Grumblr

[hentropy]

I just think the whole LGBTTQIAAOPPDGNCTSMFKPS movement is still in its infancy, and still has a long way to go before the people inside of the movement truly understand how to parse it all and what the "ideal" might be. Personally I think the whole trans movement in particular is quite confused, a confusion that gets passed down to those who consider themselves trans. The whole movement seeks to simultaneously tear down, but also strengthen and embrace, the western ideas of traditional gender roles.

If a boy wants to play with dolls and wear dresses and grow his hair out because he likes it better, is that boy transgender? Is that boy more of a girl than a boy? Of course not, he's still a boy. We shouldn't teach that boy that the only way he can like those things is if he's really a "girl in a boy's body". That he won't be truly happy in life unless his genitals are "reassigned" (mutilated).

And of course if you're not truly in either one of the feminine/masculine "camps", you're "genderfluid". No, you're a man or woman or maybe intersex (which is pretty much the only situation where sex can be 'chosen', and its usually not chosen by the person themselves), that doesn't change because you choose to be androgynous by traditional standards. Your behavior and the way you choose to dress yourself and look should not be tied to your physical equipment. Wasn't that the point behind this whole movement from the beginning? Sure, I'll call someone a she if that's what they want to be called, it might even be easier for me, but it doesn't mean they are women. And that's not a bad thing. Being a man doesn't mean you have to be like Ron Swanson.

And yet, if I were to declare this opinion in some places like tumblr, all of a sudden I'm an ignorant straight cis white male, even though they don't know anything about me and the idea that at least one of those things aren't true. They've taken this early idea state of gender issues and seem to be militant about it, that it's their "right" to be called a "Xir" by government agencies and businesses. That if you don't agree with them on their (flawed) logic, that you're some sort of culturally sick oppressor. The idea that they are the people who have everything right and everyone else is some kind of cultural enemy.

You know, like Stormfront.

 

[marche45]

Its funny.

Its pretty obvious from past comics that grey and cory are pro feminism from their past comics,but they make a comic making fun of extremists and this happens.

 

[the December King]

I'm thinking of murdering myself right now. No lie. I just... I don't know anymore.

I do hope you are joking, Andy of Comix! For what it's worth, I have appreciated your contributions to the Escapist, value your input, and I think you are in general pretty cool.

And I can totally try at least to sympathize that it can 'seem' like there is a sea of mediocre, ignorant white idiots out there that all act like they are living in bubbles. But it's just not true, many people are reasonable and accepting...

... aaah, crap.

Now I want to live in a bubble. Not a transparent one, though. And I still want air somehow. And food.

 

[Ickorus]

For those of you that want to play a little game:

http://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW

The idea that Tumblr is impervious to criticism just because their cause is just is absolute nonsense.

Not just nonsense, dangerous nonsense.

Nothing should be above criticism, that sort of status breeds extremism.

 

[IceForce]

Oh wow, this thread has turned into some sort of weird self-fulfilling prophecy.

Okay, how about this: speaking AN AN IGNORANT WHITE MALE, MOST WHITE MALES ARE IGNORANT.

Does that work out for you?

Nope.

Insulting yourself doesn't lessen the insults towards everyone else.

 

[Gorrath]

I just think the whole LGBTTQIAAOPPDGNCTSMFKPS movement is still in its infancy, and still has a long way to go before the people inside of the movement truly understand how to parse it all and what the "ideal" might be. Personally I think the whole trans movement in particular is quite confused, a confusion that gets passed down to those who consider themselves trans. The whole movement seeks to simultaneously tear down, but also strengthen and embrace, the western ideas of traditional gender roles.

If a boy wants to play with dolls and wear dresses and grow his hair out because he likes it better, is that boy transgender? Is that boy more of a girl than a boy? Of course not, he's still a boy. We shouldn't teach that boy that the only way he can like those things is if he's really a "girl in a boy's body". That he won't be truly happy in life unless his genitals are "reassigned" (mutilated).

And of course if you're not truly in either one of the feminine/masculine "camps", you're "genderfluid". No, you're a man or woman or maybe intersex (which is pretty much the only situation where sex can be 'chosen', and its usually not chosen by the person themselves), that doesn't change because you choose to be androgynous by traditional standards. Your behavior and the way you choose to dress yourself and look should not be tied to your physical equipment. Wasn't that the point behind this whole movement from the beginning? Sure, I'll call someone a she if that's what they want to be called, it might even be easier for me, but it doesn't mean they are women. And that's not a bad thing. Being a man doesn't mean you have to be like Ron Swanson.

And yet, if I were to declare this opinion in some places like tumblr, all of a sudden I'm an ignorant straight cis white male, even though they don't know anything about me and the idea that at least one of those things aren't true. They've taken this early idea state of gender issues and seem to be militant about it, that it's their "right" to be called a "Xir" by government agencies and businesses. That if you don't agree with them on their (flawed) logic, that you're some sort of culturally sick oppressor. The idea that they are the people who have everything right and everyone else is some kind of cultural enemy.

You know, like Stormfront.

I agree with a lot of what you say. The movements surrounding gender identity are relatively new and there isn't even agreement within the movements about what is what and who belongs where. This is partly due to the fact that, as you pointed out, no group is immune to the idea that gender roles are something that need to be enforced. On the other hand there are people who aren't trans just because they like things that, according to tradition, are supposed to only be liked by someone of the opposite gender.

I am a straight CIS male who happens to like some really "girly" things myself but I don't feel trans at all. A person very important to me is a biological female who likes mostly "girly" things but he very much wants to transition to a male body. Part of the confusion in all this stems from the fact that one person who considers themselves trans has a very distinct idea what it means to be trans and that idea may not mesh at all with some other person's idea of what it means who also happens to consider themselves trans. I've heard tell and seen homosexual people be very vitriolic to bi-sexual people for similar reasons, treating them with much of the same scorn and disrespect they consider to be prejudicial when it comes from straight people.

I think in time as the movement and our understanding of gender, sex, sexuality, we will mature and get down to the brass tacks of codifying a lot of this in a way that pleases most people, even if it's likely to be imperfect. But I do want to say that there are also those who really are genderfluid. It's not necessarily about what they like being masculine or feminine, but how they feel about themselves in contrast to those things. Their gender identity isn't fixed on their biological sex or on the things they like because it isn't fixed at all. It's not just androgyny, it can manifest as a strong feeling of being one gender in one situation and a strong feeling of being a different gender in another. For some this might be influenced by the way they link their gender to the things they like and what those things represent (I feel like a man when wearing a suit and like a woman when wearing a dress), but it may also switch for reasons that have no gender identity (I really felt like I was a male yesterday and really feel like a woman today.)

Just wanted to chime in on some points of agreement and some thoughts where you and I might see things differently.

 

[DataSnake]

I'm not missing that reason at all, and what you say is just an illustration of what I mean. If someone says that racism isn't a problem because they have never experienced racism, they aren't wrong because they are white, they are wrong because they are wrong.

That's a tautology. They are wrong because they are working from an incorrect premise. They are working from an incorrect premise because they don't have all the data. They don't have all the data because they haven't experienced racism firsthand. They haven't experienced racism firsthand because they're white. While being white doesn't preclude understanding the subject at hand, it is a handicap, and pretending otherwise does nobody any favors.

Bringing up the fact that they are white is wholly pointless to assessing whether they are correct about the necessity of certain laws or about physics.

That was an analogy. Bringing up someone's lack of experience with racism in a discussion about racism is analogous to bringing up their lack of education in a discussion on physics: they can still contribute to the discussion, but they would be more likely to have something useful to add if they read up on the subject first.

On the other hand, presuming someone can't, doesn't or hasn't experienced racism and prejudice because they are white is wrong, it's racist and using their race as a reason to ignore their opinion is discriminatory.

No, it doesn't mean they "can't, don't or haven't" experienced racism, but it DOES mean they're much less likely to have done so. And there's a difference between dismissing someone's opinion out of hand and taking it with a grain of salt.

And yet not only does this presumption seem to be bandied about as truth, people in actual positions of influence flat out repeat it and use it to diminish any hypocrisy used by those who are supposedly fighting against racism.

I've heard about this far more than I've seen it. Some citations would be helpful here.

Lastly, if someone involves themselves in a public format for discussion, and they are wrong about something, it does way more harm than good to tell them to shut their mouth and go read something. The best use of discussion isn't as some sort of echo chamber where everyone simply agrees and anyone who doesn't is told to shut it.

There's a difference between "doesn't agree" and "doesn't understand the topic at hand". People in the first category are worth including in a discussion. People in the second category will simply slow everyone else down. As an example, imagine you're teaching a calculus class, and one of your students never learned algebra. You'd get more done, and they'd learn more, if they boned up on the basics before trying to jump into the discussion rather than insisting that everyone else slow down and put it in their terms.

It is best used as a way to engage and converse with those people you feel are wrong and back up your point of view with well reasoned arguments and evidence. Being disdainful of the ignorance of others isn't a good way to eliminate that ignorance, it's a way to make them defensive and shut them down, which gets us nowhere.

True. The problem comes when people view any attempt to point out their ignorance as disdain. For instance, let's imagine the following dialogue:
A: I thought the way [insert game here] portrayed women was sexist.
B: I didn't see anything sexist about it.
A: Well, you're a man. You probably didn't notice the problem because it's not one you've encountered in your day-to-day life.
B: I hadn't thought of that. What about [game] did you think was sexist, exactly?

In this example, B acknowledged that he didn't understand the topic at hand as well as A. They can now make some progress. By contrast, let's look at this alternate dialogue:

A: I thought the way [insert game here] portrayed women was sexist.
B: I didn't see anything sexist about it.
A: Well, you're a man. You probably didn't notice the problem because it's not one you've encountered in your day-to-day life.
B: DON'T JUDGE ME BY MY GENDER! NOW WHO'S THE SEXIST?
In this example, B isn't exactly easy to work with, and A is under no obligation to soothe his ego.

 

[the December King]

It was a good site for many things but the SJW types are insufferable and make the experience a pain. They are always right and only them, no one else can be right.

I have never been to tumblr... I'm getting a distinct impression that it is not a place I want to wander.

Incidentally, did you draw your icon? It's awesome!

 

[lacktheknack]

True. The problem comes when people view any attempt to point out their ignorance as disdain. For instance, let's imagine the following dialogue:
A: I thought the way [insert game here] portrayed women was sexist.
B: I didn't see anything sexist about it.
A: Well, you're a man. You probably didn't notice the problem because it's not one you've encountered in your day-to-day life.
B: I hadn't thought of that. What about [game] did you think was sexist, exactly?
In this example, B acknowledged that he didn't understand the topic at hand as well as A. They can now make some progress. By contrast, let's look at this alternate dialogue:

A: I thought the way [insert game here] portrayed women was sexist.
B: I didn't see anything sexist about it.
A: Well, you're a man. You probably didn't notice the problem because it's not one you've encountered in your day-to-day life.
B: DON'T JUDGE ME BY MY GENDER! NOW WHO'S THE SEXIST?
In this example, B isn't exactly easy to work with, and A is under no obligation to soothe his ego.

And yet both Bs could have been drawn into the topic if the gender had never been brought up. This is the ideal dialog:

A: I thought the way [insert game here] portrayed women was sexist.
B: I didn't see anything sexist about it.
A: Well, what do you say about [problem X]?

Now B can respond with their opinions about problem X and there's no extra layers to go through.

Besides, "You're a man and probably didn't notice the problem because it's not one you're encountered in day-to-day life" isn't really fair. Lots of men DO notice how various examples of media are subtly sexist against women. Sometimes, you just miss something. I, for instance, am terrible at spotting plot holes while watching, even though I can usually come up with them after thinking for a bit. Saying "It's because you're a man/white/cisgender/straight" isn't giving people enough credit.

Just... why bring it up?

 

[Gilgamesh00]

snip

Best post in this thread (up until it). I was going to make a post about how I think people are overreacting or lashing out at Andy too easily after his posts and what you wrote brings out very good arguments. I don't think anyone can really make a statistic whether most white, straight people are ignorant about these issues or not, but like you said,

Nobody can bear the weight of every issue they hear about; they'd go insane.

I'm quite sure most people can appear to be ignorant or perhaps better said, choose to be ignorant regarding issues that are distant to them, and that's normal. Of course we'd rather focus on most problems that affect them more directly, and only a handful of the smaller/more distant ones.

So indeed, it's somewhat amusing.

How about instead of justifying hateful, stereotypical thinking towards any group because you THINK they fit into a category, we just get rid of that mentality all together and judge people on a case-by-case basis. Content and character.

Not because they're black or white, male or female, homo, hetero, whatever. Not because STATISTICALLY (which I would love to see there be proof of) you think it's likely a person acts a certain way because they happen to belong in a group they have no control over being in.

I agree with you that everybody should have a mentality towards judging people on a case-by-case basis, but I still believe statistics, even such as these (if they exists), can be useful, if used correctly.

Oh and,

It's kinda like these forums: Nearly everyone here engages in pointless argumentation, taking innumerable positions on an equally innumerable number of subjects. Yet, even realizing this and the futility of engaging in it, it's strangely compelling.

It's compelling because it helps think about things, share ideas and also learn about and develop ourselves. In fact, I wouldn't care even if nobody read this post.

EDIT: Aaand I noticed the thread went up from 3 to 4 pages and I didn't read these past pages.
EDIT 2: also, I just realized how to properly shorten a long quote

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

SJW on tumblr spoiling our fun, pointing out our privilege, amirite?

Disappointing.

Yep. Eurgh. People are trying to fix a broken society. It's not their fault it is "annoying" to you when you, you know, aren't actually fucking affected by half the shit they're trying to fix. FEMINISM BAD! GO AWAY I DON'T NEED YOUR FEMINISM! Yes, and all the sex traffickers and religiously overzealous will thank you for your compliance.

Is there anything particularly feminist about being opposed to sex trafficking? I myself wouldn't be allergic to the label "anti-feminist" and yet think sex trafficking should be illegal.

GO AWAY GAYS, YOU DON'T DESERVE SPECIAL RIGHTS! And the kid abandoned by his dad because he was gay will thank you for abiding by his homelessness.

Likewise, if children are being abused or abandoned, why not address that uniformly? To put the question another way, if a child is being mistreated or abused in some way, is the child any better or worse off if the motive was tied to some politically charged subject? I would say no. I'm reminded of a scene in the movie Young Adult [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/young_adult/], starring Charlize Theron and Patton Oswalt. Part of the backstory for Oswalt's character is that a bunch of jocks beat him up which left him partially lame. Once Theron's character sees the cane carried by Oswalts's character, she remembers him as "that hate-crime guy". Matt laconically replies that once the media found out that he wasn't actually gay, but rather "just a fat dork who got his ass kicked" they ceased to care about his case.

 

[Grach]

For further information: Visit <link=https://twitter.com/TumblrTXT>Tumblr.txt.

oh

oh jeezus

the laughter wont stop

what have you done

Edit:

Spoiler: Mod edit: Please use spoilers for large images

GREY! CORYYY!! YOU DID IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT

 

[Gorrath]

I'm not missing that reason at all, and what you say is just an illustration of what I mean. If someone says that racism isn't a problem because they have never experienced racism, they aren't wrong because they are white, they are wrong because they are wrong.

That's a tautology. They are wrong because they are working from an incorrect premise. They are working from an incorrect premise because they don't have all the data. They don't have all the data because they haven't experienced racism firsthand. They haven't experienced racism firsthand because they're white. While being white doesn't preclude understanding the subject at hand, it is a handicap, and pretending otherwise does nobody any favors.

Yes, I'll agree with most of the first part, I was using the tautology as shorthand. However, while lack of experience is a handicap to understanding a subject, being white does not automatically indicate any lack of experience with the subject, and to suggest that it does is an assumption about an individual based on their race. That's a massive problem.

Bringing up the fact that they are white is wholly pointless to assessing whether they are correct about the necessity of certain laws or about physics.

That was an analogy. Bringing up someone's lack of experience with racism in a discussion about racism is analogous to bringing up their lack of education in a discussion on physics: they can still contribute to the discussion, but they would be more likely to have something useful to add if they read up on the subject first.

So what? If someone lacks experience in an area I do not think it wise or useful to tell them to shut up and go learn more. The usefulness of the discussion isn't what they can personally add to the discussion, the usefulness of the discussion to them is what they can learn from the discussion being had. Adding to their understanding is one of the greatest things a discussion like that can achieve. Telling them to shut up and go read the information somewhere else can be very counter-productive to that end.

On the other hand, presuming someone can't, doesn't or hasn't experienced racism and prejudice because they are white is wrong, it's racist and using their race as a reason to ignore their opinion is discriminatory.

No, it doesn't mean they "can't, don't or haven't" experienced racism, but it DOES mean they're much less likely to have done so. And there's a difference between dismissing someone's opinion out of hand and taking it with a grain of salt.

Their likelyhood of having been discriminated against is totally pointless speculation based wholly on their race and taking what they have to say on the matter with a grain of salt just because they are white is racist, discriminatory and wrong. I'm sorry if that offends, because I do not want to offend you, but what you're suggesting here is, I think, awful. That may be very blunt of me, but this hews really, really close to home for me.

And yet not only does this presumption seem to be bandied about as truth, people in actual positions of influence flat out repeat it and use it to diminish any hypocrisy used by those who are supposedly fighting against racism.

I've heard about this far more than I've seen it. Some citations would be helpful here.

I'd cite your response above this one as exactly what I'm talking about when I mention the hypocrisy. As for the specific leaders who agree with your position or have made statements that are similar to it, I will have to find them and give you links. I do not have time just this second but I will be happy to provide them when I get a chance. If you do not wish to wait on me for that, any statement uttered that is similar to your own should suffice.

Lastly, if someone involves themselves in a public format for discussion, and they are wrong about something, it does way more harm than good to tell them to shut their mouth and go read something. The best use of discussion isn't as some sort of echo chamber where everyone simply agrees and anyone who doesn't is told to shut it.

There's a difference between "doesn't agree" and "doesn't understand the topic at hand". People in the first category are worth including in a discussion. People in the second category will simply slow everyone else down. As an example, imagine you're teaching a calculus class, and one of your students never learned algebra. You'd get more done, and they'd learn more, if they boned up on the basics before trying to jump into the discussion rather than insisting that everyone else slow down and put it in their terms.

This isn't a class, it's a forum for people of all backgrounds, ideologies, races, colors, creeds, religions ect. to share their ideas. What we should do, as a community, is work toward mutual understanding through co-operation and discussion. We don't reach that understanding by telling people to shut up, get out and go read. You assert they are "slowing everyone else down," slowing everyone else down from what? If the purpose of discussion is to share ideas, they are slowing nothing and no one. In fact, by sharing their opinion, they are opening themselves to criticism of that idea and a chance to be shown how they might be wrong. Sharing information with people that already have it is a far greater waste of a discussion than sharing that information with someone who doesn't, unless you're looking for an echo chamber of course, which I think itself is a waste.

It is best used as a way to engage and converse with those people you feel are wrong and back up your point of view with well reasoned arguments and evidence. Being disdainful of the ignorance of others isn't a good way to eliminate that ignorance, it's a way to make them defensive and shut them down, which gets us nowhere.

True. The problem comes when people view any attempt to point out their ignorance as disdain. For instance, let's imagine the following dialogue:
A: I thought the way [insert game here] portrayed women was sexist.
B: I didn't see anything sexist about it.
A: Well, you're a man. You probably didn't notice the problem because it's not one you've encountered in your day-to-day life.
B: I hadn't thought of that. What about [game] did you think was sexist, exactly?

In this example, B acknowledged that he didn't understand the topic at hand as well as A. They can now make some progress.

A's response to B is presumptuous and sexist. Claiming that he doesn't understand what's sexist about the game because he's a man and therefore unlikely to have experienced sexism himself has no backing, just an assertion of likelyhood. He might not see what's sexist about the game because there might not actually be anything sexist about the game.

The whole issue with the dialogue is that it is built on a series of presumptions. 1) A is correct that the game is indeed sexist. B) The guy doesn't understand because he's a guy and hasn't experienced sexism. Either of those things might be a flawed assumption. A much better response from A would be, "The game's use of such and such imagery and the way it portrays the female lead is sexist because X, Y, Z." Telling the guy he just doesn't get it cause he's a dude isn't evidence of A's point about the game being sexist. Even if B really does not see the sexism because he is a guy and hasn't been exposed to it, A has no business making that assumption and B would be right to consider it a sexist one. B's acknowledgement that he didn't understand the subject as well as A is also ridiculous, since A has provided no evidence that he or she is right.

By contrast, let's look at this alternate dialogue:

A: I thought the way [insert game here] portrayed women was sexist.
B: I didn't see anything sexist about it.
A: Well, you're a man. You probably didn't notice the problem because it's not one you've encountered in your day-to-day life.
B: DON'T JUDGE ME BY MY GENDER! NOW WHO'S THE SEXIST?
In this example, B isn't exactly easy to work with, and A is under no obligation to soothe his ego.

In this example, A made a sexist assertion and it pissed B off because it was sexist. If A doesn't lead off the discussion with a sexist assertion, and just provides actual points in favor of his claim, maybe the two can have a discussion. As I said to the original poster, A's presumption has no place whatsoever in this discussion. Now, if B becomes convinced that A was right and goes on to wonder why it was that he didn't see it before, that might be a time to speculate about B's life experiences, but presuming it beforehand is nothing but inflammatory nonsense that fails to demonstrate anything about A's claim.


I hope you don't take anything I've said as being overly aggressive or demeaning to your person, I simply think your thoughts on the subject are flawed to the point of being counter-productive. I mean none of it personally and I'd call you friend whether we end up agreeing or not.

Edit: I thought I'd add this conversation as well.

A. Fords are really crap cars.

B. Why do you say that?

A. Well, since you're a girl and girl's don't know anything about cars, I can see how you don't understand what I'm saying.

B. I never saw it that way. Please enlighten me about this mystical contraption.

Now, if B were to instead respond by calling A sexist as hell, would A be under an obligation to soothe B's ego? I admit I'm taking the piss out of your example, but this is meant to be a more humorous take on what you said while keeping the essence of it. Sorry if my humor fails, but I hope this illustrates the problem with your proposed scenario.

Second Edit: Not sure how many examples you need of people in positions of influence denying racism towards white people even exists, but here's a link to an article on Feminspire claiming exactly that. http://feminspire.com/why-reverse-racism-isnt-real/ Here's another from everyday feminist https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/racist-against-white-people/. Now I want to be clear with this second article that I agree with most of what the author has to say but the whole article still labors under the presumption that there simply is no way that a white person can be the victim of racism. Part of that is because they are using a definition of racism that is, in my opinion, way too narrow and secondly because of the refusal to see how a societal structure dominated by minorities could or does exist. In my case, it was two schools I attended.

 

[Genocidicles]

Yeah I stopped paying attention to the SJWs on tumblr when one of them said that if you had consensual sex with a white male, it was rape unless you initiated the sex.

 

[[REDACTED]]

The fact that you would immediately assume white straight males don't know and care about these things is, in fact, completely baffling and worrying.

I don't know or care about these things. So, what.

...Then why are you trying to take a side!?

No. I mean anymore.

I'm thinking of murdering myself right now. No lie. I just... I don't know anymore.

Don't worry, it's fine, lots of us have been there. We all care about the same issues here, and we all run into cognitive dissonance now and then. None of us think you're a bad person.

Please, if you're thinking about harming yourself, call the Australian Lifeline Services. They can help you with what you're going through right now. Please remember that what you're considering is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It's not worth it.

 

[wAriot]

Edit:

-pic-


GREY! CORYYY!! YOU DID IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT

People trying to redefine the meaning of words because they don't fit their worldviews are some of the worst.
Racism is racism. It is a social construct, yeah, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist against X race. Same goes for sexism, or any other "-ism" really. They are prejudices, and they do not work in the sort of way many SJWs think they do (that is, only an "oppressor" can be racist/sexist against an "oppressed" person). Anyone can be prejudiced, no matter the social status, race, gender, or BMI he has/is.

 

[Fsyco]

I'd like to thank all the members of the Escapist for providing me reading material during my Statistics lecture this afternoon.

The idea that people not part of the cultural majority need your 'help' is still discrimination, just from the other end. I can't really speak on race, sex, or orientation since I'm a mostly straight, mostly white male, but I can bring up another one of Tumblr's sacred cows: People with mental problems.

I've got...something. Possibly autism and/or agoraphobia. I don't like crowds or talking to strangers (and I freak out if I have to say, go to a checkout line and interact with a clerk). I don't empathize well with people. But I don't really see it as a 'problem', its just the way I've always been. And it really irks me when someone sees me and decides that what I really need is someone to come be my friend. They don't really want to cheer me up though, they want to validate the fact that they're a good person. They want to know someone with some kind of problem and have that person dispense wisdom about living with their condition (I think this is the Magic Negro, but I might be off). Then I open my mouth and they discover what 'difficulty empathizing with others' really means.

Alot of SJWs and similar types don't actually want to help 'people', they want to help idealized physical incarnations of some group.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Okay, so people on Tumblr are pushy and angry and generally come off as assholes. But to ignore the message because of the messenger is just... it's not a smart thing to do.

It's the good old tone argument, employed by idiots everywhere.

On another note: your user picture suits your post well.

 

[Fsyco]

Okay, so people on Tumblr are pushy and angry and generally come off as assholes. But to ignore the message because of the messenger is just... it's not a smart thing to do.

It's the good old tone argument, employed by idiots everywhere.

On another note: your user picture suits your post well.

Or as I once heard it put, the 'man covered in shit' argument. It goes like this: You can spend hours explaining rationally to someone your point of view and try to change their mind, but your work is for naught if a man covered in feces comes up and says "I AGREE WITH YOU!". Sure, it's a logical fallacy, but it's just how people work. I'm pretty sure the same goes for 'cultural appropriation', since it's just a natural thing that societies have always done.

 

[The Wooster]

Edit:

-pic-


GREY! CORYYY!! YOU DID IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT

People trying to redefine the meaning of words because they don't fit their worldviews are some of the worst.
Racism is racism. It is a social construct, yeah, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist against X race. Same goes for sexism, or any other "-ism" really. They are prejudices, and they do not work in the sort of way many SJWs think they do (that is, only an "oppressor" can be racist/sexist against an "oppressed" person). Anyone can be prejudiced, no matter the social status, race, gender, or BMI he has/is.

The idea (and it's not one I agree with) is to refine the use of the word. Using "racism" to describe white prejudice against blacks AND black prejudice against whites seems to imply it's a two-way system with both parties on equal footing. I don't think that's the case. One is prejudice and a whole bunch of cultural, legal and social systems designed to maintain and enable that prejudice. The other is just prejudice. I get why the distinction is made, but phrases like, "black people can't be racist," do sound dumb when you first hear them.