY WORSE THAN WHITE MEN TODAY.
Fuck you. This place is not for me.
I'm a little pissed off today. What happened there didn't help. But the main point is like to express is that we do more by working together against a common enemy than we do splitting things off in as detailed a way as possible. The more bifurcated we are the more difficult it is to effect necessary change.
AND when it comes to sexuality details that tie us together matter more than generalization that's divide us.
No, it's apparently about white men being sick and tired of being told they aren't second class citizens. RECLAIM IT, WHITE MEN! :vom:
This place has turned blatantly hostile, as far as I'm concerned. From my count about 2/3 of the white men here now refuse to support feminism because they don't like the way one college student phrases things, and they don't care WHO they throw under the bus in pursuit of refusing to acknowledge privilege.
FUCK FEMINISM
DON'T FUCKING TELL ME WOMEN AND COLORED FOLK AREN'T EQUAL, WHITE MEN HAVE IT JUST AS BAD, I HAVE A COUPLE ANECDOTES RIGHT HERE TO PROVE IT.
QUIT TRYING TO BE ALL SPECIAL WITH YOUR "OPPRESSION" BULLSHIT.
WE ARE EQUALLY DISEMPOWERED, JUST IN DIFFERENT WAYS, DON'T TELL ME OTHERWISE OR I WON'T SUPPORT YOUR LITTLE MOVEMENT.
Yeah, all right. Clearly I need to step away from this subject and this place for a little bit.
That's not what I was trying to say at all.
DON'T CALL ME WHITE!
Well I'm NOT fucking sorry. I have seen more knuckle-dragging, chest-beating, ego-driven mouthbreathing here over this subject than I EVER expected to see over ANYTHING. I have seen flat out wingnut-level denial and MANIFEST FUCKING RETARDATION all in pursuit of denying the reality of social inequality between the sexes. I have seen people I look up to say things more suited to the mouths of politicians. I have seen WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE bare its canines and roar in SHEER MONKEY OUTRAGE at being pointed at with a finger. I can't imagine that I can come back to this board and stomach it and have serious conversations here after seeing the things some people have said; it's when you overhear someone you once respected talking about "them niggers"; you can't ever really look them in the eye again.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 09, 2012, 05:12:52 AM
Well I'm NOT fucking sorry. I have seen more knuckle-dragging, chest-beating, ego-driven mouthbreathing here over this subject than I EVER expected to see over ANYTHING. I have seen flat out wingnut-level denial and MANIFEST FUCKING RETARDATION all in pursuit of denying the reality of social inequality between the sexes. I have seen people I look up to say things more suited to the mouths of politicians. I have seen WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE bare its canines and roar in SHEER MONKEY OUTRAGE at being pointed at with a finger. I can't imagine that I can come back to this board and stomach it and have serious conversations here after seeing the things some people have said; it's when you overhear someone you once respected talking about "them niggers"; you can't ever really look them in the eye again.
Oh hey, no, I got it. We are clear there.
Actually, Alty, feminism can help you there a very direct way (this isn't even touching on the wider level of feminism). Homophobia directed at men contains a strong element of misogyny, because homosexual men aren't seen as real men (because real men only want to fuck the ladies). If you want to fuck men, that makes you too much like a woman to be a man. And women are Lesser.
If women were not Lesser, then that would knock a leg out from under homophobia.
ETA: "Maricon" means "big Mary", yes? I'd think that be a cue, when a woman's name is literal translation of the slur.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 05:32:45 AM
Actually, Alty, feminism can help you there a very direct way (this isn't even touching on the wider level of feminism). Homophobia directed at men contains a strong element of misogyny, because homosexual men aren't seen as real men (because real men only want to fuck the ladies). If you want to fuck men, that makes you too much like a woman to be a man. And women are Lesser.
If women were not Lesser, then that would knock a leg out from under homophobia.
ETA: "Maricon" means "big Mary", yes? I'd think that be a cue, when a woman's name is literal translation of the slur.
Thanks for saying what I was trying to say in a better way from a different point of view.
Quote from: Alty on September 09, 2012, 05:17:56 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 09, 2012, 05:12:52 AM
Well I'm NOT fucking sorry. I have seen more knuckle-dragging, chest-beating, ego-driven mouthbreathing here over this subject than I EVER expected to see over ANYTHING. I have seen flat out wingnut-level denial and MANIFEST FUCKING RETARDATION all in pursuit of denying the reality of social inequality between the sexes. I have seen people I look up to say things more suited to the mouths of politicians. I have seen WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE bare its canines and roar in SHEER MONKEY OUTRAGE at being pointed at with a finger. I can't imagine that I can come back to this board and stomach it and have serious conversations here after seeing the things some people have said; it's when you overhear someone you once respected talking about "them niggers"; you can't ever really look them in the eye again.
Oh hey, no, I got it. We are clear there.
Oh, it's clear, all right. Somehow I got blamed for this mess. I am - and apparently you are also - a "so-called friend".
And that's okay, because the person I thought was my friend apparently views me as her own personal bile bucket, to vomit her bad day on as she sees fit. That's not a friend...Either she honestly believes that somehow I've turned into Archie Bunker overnight, or she views me as something less than human, something that can be abused whenever the mood takes her...and neither case is acceptable. I haven't treated her like that, or done a fucking thing to deserve this.
Enough is enough.
Nigel is acting weird and fucked up to a lot of people right now. I'm concerned, but there's no excuses for this garbage Nigel is heaping on the dudes here.
Disarming/disparaging the invidious comment with a retort to the effect of how, actually, you just may be too good looking for that, well, it tends to take a few beats...
Quote from: Alty on September 09, 2012, 04:09:50 AM
So I'll keep a watch out for assholes, and you can fucking KEEP feminism.
This line is in poor taste, and I don't fault Nigel for getting pissed. Do you actually have anything against feminism, the idea that females should be treated equally with males?
If not, then it's not feminism that you think we should fucking KEEP. Please be more precise, or you risk people taking you at your word.
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: Alty on September 09, 2012, 04:09:50 AM
So I'll keep a watch out for assholes, and you can fucking KEEP feminism.
This line is in poor taste, and I don't fault Nigel for getting pissed. Do you actually have anything against feminism, the idea that females should be treated equally with males?
If not, then it's not feminism that you think we should fucking KEEP. Please be more precise, or you risk people taking you at your word.
I see the buzzards are circling.
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: Alty on September 09, 2012, 04:09:50 AM
So I'll keep a watch out for assholes, and you can fucking KEEP feminism.
This line is in poor taste, and I don't fault Nigel for getting pissed. Do you actually have anything against feminism, the idea that females should be treated equally with males?
If not, then it's not feminism that you think we should fucking KEEP. Please be more precise, or you risk people taking you at your word.
Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.
Let's look at the actual effects, shall we?
Pros: It's easier to file rape, domestic abuse, sex discrimination, or sexual harassment. We can vote. And...uhhhh...can't call anything else to mind.
Cons: We're expected to take on traditional male roles IN ADDITION to our traditional female roles, which boils down to holding at least one job while maintaining a nice home and caring for kids. We're expected to be in several places at once, and if we let any one area slide in order to attend to something else, we're deemed "irresponsible" and "neglectful". We're expected to take off of work at the drop of a hat every time a teacher wants to discuss something. We tend to get fired, drug tested and investigated by child services from the time our first child is born until the last one hits 17.
Have you noticed how nobody calls feminism "women's liberation" anymore? We're not very "liberated". Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be a woman stuck in an abusive marriage in the 50's. OTOH, if I had a decent living situation, I think I COULD endure a few demeaning TV commercials.
Hell, I might even get a sewing machine. I think we can be "equal" without being "identical".
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 09, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: Alty on September 09, 2012, 04:09:50 AM
So I'll keep a watch out for assholes, and you can fucking KEEP feminism.
This line is in poor taste, and I don't fault Nigel for getting pissed. Do you actually have anything against feminism, the idea that females should be treated equally with males?
If not, then it's not feminism that you think we should fucking KEEP. Please be more precise, or you risk people taking you at your word.
Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.
Let's look at the actual effects, shall we?
Pros: It's easier to file rape, domestic abuse, sex discrimination, or sexual harassment. We can vote. And...uhhhh...can't call anything else to mind.
Cons: We're expected to take on traditional male roles IN ADDITION to our traditional female roles, which boils down to holding at least one job while maintaining a nice home and caring for kids. We're expected to be in several places at once, and if we let any one area slide in order to attend to something else, we're deemed "irresponsible" and "neglectful". We're expected to take off of work at the drop of a hat every time a teacher wants to discuss something. We tend to get fired, drug tested and investigated by child services from the time our first child is born until the last one hits 17.
Have you noticed how nobody calls feminism "women's liberation" anymore? We're not very "liberated". Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be a woman stuck in an abusive marriage in the 50's. OTOH, if I had a decent living situation, I think I COULD endure a few demeaning TV commercials.
Hell, I might even get a sewing machine. I think we can be "equal" without being "identical".
:mittens:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 09, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: Alty on September 09, 2012, 04:09:50 AM
So I'll keep a watch out for assholes, and you can fucking KEEP feminism.
This line is in poor taste, and I don't fault Nigel for getting pissed. Do you actually have anything against feminism, the idea that females should be treated equally with males?
If not, then it's not feminism that you think we should fucking KEEP. Please be more precise, or you risk people taking you at your word.
Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.
Let's look at the actual effects, shall we?
Pros: It's easier to file rape, domestic abuse, sex discrimination, or sexual harassment. We can vote. And...uhhhh...can't call anything else to mind.
Cons: We're expected to take on traditional male roles IN ADDITION to our traditional female roles, which boils down to holding at least one job while maintaining a nice home and caring for kids. We're expected to be in several places at once, and if we let any one area slide in order to attend to something else, we're deemed "irresponsible" and "neglectful". We're expected to take off of work at the drop of a hat every time a teacher wants to discuss something. We tend to get fired, drug tested and investigated by child services from the time our first child is born until the last one hits 17.
Have you noticed how nobody calls feminism "women's liberation" anymore? We're not very "liberated". Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be a woman stuck in an abusive marriage in the 50's. OTOH, if I had a decent living situation, I think I COULD endure a few demeaning TV commercials.
Hell, I might even get a sewing machine. I think we can be "equal" without being "identical".
I know you don't like me and we disagree on quite a bit but this post is a home run.
I love the line about being equal without being identical. I think that's something that alot of people get hung up on, and not just in the context of feminism. It's OK to recognize the basic differences between groups, whether they be cultural or biological. It's when people start thinking that those differences mean that one group is inherently superior to the other that problems arise.
I just noticed this thread. Damn Alty, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 09, 2012, 09:07:13 AM
Nigel is acting weird and fucked up to a lot of people right now. I'm concerned, but there's no excuses for this garbage Nigel is heaping on the dudes here.
I don't see Nigel's outrage as "garbage heaped on the dudes here". I think she's legitimately pissed.
I have a different point of view about dude's behavior here and I doubt I'm under as much stress as she is.
Stella, do you reject egalitarianism (interchangeable with "feminism" IMO) merely because it's an "ism" as well?
Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:27:04 AM
Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.
Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?
As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 05:44:58 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:27:04 AM
Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.
Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?
As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".
What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 10, 2012, 05:57:01 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 05:44:58 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:27:04 AM
Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.
Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?
As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".
What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.
Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."
ISM = uniform
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 06:25:03 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 10, 2012, 05:57:01 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 05:44:58 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:27:04 AM
Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.
Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?
As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".
What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.
Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."
ISM = uniform
So that would mean Discordianism is all pinealists, huh? Because it's an ISM.
Why do the worst individuals of a group get to define the group, and not the best? And why do certain parts define the whole at all? That doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 10, 2012, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 06:25:03 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 10, 2012, 05:57:01 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 05:44:58 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:27:04 AM
Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.
Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?
As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".
What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.
Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."
ISM = uniform
So that would mean Discordianism is all pinealists, huh? Because it's an ISM.
Why do the worst individuals of a group get to define the group, and not the best? And why do certain parts define the whole at all? That doesn't make sense.
When people assume uniforms, it brings out the worst.
But from a semantic point of view, "Discordianism" is an interesting word...possibly an oxymoron, since so much of it seems to be about NOT falling into isms.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 07:18:23 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 10, 2012, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 06:25:03 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 10, 2012, 05:57:01 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 05:44:58 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 04:27:04 AM
Stella, maybe we ought to throw out racism as well, after all race relations still are fucked beyond belief.
Wouldn't a person who subscribes to racism be a racist?
As for egalitarianism - whose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
I'd prefer to have egalitarian views without the "ism".
What are you imagining the "ism" adds? It's just a way to term an idea of set of ideas.
Egalitarianism IS egalitarian views.
Yes, but there's a difference in holding views that happen to be egalitarian, and accepting someone's "set".
Vegan: "I don't eat meat and I avoid animal products."
VeganISM: "I don't eat meat or use animal products, and I run around telling other people how fucked up they are for eating meat and using animal products, and I hang out with people who are the same way and we all wear similar clothes and stuff and this weekend we're all gonna bust the minks out of the fur farm and they'll probably run out on the freeway and get smashed but IT'S FOR THE CAUSE DAMMIT."
ISM = uniform
So that would mean Discordianism is all pinealists, huh? Because it's an ISM.
Why do the worst individuals of a group get to define the group, and not the best? And why do certain parts define the whole at all? That doesn't make sense.
When people assume uniforms, it brings out the worst.
But from a semantic point of view, "Discordianism" is an interesting word...possibly an oxymoron, since so much of it seems to be about NOT falling into isms.
Fair. It just seems to me "vegan" is just as much a uniform as "veganism."
Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.
Semantics.
I think it is clear enough that the objection is to enforcing beliefs, not to having them. One person's idea of ideal feminism isn't more valid than another person's, regardless of gender. As a man I can have my own ideas about what would constitute effective feminism and those ideas can differ from anyone else's, even from a woman's. Now, my ideas might be flawed, or based on false assumptions, or come from privilege or whatever, and those are discussions worth having. But the notion that because I am a man I am not entitled to form my own opinions is just not correct.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 09:01:49 AM
Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.
I'd prefer to think of it as a good start.
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 09:11:33 AM
Semantics.
I think it is clear enough that the objection is to enforcing beliefs, not to having them. One person's idea of ideal feminism isn't more valid than another person's, regardless of gender. As a man I can have my own ideas about what would constitute effective feminism and those ideas can differ from anyone else's, even from a woman's. Now, my ideas might be flawed, or based on false assumptions, or come from privilege or whatever, and those are discussions worth having. But the notion that because I am a man I am not entitled to form my own opinions is just not correct.
Horseshit postmodernism. If everyone's definition of feminism is equally valid then the term is meaningless.
No one is saying you can't have an opinion about what is effective feminism because you're a man any more than a white person can't have an opinion about what is an effective way to advance civil rights activism. But not being in the cohort of a group's struggle you're advocating for means you have to spend a lot of time listening very carefully to the people subjected to the oppression or you're going to come off as a self-centered, invalidating, asshole.
And discussing semantics is part of having an honest argument. If you refuse to define your terms you're likely to prove to be a goal-post-shifting weasel.
Quote from: Faust on September 10, 2012, 09:15:37 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 09:01:49 AM
Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.
I'd prefer to think of it as a good start.
A good start at wearing a nudism uniform while thinking you're not a nudist.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Faust on September 10, 2012, 09:15:37 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 09:01:49 AM
Rejecting an "ism" is a facile way of rejecting uniforms.
I'd prefer to think of it as a good start.
A good start at wearing a nudism uniform while thinking you're not a nudist.
Because making the choice not to be something when you already share characteristics with it is impossible.
People Literally never change.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
You can reject the isms but not all the characteristics of the isms, generally collectivist ideals should be questioned and the best way to do so is to initially reject them.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
Quite the opposite, I said if you're thinking for yourself you won't be sucked in by ISMs. Re-read.
Quote from: Faust on September 10, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
You can reject the isms but not all the characteristics of the isms, generally collectivist ideals should be questioned and the best way to do so is to initially reject them.
Uncritical rejection is no better than uncritical acceptance.
Admitting you don't know about something and withholding judgment until you've investigated it is far better than continuing a kneejerk response to a suffix.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 11:48:30 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
Quite the opposite, I said if you're thinking for yourself you won't be sucked in by ISMs. Re-read.
You did say that, but then you also said these things:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 09, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Which undermine your position and make you look like you're suffering from suffix kneejerkism.
I think there is a middle ground, which I think has been mentioned already, which is to just. TFY,S. Where you do intersect with an -ism, great, you can support those ideas of the -ism.
But, then again, if the -ism is one that is prone to alienate potential allies with potential intersections, I see no problem with rejecting them out of hand.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:03:04 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 11:48:30 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
Quite the opposite, I said if you're thinking for yourself you won't be sucked in by ISMs. Re-read.
You did say that, but then you also said these things:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 09, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Which undermine your position and make you look like you're suffering from suffix kneejerkism.
Not holding something as holy or sacred is not the same thing as outright, kneejerk rejection. Indeed,it sounds very much like critical consideration. You canfind intersection with an-ism, without holding it up as some kind of holy movement.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: Faust on September 10, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
You can reject the isms but not all the characteristics of the isms, generally collectivist ideals should be questioned and the best way to do so is to initially reject them.
Uncritical rejection is no better than uncritical acceptance.
Admitting you don't know about something and withholding judgment until you've investigated it is far better than continuing a kneejerk response to a suffix.
Uncritical rejection of ideologies is a kneejerk, uncritical rejection of organisations ideologies calling themselves based on past experience with these organisations is not.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:03:04 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 11:48:30 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
Quite the opposite, I said if you're thinking for yourself you won't be sucked in by ISMs. Re-read.
You did say that, but then you also said these things:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 09, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Which undermine your position and make you look like you're suffering from suffix kneejerkism.
No, it doesn't. An ISM is a blanket for a whole set of beliefs, some of which are usually utter bullshit. The Christian example I gave earlier, for example, or within feminism, "stay out of my uterus" (worthwhile) vs. the "you can have it all" trope (unworkable).
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: Faust on September 10, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
Kind of TFYS thing...you just look at all the angles and go with what you think is right. It'll probably fall under the umbrella of some ISM, but you're under no obligation to live under the umbrella or accept the whole philosophy. Look at Christianity (funny how they don't call it "christianism"), most of us were raised with it at least to a degree, and can accept things like helping the poor or not being a hypocrite. But accepting the ISM without question is a good way to end up at a Rick Perry prayer rally petitioning an imaginary floating guy to smite gynecologists and librulz. The ISM is like a dog collar with a ring where some asshole can attach a chain to yank you around.
Might be semantics, but you get the idea.
That's a non sequitur. Because "isms" exist, they require one to slavishly follow them (and support Rick Perry, what's next Nazis)?
You seem to think that if you just reject things merely for being "isms" you automatically are thinking for yourself. "Doing everything exactly opposite from 'The Ism' is the same thing as doing everything exactly like 'The Ism'. You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference."
You can reject the isms but not all the characteristics of the isms, generally collectivist ideals should be questioned and the best way to do so is to initially reject them.
Uncritical rejection is no better than uncritical acceptance.
Admitting you don't know about something and withholding judgment until you've investigated it is far better than continuing a kneejerk response to a suffix.
You've got it back asswards. "Uncritical rejection" would be "Feeding the poor is Christian and I'm not Christian so fuck feeding the poor". "Investigation" means investigating the individual ideas themselves, not looking for acceptable ISMs.
It's a suffix.
You're chewing on the menu.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 12:40:54 PM
It's a suffix.
You're chewing on the menu.
Choking on it, at this point, I'd say.
BTW, from a linguistics/cognitive science perspective, this is all pretty lulzy. They're suffixes, guys, not even content morphemes.
Side thought...
Rejecting something as "just semantics" has always struck me as... odd.
We're in an environment where words are damn near EVERYTHING. Sure, emotes, pics... But when the heavy ideas come out, we're dealing with WORDS.
If the people involved in the discussion are using the same word, but are using it with two different connotations, two different ideas of what it is they're thinking the word MEANS, then the miscommunications happen, then the butthurt starts.
If you're dealing with discussing ideas, concepts... semantics is REALLY important. If you can't get an idea across using a particular word, stop and try to see if the other person is using that word the same way you are trying to use it... and if that doesn't work, stop getting hung up on that particular word.
So what are we going to call feminism when it's not being a uniform?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 10, 2012, 02:30:39 PM
So what are we going to call feminism when it's not being a uniform?
Being a human being.
I have to say, I'm a little aghast at being told that "isms" are now "just a suffix" and that I'm "chewing on the menu" because I have referred to THEIR ism that way, much like Isaac Hayes was all about making fun of religions on Southpark until it came around to HIS religion.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 10, 2012, 02:30:39 PM
So what are we going to call feminism when it's not being a uniform?
Being a human being.
I have to say, I'm a little aghast at being told that "isms" are now "just a suffix" and that I'm "chewing on the menu" because I have referred to THEIR ism that way, much like Isaac Hayes was all about making fun of religions on Southpark until it came around to HIS religion.
That's fair. However, uniforms aside, I don't see much problem with using ism to describe something how it is. If we have a perfectly good word to describe something why not use it? I'm not really offering up any suggestions one way or the other, but if the language on the board is going to change, then I'd like to stay on top of it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Being a human being.
I have to say, I'm a little aghast at being told that "isms" are now "just a suffix" and that I'm "chewing on the menu" because I have referred to THEIR ism that way, much like Isaac Hayes was all about making fun of religions on Southpark until it came around to HIS religion.
Speaking only for myself, the menu-chewing isn't the rejection of one "ism", it's the broad rejection of all "isms" as "isms". It's not even like all "isms" have the same sense of "ism" (for example, Judaism is not the same kind of "ism" as Communism.)
It's a bit like disliking any word with the letter "c" because you don't like how it sounds in the c-word (it sounds very different in the word "face".)
Quote from: VERBL on September 10, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Being a human being.
I have to say, I'm a little aghast at being told that "isms" are now "just a suffix" and that I'm "chewing on the menu" because I have referred to THEIR ism that way, much like Isaac Hayes was all about making fun of religions on Southpark until it came around to HIS religion.
Speaking only for myself, the menu-chewing isn't the rejection of one "ism", it's the broad rejection of all "isms" as "isms". It's not even like all "isms" have the same sense of "ism" (for example, Judaism is not the same kind of "ism" as Communism.)
It's a bit like disliking any word with the letter "c" because you don't like how it sounds in the c-word (it sounds very different in the word "face".)
All isms are by definition uniforms. Even Discordianism. It makes no difference what catagory it falls into, it is a replacement for thinking.
Quote from: VERBL on September 10, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Being a human being.
I have to say, I'm a little aghast at being told that "isms" are now "just a suffix" and that I'm "chewing on the menu" because I have referred to THEIR ism that way, much like Isaac Hayes was all about making fun of religions on Southpark until it came around to HIS religion.
Speaking only for myself, the menu-chewing isn't the rejection of one "ism", it's the broad rejection of all "isms" as "isms". It's not even like all "isms" have the same sense of "ism" (for example, Judaism is not the same kind of "ism" as Communism.)
It's a bit like disliking any word with the letter "c" because you don't like how it sounds in the c-word (it sounds very different in the word "face".)
The problem I've seen with some "-isms" is that when somebody swallows that -ism whole, they tend to fall to the far end of the pool in it. The "ism" becomes more important than the reality. Isms can act as blinders. They're set thought patterns, and when people get comfortable in set thought patterns, when those patterns are challenged, they lash out, rather than stopping to think for themselves and consider if there might be at least some part of the ism that's just fucked up.
ETA: Roger beat me to it, but I wanted to post it anyway.
Quote from: VERBL on September 10, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Being a human being.
I have to say, I'm a little aghast at being told that "isms" are now "just a suffix" and that I'm "chewing on the menu" because I have referred to THEIR ism that way, much like Isaac Hayes was all about making fun of religions on Southpark until it came around to HIS religion.
Speaking only for myself, the menu-chewing isn't the rejection of one "ism", it's the broad rejection of all "isms" as "isms". It's not even like all "isms" have the same sense of "ism" (for example, Judaism is not the same kind of "ism" as Communism.)
It's a bit like disliking any word with the letter "c" because you don't like how it sounds in the c-word (it sounds very different in the word "face".)
I dunno, I think Roger, Stella, and Faust have explained pretty well where they are coming from in a way that makes it obvious it is more than just the suffix. It's the nature of the -isms that are limiting, and potentially alienating. So you need the uniform to be on the team, and you need to FIT the uniform.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 10, 2012, 03:08:29 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 10, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Being a human being.
I have to say, I'm a little aghast at being told that "isms" are now "just a suffix" and that I'm "chewing on the menu" because I have referred to THEIR ism that way, much like Isaac Hayes was all about making fun of religions on Southpark until it came around to HIS religion.
Speaking only for myself, the menu-chewing isn't the rejection of one "ism", it's the broad rejection of all "isms" as "isms". It's not even like all "isms" have the same sense of "ism" (for example, Judaism is not the same kind of "ism" as Communism.)
It's a bit like disliking any word with the letter "c" because you don't like how it sounds in the c-word (it sounds very different in the word "face".)
I dunno, I think Roger, Stella, and Faust have explained pretty well where they are coming from in a way that makes it obvious it is more than just the suffix. It's the nature of the -isms that are limiting, and potentially alienating. So you need the uniform to be on the team, and you need to FIT the uniform.
And we'll take hammers to you until you do, or until your broken remains leak out on the floor.
Is there a suffix that can be used to express a spectrum of ideas that has a looser feel than ism? One that doesnt have the impliction of uniformity? Does ity fit the bill?
I prefer "asm." Feminasm, Communasm...
:spittake:
i can get behind that
Anti-ismism
noun
the rejection of a practice, system, or philosophy based on a fear of turning into one of Rick Perry's leashed pets.
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:34:19 PM
Anti-ismism
noun
the rejection of a practice, system, or philosophy based on a fear of turning into one of Rick Perry's leashed pets.
Anti-ismism
noun
The rejection of following a practice, system, or philosophy based on the fact that pretty much every system out there was formed by a system of people, at least one of which had his or her head so far up their own ass they could see daylight.
See Also: TFYS
Quote from: Luna on September 10, 2012, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:34:19 PM
Anti-ismism
noun
the rejection of a practice, system, or philosophy based on a fear of turning into one of Rick Perry's leashed pets.
Anti-ismism
noun
The rejection of following a practice, system, or philosophy based on the fact that pretty much every system out there was formed by a system of people, at least one of which had his or her head so far up their own ass they could see daylight.
See Also: TFYS
Discordia stopped being about TFYS, the moment we found The Perfect Thought™, the right cause, the ideal we've always been looking for. Now we are told how to think for ourselves, and how to wear the snappy new uniform.
That's why it's now Discordianism™.
I think I preferred Discordia.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:24:57 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 10, 2012, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: Net on September 10, 2012, 03:34:19 PM
Anti-ismism
noun
the rejection of a practice, system, or philosophy based on a fear of turning into one of Rick Perry's leashed pets.
Anti-ismism
noun
The rejection of following a practice, system, or philosophy based on the fact that pretty much every system out there was formed by a system of people, at least one of which had his or her head so far up their own ass they could see daylight.
See Also: TFYS
Discordia stopped being about TFYS, the moment we found The Perfect Thought™, the right cause, the ideal we've always been looking for. Now we are told how to think for ourselves, and how to wear the snappy new uniform.
That's why it's now Discordianism™.
I think I preferred Discordia.
This is a good illustration. What is the difference between "Discordia" and "Discordian
ism?" I think of "Discordia" as
a place occupied by all kinds of different people who share a passion for individuality. "Discordianism" is the overblown discussion of what it means to share something spontaneous with someone else. I have not much use for that.
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on,
only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
I love the idea of The Ism as a metaphor, because it is often true of the people who are into a cause, but this discussion is kind of morphing into "if the word has the suffix -ism, it's bad feedback and nothing good can come of it."
Shit, some words in this thread got made up to have an -ism suffix just to prove a point. I feel like I should be hitting some of you in the head with a barstool.
In other words, don't blame the words for having a suffix which lends extra meaning to the definition, blame the people who got a case of The Isms.
Discordia, for me, is the natural state of the universe. Particulate matter, of varying degrees of size and complexity, all bouncing around and crashing into each other in exponentially complex ways.
Discordianism? I always figured the whole notion of that was satirical, otherwise LOL.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 10, 2012, 05:38:22 PM
I love the idea of The Ism as a metaphor, because it is often true of the people who are into a cause, but this discussion is kind of morphing into "if the word has the suffix -ism, it's bad feedback and nothing good can come of it."
Shit, some words in this thread got made up to have an -ism suffix just to prove a point. I feel like I should be hitting some of you in the head with a barstool.
The evidence so far has indicated that the suffix changes the belief. Or, perhaps, a better way of saying it is that when you've stopped thinking about what something is, and you KNOW what it is, it gains the suffix, and you can use it to bludgeon your friends to death.
The Ism comes from defining what you and some of your buddies are, as opposed to what someone else is. Its entire purpose is definition and therefore exclusion. So, most of the Ismist's time and energy is spent on deciding whether or not something or someone qualifies for inclusion in the Ism. Strife occurs when two people have different ideas about what should be included or excluded from the Ism. When this happens, the entire identity of the Ism is called into question, rehashed, redefined and examined - which would be good, except that everyone's definitions are grounded in the definition they already have, because without that the Ism disappears for them.
And yes "the Ism" is a reference to this phenomenon, not to the actual suffix of words.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
I think I'd like to take a stab at that.
Your friends are important. Your beliefs are important. They are, however, important in entirely separate catagories.
Or they should be. Now your beliefs are more important than your friends, through an artificial blending of the catagories. This is one definition of fanaticism.
And if that's the price of admission, I'm not interested. I can be a feminist on my own, without anyone else's rule sets. If that means that I somehow "bring out your inner RHWN" like it does with P3nt, then that's a problem in YOUR head, not mine.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:40:40 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 10, 2012, 05:38:22 PM
I love the idea of The Ism as a metaphor, because it is often true of the people who are into a cause, but this discussion is kind of morphing into "if the word has the suffix -ism, it's bad feedback and nothing good can come of it."
Shit, some words in this thread got made up to have an -ism suffix just to prove a point. I feel like I should be hitting some of you in the head with a barstool.
The evidence so far has indicated that the suffix changes the belief. Or, perhaps, a better way of saying it is that when you've stopped thinking about what something is, and you KNOW what it is, it gains the suffix, and you can use it to bludgeon your friends to death.
As soon as you think you have something all sussed out, a little bit of you turns into an asshole. This is necessary. As is the slap in the face that should follow immediately after. :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 10, 2012, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:40:40 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 10, 2012, 05:38:22 PM
I love the idea of The Ism as a metaphor, because it is often true of the people who are into a cause, but this discussion is kind of morphing into "if the word has the suffix -ism, it's bad feedback and nothing good can come of it."
Shit, some words in this thread got made up to have an -ism suffix just to prove a point. I feel like I should be hitting some of you in the head with a barstool.
The evidence so far has indicated that the suffix changes the belief. Or, perhaps, a better way of saying it is that when you've stopped thinking about what something is, and you KNOW what it is, it gains the suffix, and you can use it to bludgeon your friends to death.
As soon as you think you have something all sussed out, a little bit of you turns into an asshole. This is necessary. As is the slap in the face that should follow immediately after. :lulz:
Unfortunately, by then, you have a terminal case of God On Your Side, and the slap is taken as a need for jihad.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Femin
asm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something
concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Femin
ism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I
am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Feminasm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Feminism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
Hot damn.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Feminasm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Feminism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
I can get behind this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
I think I'd like to take a stab at that.
Your friends are important. Your beliefs are important. They are, however, important in entirely separate catagories.
Or they should be. Now your beliefs are more important than your friends, through an artificial blending of the catagories. This is one definition of fanaticism.
And if that's the price of admission, I'm not interested. I can be a feminist on my own, without anyone else's rule sets. If that means that I somehow "bring out your inner RHWN" like it does with P3nt, then that's a problem in YOUR head, not mine.
No, that's just with Pent. I occasionally get frustrated with you, but you at least don't feel the need to repeatedly tell me how much you don't care, nanny-nanny-boo-boo, about issues, simply because they don't affect you (that's how you come off, Pent, at least to me).
I tend to think it should be a case-by-case basis, depending on the belief, on whether someone is more important than a belief. Your friends should be able to make you question your beliefs, because people who can get you to examine them are very, very valuable, but there are beliefs (equality, etc.) that should supersede a shitty person who is unwilling to examine their own beliefs when you encourage them to question them.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Feminasm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Feminism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
I can agree with most of that. But there
are behaviors and beliefs (unless you're defining that differently than "ideas that make up some of your BiP bars") that even Feminiasm requires, yes? Not tolerating asshole bullshit, being willing to examine how the system benefits you, even when it gets ugly, and adjusting your behavior and perceptions as necessary, etc.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Feminasm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Feminism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
Fucking fucking FUCK YES!!!
And it's a cookie cutter template to describe most isms I've come across over the years. I learned a long time ago to try and keep my personal stash manageable. Manageable, for me at least, is around zero or below
Would someone who encourages Feminasm refer to themselves as a Feminast?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2012, 06:25:39 PM
Would someone who encourages Feminasm refer to themselves as a Feminast?
:lulz:
All of a sudden I like where this thread is going.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:15:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Feminasm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Feminism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
I can agree with most of that. But there are behaviors and beliefs (unless you're defining that differently than "ideas that make up some of your BiP bars") that even Feminiasm requires, yes? Not tolerating asshole bullshit, being willing to examine how the system benefits you, even when it gets ugly, and adjusting your behavior and perceptions as necessary, etc.
I think that's the problem. Telling me which specific beliefs and behaviors I need to have is counterproductive
even if you're right about them. It isn't that I disagree with what you'd have me do, it's that it's important to me that I arrive at that point and do those things
without you needing to tell me to. That doesn't mean we can't have the discussion, because if nobody brings these things up, nobody's going to learn about them or act on them, but it's not going to help if every time my ideas don't reach as far as yours, or my actions don't measure up in some way with what
you would like to see, I am met with "OMGPRIVILEGESEXISM." There has to be a recognition for every hand pushing this wreck off the highway, no matter how slight the pressure, as long as it isn't trying to pull the wrong way.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:15:58 PM
No, that's just with Pent. I occasionally get frustrated with you, but you at least don't feel the need to repeatedly tell me how much you don't care, nanny-nanny-boo-boo, about issues, simply because they don't affect you (that's how you come off, Pent, at least to me).
You didn't. Nigel did. At the very least, this subject has cost me the friendship of someone I value greatly, and words expressing how much this has upset me are hard to come by.
And that's what's happened between you and P3nt, and both of you are responsible to one degree or another, just as what happened between Nigel and I didn't happen in an entirely one-sided manner.
So what we have is an engine that generates ill-will. Thing is, we already had that. We have merely added to The Machine, because we couldn't keep a fucking lid on our emotions or separate "people" and "beliefs".
OOK OOK!
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
I think that's the problem. Telling me which specific beliefs and behaviors I need to have is counterproductive even if you're right about them.
I want to tattoo this on my fucking forehead.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:15:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 05:31:47 PM
Maybe Feminism is like that. It could be a shared ideal, even if it's a nebulous ideal, of gender equality and everything you do to contribute to that ideal and achieve it. If that's what it is, that's awesome and I support it because regardless of what we might disagree on, only what we do in concert counts as Feminism. Everything else is noise and not considered part of the equation. But if Feminism is a set of beliefs we must subscribe to in order to achieve "gender equality" through some mechanical function of an explicitly defined collective, I don't really want in.
This seems a little contradictory. Could you expand on this?
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Feminasm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Feminism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
I can agree with most of that. But there are behaviors and beliefs (unless you're defining that differently than "ideas that make up some of your BiP bars") that even Feminiasm requires, yes? Not tolerating asshole bullshit, being willing to examine how the system benefits you, even when it gets ugly, and adjusting your behavior and perceptions as necessary, etc.
I think that's the problem. Telling me which specific beliefs and behaviors I need to have is counterproductive even if you're right about them. It isn't that I disagree with what you'd have me do, it's that it's important to me that I arrive at that point and do those things without you needing to tell me to. That doesn't mean we can't have the discussion, because if nobody brings these things up, nobody's going to learn about them or act on them, but it's not going to help if every time my ideas don't reach as far as yours, or my actions don't measure up in some way with what you would like to see, I am met with "OMGPRIVILEGESEXISM." There has to be a recognition for every hand pushing this wreck off the highway, no matter how slight the pressure, as long as it isn't trying to pull the wrong way.
I don't begrudge you the fact that your ideas might not reach as far as mine. I get the impression you've gone less reading than I have. That's how it goes.
I tend to think that being able to tell people when to check their privilege (so long as evidence OF privilege, or whatever term you wish to use, is provided) is valuable. It's, "hey, your position in society makes it harder to see what x group sees. Here's why." do you disagree?
I will come back and answer this better in an hour or so, as I need to skedaddle to class.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:34:58 PM
I tend to think that being able to tell people when to check their privilege (so long as evidence OF privilege, or whatever term you wish to use, is provided) is valuable.
If you can do it in a way that doesn't say SHUT UP and/or GET BACK IN YOUR BOX.
I know you and Nigel didn't mean that (I think SP
did), but delivery is everything.
I think it's far more useful to explain your viewpoint in an effective way than to say, "you can't see what I'm talking about because of smarglefliggit" (the word I'm using in place of privilege).
What caught my attention and made me fully realize my smarglefliggit wasn't being told I have it. Hell, I knew I had it. You'd have to be kind of dense not to see it. But what tipped the scales were appeals to compassion, in the most literal sense, "suffer with". I was able to, briefly*, understand what it felt like to suffer through patriarchal oppression, and that glimpse brought into bold relief some kinds of the smarglefliggit that I hadn't really seen before. Like it says in the Chao Te Ching, "Reading about laughter is not the same as laughing"... only reversing the emotions.
This is probably why I'm a bit skeptical about the "you can't know what it's like" gambit. I agree, of course I do, because I don't experience it. But in my personal instance, I gained understanding through empathy, not rationality.
*Very, very briefly and most likely incompletely, as well.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:34:58 PM
I tend to think that being able to tell people when to check their privilege (so long as evidence OF privilege, or whatever term you wish to use, is provided) is valuable.
If you can do it in a way that doesn't say SHUT UP and/or GET BACK IN YOUR BOX.
I know you and Nigel didn't mean that (I think SP did), but delivery is everything.
Oh hey, I have some time before class. I'll come back and finish that first thought after class, though, since that will require more thought than the below.
There are going to be people who are going to interpret it that way, no matter what. Even the most gently phrased, "hey, the situation you were born (insert privileged group here) into makes it harder to see how the system that gives you that privilege affects people who do not have the same privileges you do. Here's how and why" is going to come off to, potentially a lot of people, as SHUT UP AND GET IN YOUR BOX.
This is especially true when the privilege comes from how society boxes you (because it does and there's only so much you can do about it).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2012, 06:48:18 PM
I think it's far more useful to explain your viewpoint in an effective way than to say, "you can't see what I'm talking about because of smarglefliggit" (the word I'm using in place of privilege).
What caught my attention and made me fully realize my smarglefliggit wasn't being told I have it. Hell, I knew I had it. You'd have to be kind of dense not to see it. But what tipped the scales were appeals to compassion, in the most literal sense, "suffer with". I was able to, briefly*, understand what it felt like to suffer through patriarchal oppression, and that glimpse brought into bold relief some kinds of the smarglefliggit that I hadn't really seen before. Like it says in the Chao Te Ching, "Reading about laughter is not the same as laughing"... only reversing the emotions.
This is probably why I'm a bit skeptical about the "you can't know what it's like" gambit. I agree, of course I do, because I don't experience it. But in my personal instance, I gained understanding through empathy, not rationality.
*Very, very briefly and most likely incompletely, as well.
That is the most awkward replacement ever. :lulz: The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
That is the most awkward replacement ever. :lulz: The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
That is most emphatically NOT what SP said. I was there.
Yeah, Signora was more about appeal to authority and ridicule.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2012, 05:54:32 PM
I think I'd like to take a stab at that.
Your friends are important. Your beliefs are important. They are, however, important in entirely separate catagories.
Or they should be. Now your beliefs are more important than your friends, through an artificial blending of the catagories. This is one definition of fanaticism.
And if that's the price of admission, I'm not interested. I can be a feminist on my own, without anyone else's rule sets. If that means that I somehow "bring out your inner RHWN" like it does with P3nt, then that's a problem in YOUR head, not mine.
This.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Since there is no word that fits in "Discordia:Discordianism::___________:Feminism" I will make one up.
Feminasm: Something that happens or exists, that furthers the goals of gender equality. Something accomplished. Something concrete that diminishes the social power of patriarchy.
Feminism: An unwieldy, cumbersome tower of suppositions, assumptions and beliefs that empowers a person to decide whether or not someone or something is sufficiently Feminist, and actually has very little to do with accomplishing anything.
From another angle: I am not interested in being part of a club, but I am interested in living in a world where gender equality is the norm and not the exception. I don't want to be programmed with a scripted set of required behaviors and beliefs ("Feminism") and join a collective to achieve that, though; I want to be given the latitude to realize and learn and come to my own conclusions, and make my own contributions to the cause without being told I am not doing it correctly ("Feminasm").
And this. I am often hesitant to too strongly associate myself strongly with any sort of group/cause/ism because I often get the signal that it's All or Nothing, Us. v. Them, With Us or Against Us, Our Way or the Highway. I might agree 95% with a particular group, but if I don't give that blind 100%, if there's a slight difference in ideology, opinion or method, it seems to eliminate any common ground reached or already there prior to that point.
Not to make light or over-simplify but - I might join the Justin Beiber Fan Club because I think his soulful music is a voice for our generation and would like to connect with like-minded people. But I also think that Yanni really knows how to get the party started and mention at our next Club meeting that Yanni is also a musician and has some songs that are as rockin' or even rockin'-er than Justin's, suddenly I am disgrace to all that is Saint Beiber and I should just tear up my membership card now and go kick puppies, or whatever it is you Yanni-lovers do.
I post something critical of Obama - I must be some Jesus lovin' redneck being Republican (maybe even a racist!). If I post something critical about Republicans - why don't you just go marry Tzar Obama if you love him so much. Say something about women's rights - you must hate men! If I comment on how delicious this cow is, well then I must just love to torture animals before they go to the slaughterhouse for that extra-inhumane flavor. It's all just icky to me.
I try to judge everyone on an individual basis, how they treat me and how I observe them treat those around them. There may be differences of opinion, even heated discussions or arguments, but unless someone holds a particularly vile opinion that they are completely unwilling to reconsider or examine, it usually will not affect my opinion of them as a friend or person. I chalk it up to a case of misunderstanding, misinformation, unawareness or sometimes, simply just a difference in opinion. Maybe we'll have this discussion again, maybe we won't, but if all signs point to the fact that they are a good or decent person, with good intentions (wherever those may pave the road too) I can't just write them off, just because they don't know and hold dear all the same things that I do.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on September 10, 2012, 07:14:38 PM
And this. I am often hesitant to too strongly associate myself strongly with any sort of group/cause/ism because I often get the signal that it's All or Nothing, Us. v. Them, With Us or Against Us, Our Way or the Highway. I might agree 95% with a particular group, but if I don't give that blind 100%, if there's a slight difference in ideology, opinion or method, it seems to eliminate any common ground reached or already there prior to that point.
And that's the tragedy here, isn't it?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
If that's really the case, then the level of effective communication has been in negative numbers. The message that I heard could be paraphrased as, "You will never know what it's like, and you cannot use parallel experiences as a sympathetic (as in, "having similar feelings") understanding."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2012, 08:07:09 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
If that's really the case, then the level of effective communication has been in negative numbers. The message that I heard could be paraphrased as, "You will never know what it's like, and you cannot use parallel experiences as a sympathetic (as in, "having similar feelings") understanding."
This is what I said earlier. The message being SENT is apparently not the message being RECEIVED.
Yeah. I can really see that now.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2012, 08:07:09 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
If that's really the case, then the level of effective communication has been in negative numbers. The message that I heard could be paraphrased as, "You will never know what it's like, and you cannot use parallel experiences as a sympathetic (as in, "having similar feelings") understanding."
That is absolutely not what I said and I'm a little befuddled as to how that happened, because I said the opposite, almost verbatim, repeatedly.
Quote from: Some Dead Guy on September 10, 2012, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
That is the most awkward replacement ever. :lulz: The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
That is most emphatically NOT what SP said. I was there.
So was I. Hmm. I'll go investigate this.
Quote from: Some Dead Guy on September 10, 2012, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
That is the most awkward replacement ever. :lulz: The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
That is most emphatically NOT what SP said. I was there.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32979.450.html
Starting with reply 460.
It's amazing that the thread went directly to shit from that point, isn't it?
*wince* Okay, it did fall apart pretty fast after that.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 08:57:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2012, 08:07:09 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
If that's really the case, then the level of effective communication has been in negative numbers. The message that I heard could be paraphrased as, "You will never know what it's like, and you cannot use parallel experiences as a sympathetic (as in, "having similar feelings") understanding."
That is absolutely not what I said and I'm a little befuddled as to how that happened, because I said the opposite, almost verbatim, repeatedly.
(addressed to Vex, for context)
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 03:25:22 AM
You are not getting what Nige is saying. Like, at all. Sympathy and empathy, you can (and should) have. You may certainly have parallel experiences that make it much, much easier to understand what it's like but the actual, physical living it is not something you can actually do (short of doing something like Black Like Me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me)).
You have one(?) kid, correct? You certainly don't seem like the kind of guy who would bail on his pregnant lady, so you were there for it, yes? Would you say you get what it's actually like to be pregnant (the kid sitting on your bladder, your hormones freaking out, etc.) or would you say you can sympathize what it's like because you were there and observed how uncomfortable actually being pregnant is because you were there for your wife through hers?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 08:57:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2012, 08:07:09 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
If that's really the case, then the level of effective communication has been in negative numbers. The message that I heard could be paraphrased as, "You will never know what it's like, and you cannot use parallel experiences as a sympathetic (as in, "having similar feelings") understanding."
That is absolutely not what I said and I'm a little befuddled as to how that happened, because I said the opposite, almost verbatim, repeatedly.
Nigel was the one who said that, in those words.
Can you find that quote? Because that doesn't sound like what I remember her saying.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:34:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
I think that's the problem. Telling me which specific beliefs and behaviors I need to have is counterproductive even if you're right about them. It isn't that I disagree with what you'd have me do, it's that it's important to me that I arrive at that point and do those things without you needing to tell me to.
Understandable, although I tend to think that being able to tell people when to check their privilege (so long as evidence OF privilege, or whatever term you wish to use, is provided) is valuable. It's, "hey, your position in society makes it harder to see what x group sees. Here's why." Do you disagree?
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
That doesn't mean we can't have the discussion, because if nobody brings these things up, nobody's going to learn about them or act on them, but it's not going to help if every time my ideas don't reach as far as yours, or my actions don't measure up in some way with what you would like to see, I am met with "OMGPRIVILEGESEXISM."
Not faulting you for the fact that your ideas don't reach as far as mine. I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject and I get the idea that you haven't. That's how it is, and I'd be fucking stupid to expect you understand the nuance if you don't have the background.
I don't recall hollering that at you recently (key word: recall). In fact, I think we've been mostly in agreement recently.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PMThere has to be a recognition for every hand pushing this wreck off the highway, no matter how slight the pressure, as long as it isn't trying to pull the wrong way.
I'm confused. What do you mean by this?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 09:51:37 PM
Can you find that quote? Because that doesn't sound like what I remember her saying.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:34:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
I think that's the problem. Telling me which specific beliefs and behaviors I need to have is counterproductive even if you're right about them. It isn't that I disagree with what you'd have me do, it's that it's important to me that I arrive at that point and do those things without you needing to tell me to.
I'm on my phone ATM and it's a pain just keeping current, let alone digging.
I remember it was Nigel because I was so weirded out by it, but I didn't feel like getting into semantics with her over "empathy" and "sympathy" and why isn't it possible.
Understandable, although I tend to think that being able to tell people when to check their privilege (so long as evidence OF privilege, or whatever term you wish to use, is provided) is valuable. It's, "hey, your position in society makes it harder to see what x group sees. Here's why." Do you disagree?
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
That doesn't mean we can't have the discussion, because if nobody brings these things up, nobody's going to learn about them or act on them, but it's not going to help if every time my ideas don't reach as far as yours, or my actions don't measure up in some way with what you would like to see, I am met with "OMGPRIVILEGESEXISM."
Not faulting you for the fact that your ideas don't reach as far as mine. I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject and I get the idea that you haven't. That's how it is, and I'd be fucking stupid to expect you understand the nuance if you don't have the background.
I don't recall hollering that at you recently (key word: recall). In fact, I think we've been mostly in agreement recently.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 06:27:06 PMThere has to be a recognition for every hand pushing this wreck off the highway, no matter how slight the pressure, as long as it isn't trying to pull the wrong way.
I'm confused. What do you mean by this?
Ooooh. That. That's not "you can't understand via parallel experiences". It's a semantic difference between empathetic experience (parallel/compassion) and sympathetic experience (lived experience).
The words kind of got muddled around, flip flopped for each other, etc. but that was the gist of what she meant, I believe.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 10:06:31 PM
Ooooh. That. That's not "you can't understand via parallel experiences". It's a semantic difference between empathetic experience (parallel/compassion) and sympathetic experience (lived experience).
The words kind of got muddled around, flip flopped for each other, etc. but that was the gist of what she meant, I believe.
So, all of this has been over semantics?
Ain't that just the way it goes? :lulz:
Confusion over terms + shit stirring from SP & SP, and here we are.
OUTFUCKINGSTANDING!
Wow. I don't even.
I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE THAT HELPED MAKE THIS POSSIBLE.
On a purely technical level, it's semantics. There's a valid distinction between them (which we've rehashed a lot and I don't think it would be productive to revive the conversation), so it's semantics in "meaning of the word" rather than "quibbling".
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 10:11:29 PM
On a purely technical level. There's a valid distinction between them (which we've rehashed a lot and I don't think it would be productive to revive the conversation), so it's semantics in "meaning of the word" rather than "quibbling".
Doesn't matter. This subject has been an unmitigated fucking disaster for me, and I suspect for others, because it was far more important to SHOW US WHAT'S WHAT than actually communicate A) the problem, and B) any potential solutions.
I have officially stopped trying to make sense of it, or of giving a shit in any sense whatsoever.
You guys fix the world. I no longer have any interest in it.
Venomously yours,
Some Dead Fucker
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715856/pd_discuss.png)
Quote from: Some Dead Guy on September 10, 2012, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: Some Dead Guy on September 10, 2012, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
That is the most awkward replacement ever. :lulz: The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
That is most emphatically NOT what SP said. I was there.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32979.450.html
Starting with reply 460.
It's amazing that the thread went directly to shit from that point, isn't it?
Quote from: SPMen who come into feminist spaces should not immediately expect, nor feel entitled to, the blind faith or trust that they will be a Good Male Feminist* from the get-go.
Did anybody else flash on the expression "He's one of the good ones" in refererence to old-time Black people who had to grin and shuffle and answer everything "Yassuh" and "Yassum"?
Does "good" here mean "sufficiently cowed"?
Because that's EXACTLY the impression I got. "Bow and scrape enough and MAYBE we'll let you work in the house and not in the field." :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 10, 2012, 10:35:31 PM
Quote from: Some Dead Guy on September 10, 2012, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: Some Dead Guy on September 10, 2012, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
That is the most awkward replacement ever. :lulz: The appeal to compassion as a way to understand is exactly what Nigel, SP, myself, and a couple others, have been saying for threads.
That is most emphatically NOT what SP said. I was there.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32979.450.html
Starting with reply 460.
It's amazing that the thread went directly to shit from that point, isn't it?
Quote from: SPMen who come into feminist spaces should not immediately expect, nor feel entitled to, the blind faith or trust that they will be a Good Male Feminist* from the get-go.
Did anybody else flash on the expression "He's one of the good ones" in refererence to old-time Black people who had to grin and shuffle and answer everything "Yassuh" and "Yassum"?
Does "good" here mean "sufficiently cowed"?
Because that's EXACTLY the impression I got. "Bow and scrape enough and MAYBE we'll let you work in the house and not in the field." :x
No argument here.
And apparently, all of this has made a few people uncomfortable. Good.
This thread is dildos.
:piss:
^^^OP in action.
Reactions to this thread in no particular order:
I don't actually give a fuck.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that and you have no idea how hard my irony-sense is tingling.
Well, let me do you the favor of ensuring you never have to. Call it the final act of friendship.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Think of it as selling the baby on the black market to get a hot tub instead.
:dok:
Quote from: Some Dead Guy on September 10, 2012, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 10, 2012, 10:11:29 PM
On a purely technical level. There's a valid distinction between them (which we've rehashed a lot and I don't think it would be productive to revive the conversation), so it's semantics in "meaning of the word" rather than "quibbling".
Doesn't matter. This subject has been an unmitigated fucking disaster for me, and I suspect for others, because it was far more important to SHOW US WHAT'S WHAT than actually communicate A) the problem, and B) any potential solutions.
I have officially stopped trying to make sense of it, or of giving a shit in any sense whatsoever.
You guys fix the world. I no longer have any interest in it.
Venomously yours,
Some Dead Fucker
Okay, the bolded part was rage. Retracted.
Quote from: v3x on September 10, 2012, 10:34:17 PM
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715856/pd_discuss.png)
FATALITY.
V3X ZERO WINS.
For what it's worth, SP apologized to me for her comment to me that ended up being such a large part of the shit-stirring. It's not my place to explain her position to the board at large, but I will say that I found her apology more than satisfactory and her reasons for acting how she acted completely understandable (and something I have been guilty of myself on more than one occasion). I have literally not one single hard feeling towards her, and a fair amount of respect for her being the one to decide to reach out and try to end the cycle of "OOK OOK!"
Y'all can make of that what you will.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 11, 2012, 05:50:18 AM
For what it's worth, SP apologized to me for her comment to me that ended up being such a large part of the shit-stirring. It's not my place to explain her position to the board at large, but I will say that I found her apology more than satisfactory and her reasons for acting how she acted completely understandable (and something I have been guilty of myself on more than one occasion). I have literally not one single hard feeling towards her, and a fair amount of respect for her being the one to decide to reach out and try to end the cycle of "OOK OOK!"
Y'all can make of that what you will.
I must have missed that.
It happened via PM.
Well, it's nice that this thread seems to have more or less died a peaceful death. If anyone wants me to clarify anything I did or didn't say or anything I did or didn't mean, ask me, otherwise I don't have anything to add, except that Garbo needs to look up the definitions of sympathy and empathy so she can understand why I used them the way I did in the other thread.