lets collectively lol @ these "I need feminism because..." pics

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
I need feminism so that people on the internet will all collectively realize that they have nothing to blame for them being idiots but themselves.

These people realize that feminism isn't going to help any of them right?

1) Um, Dude, you don't really need "feminism" as much as you need a boyfriend. Also why do you need anything? your GF is fucking you in the ass and you like it! Just smile because you've obviously won life already.

2)His name, Sexism man. Even though some man a very long time ago did something to get a school named after him, according to you he does not deserve the accolades for the simple reason that he has a penis. This shit makes me sick, now feminism supporters want us to start stripping away the accomplishments of men? Yeah that's really equal.

3)You say you need feminism, and in the same sentence you ask for cat-calls. You don't understand what feminism is! If you were really confident in your self or your gender you wouldn't need anyone to tell you if you're attractive. Do you think feminism is going to change what people find attractive? That's not what that does!

4)To you I say... STOP RAPING! Feminism won't make you a better person. If you don't respect women right now, you still won't respect women if the feminism push is 100% successful.

5)Again, I say feminism won't change what people find attractive.

6)See above

7)If both genders are completely equal in every way then your gender studies degree would be useless. The last thing you need is feminism.

8)again see number 5
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Giftfromme said:
1)Wait, society demands that I should feel "unmanly" now? Crap, I feel I missed something important in my life (like the list of things that hive mind expects from me)
2)Eeeem, maybe that man donated shitload of cash to your school (thus saving it), or maybe he was only noticeable person to climb out of that shithole. Either way, both are good enough reasons to have have school named after someone. Is there a female school graduate who donated more or reached more in life? If no, then STFU!
3)As someone who was harassed (not on the street, but methodically by group of older high school girls) I can tell you that harassment isn't proof of your beauty. It is proof that there are assholes out there that wants to humiliate you, thus elevating themselves.
4)Me too, budy- it is called penis and it sometimes gets bigger. And as we all know (after feminists forced explained this to us) only those with penis can rape. Those without penis can only sexually harass you. So you should cut it off, that might decrease risk of contribution to rape culture. You're welcome!
5)You don't need feminism, you need depilation cream (and maybe a bit more brains education). I personally shave my armpits (and expect same from my potential partner) for hygienic reasons. Also I shave my beard and cut my hair for same reasons. But apparently I do these things because I am oppressed (and in denial). Good to know :/
6)I personally don't think you're ugly because you're fat. I think you have self-control and/or health issues because you're fat. And I prefer healthy females who can self-control themselves. See it's really simple :)
7)No matter how much you tell this bullshit to yourself and others it will not become truth. Hell, my degree in business and economics is worthless and it is few steps above you're degree. That makes you're degree less then worthless (it might even harm you). You could as well used that money to make campfire.
8)Riiiiiiiiiiight only females are objectified. Males never are. Deal with it princess, if someone wants to fuck you he/she will objectify you. Always!
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
DevilWithaHalo said:
It makes perfect sense; what justification is being used to rant against opposing opinion beyond offense? Voicing my dislike for her armpit hair does NOT harm her beyond her emotional sensitivity to counter opinion.
I mean it doesnt make sense because youve assigned at entire group of people an action (Thought control) then in the same sentence damned them for it without any sort of input from the person you are talking to. Thats not fair. This is why i dispise labels. When i say "Im a feminist" or an "Elgatarian" people pigeon hole all sorts of random bullshit for me that i have no interest in associating with. Id rather explain what i personally think. It might be what 99.9999% of feminists want, but as long as i dont it isnt fair to assign it to me.

Granted, but preventing people from voicing their opinions is censorship; a common tactic utilized in many feminist circles. The suggestion inherent in the ideology is that it would be taboo to voice dissenting opinion; which is highly ironic given the focus of the ideologies efforts to counter the current governing ?patriarchy?.
Cant argue with that, if your point is that certain people want crazy laws to LEGISLATE being nice ill agree.

Care to wager on that? I?ll give you the opportunity to alter this to ?any sane and reasonable person?.
Probably wont wager on it to be honest. Ill take your definition yeah.

Because past experience has influenced by reactions to similar circumstances. I don?t have to look very far for examples on how people want to control legislation to promote their individual ideals of ethics and morality. If you are of the opinion that certain people don?t want this level of control; you need a serious reality check
Certain people dont matter to me. It isnt a majority. And even if it is it isnt really relevant in this discussion since i dont think anyone in this thread has suggested such a notion. It seemed weird to bring it up. Keep your past experiences away from me in regards to what people want, im in the present and i want something different.

No, but then again, you would make a reasonable argument. I have yet to see a reasonable argument for the censorship or control of dissenting opinion. Thus far; it has and continues to remain emotionally based. Emotional reaction is a piss poor basis for educational regulation.

No, because you are allowing for alternative perspectives; whereas the argument surrounding social support and acceptance is not. Society can provide the option for gay people to get married; but it doesn?t mean other people have to support it.
Im fine for allowing other perspectives. I just seek to use the same methods. I ENCOURAGE people to not be creationists. I ENCOURAGE people not to hate eachother. I would NEVER use legislation to do this. Ever. But if youre going to tell me im a bad person for challenging people not to hate eachother so much im not really sure what to say.

That?s why feminism is quickly becoming a meaningless term; your egalitarian perspective differs from many others who claim a feminist perspective (including me).
True. This is why i hate labels. Id rather just explain my own view and let YOU label it with whatever is appropriate to you. Ill give everyone said opportunity to frame my views in comparison to their world view rather than me presenting one that can mean wildly different things to different people.

You?ll have to give me something better to work with; considering I don?t know the last time I laughed at someone who challenged gender norms (outside crazy feminists trying to prove a point).
Fine. The point im driving home is that encouraging (NOT LEGISLATING) people not to hate or demean eachother in society cannot possibly be a bad thing as long as said encouragement is in the form of rational discussion and freedom of views. I dont really care what other people are up to in regards to achieving this goal or a similar goal, this is what i want and what i will work to achieve by talking to people.

Logic has never been a strong point in feminist discussion. Is there a logical reason someone feels oppressed because they didn?t get positive feedback for growing out their armpit hair?
There is a logical reason to feel sad about it if said person is abused and mocked for doing something totally harmless. Its irrational at best and pretty dickish at worst to verbally abuse another person about it. Again, NEVER legislate this, but talking it through and realizing that its pretty petty to do this is a nice thing in society. I dont know. Id rather people disliked people for real reasons beside who has what armpit hair. If i get the opportunity to try and convince people of that i will.

If you lived in that particular society; no. Let?s go back to Rape Culture for a second; everything about this society teaches us that rape is a terrible atrocity and punishes it accordingly as a crime against another person. Now how does one come to learn that things, such as rape, are bad? Either because of our sense of morality governed by personal instinct, or by the education of society. The two don?t always mix; there are many things society tells me that I don?t agree with. The cold war taught both societies (capitalism and communism) to hate each other and I don?t think many people thought it was weird; considering that many people still feel the same way. Doesn?t it feel weird that England still has a monarchy? Different cultures, different values.
It does. And i DO live in this particular society. Questioning societial norms is how people make progress in being happier with eachother and themselves. I think those things are weird. I see what you are getting at by saying that no one can possibly have a totally objective standpoint on cultural values but i cant see the harm in trying to remove ones that generate vitriol and unkindness JUST via discussion.

Accept against feminism right? You may not personal believe that, but my challenge to certain inaccuracies presented by feminism has labeled me a misogynist (among other choice phrases). As if pointing out the error or outright misrepresentation of information makes me hate women. I request they do the same, because you don?t see ?reasoned arguments? outside the egalitarian perspective of feminism.
No idea, i commandeered the label of feminism for this discussion and im more than happy to drop it. Use whatever arguments you want, people who vilify open and honest discussion are wrong in my view and they are certainly not me. There is a distinct lack of a hivemind here.

Depends on the circumstance really; those questions under that thought process are too open ended to properly address. One could make arguments against traditional values as equally as one could argue for traditional values.
Arguments ONLY from tradition are very weak. Because we did it before can be used to justify literally ANYTHING including hammering nails through your eye. If values can be shown to make EVERYONE happier and make the country an objectively better place by preventing undeniably HARMFUL behaviour then go for it since its no longer an argument from tradition.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the colloquialism; ?Hope for the best but prepare for the worst??
I dont subscribe to it myself and have always viewed it with distaste. Im a big boy now, i can handle a little disappointment if things turn out worse than i expect.

I would love to see both, but they are few and far between amongst ?patriarchy? and ?rape culture?.
True and i agree that its a problem.

Bullshit. I hate Twilight; my hatred does not harm anyone involved in that ridiculous movie. I hate hairy armpits; my hatred does not harm anyone who chooses to grow out their armpit hair. I hate hypocrisy and fallacious reasoning; my hatred does not harm anyone guilty of committing them (including me). Hatred is not the problem; the actions against something based on that hatred are, let?s not confuse them shall we? Crazy psychos hatred of men does not harm me, but the knife they want to plunge into my chest because I possess a penis certainly does.

Hating something is not a moral crime, nor a legal one; it is only the outward expression of that hatred that people take issue with. And so long as they do not directly harm another person in the process; all we?re doing is taking about policies emotional offense.
No policy should be made to do with offence or hate. However Twilight isnt a person. Hating a person, like properly DISPISING a person is what LEADS to the knife going through you. Its a two pronged attack. Will to do something to someone you hate and means via the knife. If the removal of hatred between men and women in society is a bad thing you can be the first to tell me. Id rather talk away as much hatred as possible between PEOPLE. Not objects. Hating a rock doesnt offend the rock. Its not legally wrong to hate. Nor in some cases morally. But i cant imagine it being a GOOD thing in many circumstances. Id rather have less hate than more is all im saying and i think discussion and removal of irrational prejudices and roles is a way to move past it.

The notions of ?ridiculous? in accord to standards are a matter of personal opinion. Let me ask you a question; who sets the standards for what is and isn?t taboo? Are you not considering that feminism merely seeks to alter the standards; therefore merely shifting the goal posts or what is and isn?t taboo?
True, id say "Standards" should have some basis in objective harm to society and other people. If they dont scrap them. Im aware that shifting the goalposts is NOT what i want in the long term. But hey baby steps right?

To what end? Change the way that people choose to segregate themselves into different clicks and groups? Are we merely attempting a feng shui in reorganizing society to better suit our current mood?
My attitude of distancing myself from labels is how i see the most progress being made. I often encourage people to do that. Perhaps some people reshuffling as you say are but honestly im not.

Just another example of how feminism attempts to co-opt meanings that are entirely autonomous of its now all too random ideologies. Just don?t call it feminism; problem solved.
Labels make everything so messy. This is why for the most part, i dont. I call it "What Chris thinks".

So you?re OK with mindful rational tradition? Traditions come and go along with the generations and cultures that spawned them. Couldn?t? gasp? feminism be creating alternative traditional values? Let?s think of the children!
Yeah. If tradition is AMONG the arguments used then sure why not. After all its "Tradition" (In the sense that we always have done it this way) to NOT stab nails into our hands on our 18th birthdays. An argument COULD be used against it like "We have never done it this way before" which is an argument from tradition. However there are MANY other arguments against such a practice being encouraged and taught as normal. Its possible for a value to be "Traditional" by coincidence while still rooted in rationality. I dont want to be murdered so murder is illegal and "Traditionally" has been for a long time.

Seems like you?re making a patriarchy argument here? opportunity has more to do with technological advancements than it does social policy. A factoid gender studies seems to omit in various discussions involving women?s lib and the like.
I dont want to make social policy so im not sure how this is relevant. I would rather use discussion like i said.

Did you buy into the notion that this was ever legal or socially acceptable? I?m amused that you suggest violence as the only means to counter censoring differing opinions.
Hitting your wife and kids, while not socially ENCOURAGED, was certainly NOT the horrific crime it is today about 150 years ago in Britain. Not so. It was a silly extreme example that i regret to be frank. It was to demonstrate my point. That progress doesnt require mind control or legislation. Perhaps just discarding outdated AND irrational values.

Because progress, at least the progress certain feminists want, is legislative in nature; which goes against the very foundations of a free society. Laws which prevent discrimination? Sure, I can accept that. Laws which prevent people from hurting other people?s feelings? Fuck off. I say this because it?s a tangible way to gauge progress and because then they would have authority in a legal sense to do something about it (not that it prevents them now in our sue happy country).

If it?s harmless, then it doesn?t matter whether or not anyone else accepts it; because it?s harmless. It?s harmless whether or not she grows out her armpit hair; but I don?t have to like it, agree with it, support her for doing it or find her attractive in any way. So why does ?feminism? (in her sense), seek to ?correct? my personal opinion? There?s no god damn reason.
I DONT equate it to legislation. If i did seek to correct your opinion it would be if your opinion drove you to hate or publicly mock this woman. I wouldnt attempt to correct it persay but i would attempt to point out why such strong feelings are not well grounded in logic. You dont have to AGREE with everything in my view. You just shouldnt be an asshole about it. And legislation isnt the way to stop that from happening nor should it ever be. Pointing out there just isnt a REASON to be an asshole about it is the way forward. If youre aware of that and do it anyway oh well. Thats fair enough for me and at least society can concede that said person is indeed an asshole for belittling another person for a stupid reason. It isnt sexist to find armpit hair unnattractive nor will it ever be. Thats stupid. It doesnt make you a bad person either. Youre only a bad person if you directly attack another person for making a choice about it or TRY and hurt their feelings about it directly. Legislation cant possibly "fix" this nor does it need to.

Hate, like PURE hate, is the thing i have issue with to be frank because it almost always leads to pretty terrible actions. If you have kinda "Meh" negative feelings toward someone and dont act on them because you understand its harmless thats fine by me. I see no reason to do anything other than think "Why would he care?" and get on with it. Its silly to demand your support in all matters and you shouldnt be expected to give it. Its reasonable to say "I think we should look down on people who are mean about trivial shit" which is the FURTHEST extent im willing to go on the issue.

EDIT: HOLY FREAKING SHIT IM AN IDIOT. I saw the first picture then scrolled down quickly and assumed that it was the same picture set i saw earlier today, with WAY more sensible views on it. No i dont agree with some of these. Especially the last one. Or the second one. The first one seems valid. So does the armpit hair one kinda. Tbh that was my fault. I was lazy and assumed id seen these before. There are a lot more much better pictures in this set.
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
What's that in the sky?
It's a bird!
It's plane!
It's......A SUBJECT CHANGE!

I need science because people still believe the world is flat
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
BoneDaddy_SK said:
ObsidianJones said:
My problem with Feminism is that it makes it sound like a female gender issue only. The term. Whatever it means to do, it creates a specialty subsection of our culture that is meant to make us all equal, but on the surface is dealing with one section of our population.
So if we didn't change anything about feminism except for the name (let's say hypothetically we started calling it "magic brownies") you would suddenly be totally in favor of it? The name of a school of thought isn't the problem. It's stupid people. They're not going to stop being stupid if you get into this whole, "I'm more egalitarian than you," dick measuring contest.
My problem with Feminism is the knee jerk reactions that you yourself cited. You have this instant images of those who were stupid in the name of feminism. It's easy to do. As a people, we tend to focus on what we find egregious. But, honestly, think if there was no title. And it was just people championing equality in all forms, it's more easy to chalk those idiots who are championing the same cause as idiots. As they don't have a blanket label they are thumping as hard as they can, it's easier to chalk them up to as individual loonies and move on.

Now, If you are not like that, I sincerely am impressed. I'm not being sarcastic. While I wish people were like that, I myself have trouble doing it. But I know for a fact people are very ready to write up whole people in a movement, an idea, or a label according to what they consider their lowest common denominator.

The name of the school of thought is apart of the problem. Because most people enter everything with Preconceived Notions. It's easy to think of a Feminism as a man hating womyn who thinks everything should be given to the womyn for the betterment of humanity. It's easy to think of a Black Militant as a white hating, trash talking extremist who would blame Satan of the White Man if he could. It's easy to hear White Power and think of a Everything Hating Bigot who has so much rage that he wants to end everything he can. So if anyone comes to me with those titles, it's easy to ignore what they are saying or going on the defensive instantaneously without giving them ten seconds to speak.

But if someone came to me as a fellow human, started to make sense, and opened a dialog as Person A talking to Person B over something that affects people that I might care about... with no labels, terms, or movements? I'm more apt to listen. I think most people will be more apt to listen if they are addressed that way.
 

mateushac

New member
Apr 4, 2010
343
0
0
Seriously, when I read them at first I thought they were all involved in some sort of joke involving feminism.
#1, #5 and (maybe)#6 sound a little more serious, though. I guess those are okay things to fight for.


BTW, tell arts girl that every body (even non-human ones) are always objectified in arts. That's actually the object of art...
 

ThisGuyLikesNoTacos

New member
Dec 7, 2012
78
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
What's that in the sky?
It's a bird!
It's plane!
It's......A SUBJECT CHANGE!

I need science because people still believe the world is flat
I'll go double down.

Hmm... I need... air because... if I don't breathe it... I will die.
 

zerragonoss

New member
Oct 15, 2009
333
0
0
I stopped reading when i realized the op was serious. I am offended by the lets point and laugh at peoples calm and non-offensive attempts to speekup because I don't understand them.
 

Griffolion

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
0
Well, at least they have conviction about what they think. I guess I'm egalitarian, I'm not so much a feminist. I'm concerned about the social issues facing both male and female in today's culture. I'd really like them to be considered in an equal and mutual fashion. I think if we're to really address gender equality, everything has to go on the table.
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
I'd like to play a little game.

Take out those messages. Put in messages about Black Militant Thoughts. All empowering, but it's not talking about feminism. Honestly, wouldn't a lot of people be turned off just by the term 'Black Militant' and dislike it on that basis? We don't need feminism. We don't need Black Activism. We don't need lobbying for Gay/Transgender Rights. We need acceptance. And when do we actually get acceptance? When we drop labels and say 'human'. Not that many people want to do that, because they get pride in their labels, but it will drive us apart.

My problem with Feminism is that it makes it sound like a female gender issue only. The term. Whatever it means to do, it creates a specialty subsection of our culture that is meant to make us all equal, but on the surface is dealing with one section of our population. I try to treat everyone with the respect they deserve. In fact, you have to earn disrespect from me, rather earn respect. And I happen to respect those who struggle for all rights equally. Not focus on one part and then say it will help us all.
Hi. I would like to share a couple of feminist links with you. It's what I do.

Does Feminism Matter? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/faq-does-feminism-matter/] and Shouldn't Feminism Be Humanism or Equalism? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-feminism-and-not-just-humanism-or-equalism-isnt-saying-youre-a-feminist-exclusionary/]

I'll sum them up for you: It's not an either/or thing. I am both a feminist and an equalist (and a supporter of LGBT and race activism). And for as long as women are treated unequally in society, there will always be a need for feminism.

The thing that you seem to be unaware of is the fact that just because you dislike labels doesn't make them go away. People aren't going to stop labelling others and themselves any time soon. A woman is still going to be perceived as a woman and will still have to deal with the baggage that society places on women. Each marginalised subgroup in humanity deserves its own activist movement, because it's not an exclusionary thing. You can be as many different types of activist as you want, and trying to erase feminism under a vaguer umbrella is only going to stall any further progress. And what about groups whose problems are precisely erasure and a lack of visibility, such as asexuals or the disabled? How is a vague, nebulous ideology going to help with that? And how are you planning on keeping such an ideology on the right track when mankind's default conception of a human is a white straight male? How are you going to stop such an ideology from being used to benefit white straight males while the rest of the marginalised groups are pushed down the priority list as always? How are specific groups going to get their needs met when they all have to band under a common ideology who will neither have the resources to pursue everyone's needs nor the direction to actually get anything done (unless the majorities take control, in which case it will become a self-serving tool of the majorities to improve their own lot)?

Feminism (and all forms of activism) exist for many reasons, and the main one is focus. Just like genetics is a specific subset of biology, with its own specific aims and methods, so too feminism focuses specifically on certain problems in society and seeks to address specific imbalances. And just like being a geneticist doesn't preclude one from being a biologist or a botanist, so too does being a feminist doesn't preclude anyone from being an equalist or an LGBT activist (or all these things at once).

ObsidianJones said:
I wanted to see who would respond to this. I thought the whole "Not as much as women!!!" argument would come out, and then it would all break down to perceived percentages and what not. Here am I chagrined that no one even touched. If we want discussions, we do have to take on all points. Not the ones we can win.

I do remember as a kid, walking around times square looking at those shirtless Obsession ads and Calvin Klein ads and thinking 'Am I supposed to look like that? I'm no where near it. What does that mean?'. True facts. But because there are supposedly less chances of feeling that way because women have more media objectifying them, a lot of people I know told me to stop worrying about it. It actually made me feel worthless a bit. That how I felt didn't matter because it wasn't acceptable for me to feel that way.
Nobody is saying that society doesn't harm men. Nobody is saying that men, as a gender, don't have societal problems that need fixing. But there is a place to discuss that and that place is not when feminists raise valid concerns. Because it seems that we are all happy to ignore men's problems until feminism comes up, and then suddenly men's problems matter. We shouldn't ignore men's problems, but we also shouldn't use them as a tool to shut down feminist discourse.
 

BoneDaddy_SK

New member
Feb 7, 2013
15
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
Now, If you are not like that, I sincerely am impressed. I'm not being sarcastic. While I wish people were like that, I myself have trouble doing it. But I know for a fact people are very ready to write up whole people in a movement, an idea, or a label according to what they consider their lowest common denominator.
I try my damnedest to have an informed opinion about a subject before I talk about it. Unfortunately, this is the internet. Most of the people who talk about feminism, especially those who speak negatively about it, don't know shit about it. Because when you're online, being an intellectual makes you gay. The same goes for having faith in anything or having emotions.

So if anyone comes to me with those titles, it's easy to ignore what they are saying or going on the defensive instantaneously without giving them ten seconds to speak.
So... you seriously just said that "feminism" as a title is the exact same thing as "white supremacist?" And you want me to take your opinion seriously?

But if someone came to me as a fellow human, started to make sense, and opened a dialog as Person A talking to Person B over something that affects people that I might care about... with no labels, terms, or movements? I'm more apt to listen. I think most people will be more apt to listen if they are addressed that way.
That is quite possibly the stupidest excuse to dismiss feminism that I've ever heard. Ever.

Darken12 said:
I'll sum them up for you: It's not an either/or thing. I am both a feminist and an equalist (and a supporter of LGBT and race activism).
What?! But that's crazy talk! It's almost as if all these different schools of thought activism are just specialized subdivisions of the same progressive mentality. That has literally never happened before in all of history!
 

DevilWithaHalo

New member
Mar 22, 2011
625
0
0
Dijkstra said:
I see no misunderstanding when you complain about 'emotional manipulation' as a means of 'thought control'. It is essentially complaining that people dare to make you feel bad or whatever the hell you mean by 'emotional manipulation'.
Saying ?whatever the hell you men? doesn?t really give credit to the idea you actually knew what I meant. It?s quite obvious you still don?t?
Dijkstra said:
Your point is silly in regards to what you call 'control'. And no, you wouldn't defend to the death their right to say it if you're complaining about 'emotional manipulation'. As far as I can tell that amounts to not wanting to be criticized or socially pressured, both of which come as a part of people being able to say what they like.
?I am of the opinion that people can say what they want; regardless of how offensive and vile it is. I do not have to agree with them to hold the opinion they are within their rights to express themselves as honestly as they wish. The difference is that when I do not wish to hear it; I remove myself. Whereas when they do not wish to hear it; they censor the idea. The justification for their censorship is purely emotional.

Condemnation and control are two completely different things. Criticize me all you want; I?m a big boy, I can take it. But do not attempt to control what I say.
Dijkstra said:
I didn't see the picture calling anything thought control and acting like it impaired freedom and democracy. Take that into account and it ought to be clear why it applies to you.
I see your perspective, but some of us think of the ramifications of how issues are addressed in our society which leads us to a greater understanding of how people project their personal issues onto others in order to repair them. We also examine how certain people, organizations and ideologies work to address these problems and in turn cause others.
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
BoneDaddy_SK said:
What?! But that's crazy talk! It's almost as if all these different schools of thought activism are just specialized subdivisions of the same progressive mentality. That has literally never happened before in all of history!
Yes. They are specialised subdivisions of the same progressive mentality. Because specialisation is not harmful in and of itself, so long as it's used reasonably. What's the problem with that?


Sorry, I thought you were the other guy.
 

Vuavu

New member
Apr 5, 2010
230
0
0
Oi I was laughing... at first... The farther I got down the list the more I realized that the people in the pictures are being serious :/ I thought they MUST have been sarcastic. So I re-read it from the start. And found myself disturbed. I pity these people. Still funny. But this has reminded me of the ridiculous bullshit people CHOOSE to fill their own heads with.
 

BoneDaddy_SK

New member
Feb 7, 2013
15
0
0
Darken12 said:
BoneDaddy_SK said:
What?! But that's crazy talk! It's almost as if all these different schools of thought activism are just specialized subdivisions of the same progressive mentality. That has literally never happened before in all of history!
Yes. They are specialised subdivisions of the same progressive mentality. Because specialisation is not harmful in and of itself, so long as it's used reasonably. What's the problem with that?


Sorry, I thought you were the other guy.
In hindsight I probably should have done something to make the sarcasm clearer.

Vuavu said:
I pity these people.
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but... Why? Do you really think less of people for having a different opinion than you?
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
BoneDaddy_SK said:
In hindsight I probably should have done something to make the sarcasm clearer.
That you were quoting the same guy too didn't help, LOL. Though it was probably my own distractedness. Thanks for being a good sport about it, too! :)

Vuavu said:
I pity these people. Still funny. But this has reminded me of the ridiculous bullshit people CHOOSE to fill their own heads with.
You won't resent them (or us) for feeling the same way about you, right? After all, turnabout is fair play, isn't it?
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,858
11
43
BloatedGuppy said:
I'm not saying the past was better or should be looked upon as an example, I'm just saying what is "beautiful" changes with culture and time
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
I need feminism because watching the utter shitstorms provided by threads like this are hilarious.

... Then again, I guess I could look for a racism thread and get the same result.