Nothing to do with anything.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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:

Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.

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.

[AFK]

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.

[AFK]

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:

Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.

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.

[Faust]

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.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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:

Feminism is an ism. I don't hold ANY ism as sacred or holy.

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).

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.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It's a suffix.

You're chewing on the menu.

[Verbal Mike]

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.

[Luna]

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So what are we going to call feminism when it's not being a uniform?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

[Verbal Mike]

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 Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Luna]

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.

[AFK]

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.