• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

SJWs and Extreme Feminism

ellie

Δ
Staff member
Admin
It's not so much that I don't care about being human, I'll say it again: I don't get why people are obsessed with being human so much. I focus on what I do and who I am in terms of person rather that what species of animal I am.

Each nation has the right to maintain its own identity. The right of Britain to remain British, the right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani, I could go on.



What's wrong with being antisocial? I absolutely despise the expectation of society to get off the sofa and go get drunk, if you know what I mean. Granted, everyone socializes almost every day, but as a guy who lives two lives, one in the real world and one on the internet, I bet at some point spending all day playing video games and watching anime is gonna become a political problem at some point.

when people talk about "being human" what they mean is "being a functional part of society." unless you live in a jungle with no one else around (which you don't otherwise you wouldnt have internet and be posting this), you have to interact with other people on a regular basis. are you someone who is pleasant to interact with, helps others, and contributes greatly to society? or are you rude and mean, making people uncomfortable, being a drain on society, etc? that is what people mean, not just being a member of the species homo sapiens. as for what's wrong with being antisocial, i don't think people have a problem with people who just mostly tend to keep to themselves but still have a day job and contribute. the problem is with people who sit on their *** all day doing nothing to contribute anything while still feeling entitled to society's benefits. there's a reason why "neet" is a pejorative in many cultures today already.

as for a nation's "right" to maintain its identity, why do you say that? i don't agree. the borders we have today are arbitrary. many countries are only where they are today because of exploitation of other countries, and "culture" is fluid and has been throughout the dawn of time. pretty much every culture today has aspects that are borrowed from other cultures as well. the racial classes we have are arbitrary too. see: groups like the irish, italians, etc not counting as "white" for quite some time until the amount of white people was too small so they were let in to boost the number. there is also far more variation within each racial group than there is between different racial groups, so pulling a genetic argument doesn't work either.

like the other poster, i find it astounding that you can't understand being human but you have an obsession with being white.
 

The Admiral

the star of the masquerade
Please try to at least pretend to understand when "free speech" applies to a given situation, then.

The staff here have every single reason to infract and/or ban you for posting racist/sexist garbage, given that there are specific rules against it. Free speech doesn't even begin to come into play since the Serebii.Net Forums are not a US government institution. Hell, it's not even part of the public sector to begin with.

(Unless Joe sold out the site to some random government agency or started a non-profit based around Pokemon without telling anyone.)

Just to double down on this argument (much as I probably shouldn't bother) here is the full text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with the important words bolded:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment applies to the federal government making laws, exclusively. Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this applies to state governments as well, as of Gitlow v. New York (1925). For the ability of the owner of private property -- and this forum would constitute such -- look at e.g. Schenck v. United States.

However, I thin the person in question is from England, or at least in approximately GMT time, so I don't really know what the freedom of speech regulations are there.
 

Antiyonder

Overlord
Because, you know, why would anyone shout fire or rats in a crowded theater or restaurant? Not that they can't, but would they? I don't see why they would, other than possibly for trolling purposes.

A. As you said, some act up to troll or to stir up trouble for no reason.
B. Even if my question refers to a ridiculous scenario, it arguably demonstrates the folly of letting someone act up because they have free speech. Besides, if you are determined to prove that you're 100% right on the subject, then dodging a question would suggest that you aren't completely sure.

But yeah, worst they'll get if they did that is being kicked out of said theater or restaurant and nothing more.

Sure, but they are still being penalized. But shouldn't freedom of speech protect their rights to do so without being punished, especially if they paid to see a movie?
 

Lolsgod

Sexy Trainer
I disagree with the lack of "nuance" that SJWs and Feminists refuse to acknowledge.
 
the Serebii.Net Forums are not a US government institution

Perhaps I should've elaborated on what I meant by free speech. When I said I strongly believe in the concept of free speech I meant that in general, not just for governments. I'm basically saying that I'm not afraid of being politcally incorrect in front of members of staff and while there's no stopping them dishing out infractions or bans for what I'm saying I just think it's dumb, that's all.

But hey, it's the Debate Forum - I bet everyone who posts here has been infracted at least once.

Sure, but they are still being penalized. But shouldn't freedom of speech protect their rights to do so without being punished, especially if they paid to see a movie?

It's not really the issue here. Freedom of speech concerning governments and real-life situations wasn't something I was trying to debate in the first place anyway. But to answer your question, it's a petty thing to do so it will be met with a light sanction, too insignificant to make a deal out of. I don't see someone being severely punished for doing that.



when people talk about "being human" what they mean is "being a functional part of society."

>MUH SOCIETY
Sasuga.

you have to interact with other people on a regular basis

As a natural way of life or just another standard set out by society? If the latter, says who?

are you someone who is pleasant to interact with, helps others, and contributes greatly to society? or are you rude and mean, making people uncomfortable, being a drain on society, etc?

But why should you contribute to society? What if you don't trust it?

as for what's wrong with being antisocial, i don't think people have a problem with people who just mostly tend to keep to themselves

Well thank god for that and it better stay that way.. Everyone is different, after all.

but still have a day job and contribute. the problem is with people who sit on their *** all day doing nothing to contribute anything while still feeling entitled to society's benefits.

there's a reason why "neet" is a pejorative in many cultures today already.

And I bet the NEETs are all giving the middle finger to people who shame them, they seem perfectly fine enjoying their anime and video games.

as for a nation's "right" to maintain its identity, why do you say that? i don't agree.

Because every country has it's own native culture and people, and under it's own decision it should be allowed to keep it. As I said before, I can accept that every country will always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of that country. India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it – so why should Britain? Or the States? Or hell, any country for that matter.

However, this is what The Jews seek to do. They want to promote racemixing and multiculturalism for Europe and America while trying to keep their own country Jewish at the same time.

the borders we have today are arbitrary. many countries are only where they are today because of exploitation of other countries, and "culture" is fluid and has been throughout the dawn of time. pretty much every culture today has aspects that are borrowed from other cultures as well.

Cool. Great. Fantastic. We wouldn't be living in the country we know right now if it wasn't for that. But the question is, do we still need foreign influences? We can manage on our own now, but thanks for helping us get where we are so we can say "We don't need you anymore."

like the other poster, i find it astounding that you can't understand being human but you have an obsession with being white.

Because before you finally admitted what you meant by "being human" I couldn't tell whether you meant it in a natural way (having emotions, being empathetic, etc.) or if it was just another "MUH SOCIETY" statement.

But I also thought that you were trying to say that being human means having liberal traits. Are you human if you have traits like mine? I'm kind of curious.
 

ellie

Δ
Staff member
Admin
Lmfao "muh society"? Society created those video games and anime you love so much. If you don't want to contribute to society then you can live in a tent in the middle of nowhere and not enjoy the benefits either.


Not even touching the racist idiotic crap you posted for right now but I'm sure someone else will
 

Abstinence Pistols

Well-Known Member
>MUH SOCIETY
Sasuga.

Someone, oh anyone, tell me this is a joke. Nobody could truly hit every check mark for obnoxious TRP and/or /pol/ user so perfectly.

Also

I bet the NEETs are all giving the middle finger to people who shame them
I'm not really all that concerned about getting the middle finger from a group of people who live off of benefits without a job so that they have an excuse to piss their life away in front of a crusty computer screen
 

Antiyonder

Overlord
It's not really the issue here. Freedom of speech concerning governments and real-life situations wasn't something I was trying to debate in the first place anyway. But to answer your question, it's a petty thing to do so it will be met with a light sanction, too insignificant to make a deal out of. I don't see someone being severely punished for doing that.

Perhaps, but looking at the first post I responded to:

I just want to say I will be speaking my mind in all truth and honesty, because I strongly believe in the concept of free speech and this is not a communist state.

It sounds like you were insisting that Freedom of Speech means that one could sat whatever and that penalties of any kind (heavy or light sanctioned) counts as oppressing someone's free speech.

As such, I brought up a scenario demonstrating why a penalty would be necessary against someone who gets in trouble merely for speaking.

Edit:
And for the record, I think Abstinence Pistols brought up a good response to you.

I don't see why you would use racial slurs or express antisemitism in public other than for trolling purposes or because it makes you feel important and powerful to EXIRCISE UR RIGHTS and stick it to those filthy SJWs and blue pilled plebeians.

Yeah, I don't see how using racial slurs is productive either.
 
Last edited:

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
This is facile. The amount of feminists actually advocating for literally banning certain words is such a ridiculous minority that to bring it up as an accusation is beyond asinine.
If you check the context, I was responding to this:
I'm saying people who complain about the name more instead of actually doing something productive are some of equality's worst enemies.

I don't think most feminists want to ban words, and I'm not interested in accusing feminists as a whole. All I care about in this context is that these instances come up, including in this thread, but bobjr doesn't call them "enemies of equality," like he seems to regularly do to people for even daring to use semantical analysis on feminist terminology. So his stance is inconsistent.

I have, however, seen feminists call people out for using racial or sexist slurs, but that isn't banning anything. We're just aware of the fact that language shapes reality and that words have power. I can't keep you from saying whatever you want, but I can use my voice to hold you accountable for the things that you say.
I was mostly referring to feminists who insist that everyone use their terminology, but whatever, your example is fine too. It is by definition semantical analysis, so according to bobjr it is the stuff of "enemies of equality" etc. Unless he thinks there is a special clause that feminists can perform semantical analysis but others can't.

...You can probably see the pattern with this line of debate.


Feminism is a diverse movement with a rich body of literature that's been accumulated over decades,
It's so diverse that if I identify myself as a feminist, I have to spend considerable effort explaining what I stand for. Do I define it as a stance against discrimination by gender, all forms of discrimination, general criticism of western society (that's where the "western imperialism" stuff comes from), some specific analysis of oppression (whichever definition we are using), the desire to bring forward a feminine perspective, or what? How much sociological terminology is carried over and with what connotations? And then there are all the spinoff applications on other fields with their own definitions.

If I'm going to associate with something, before we even get to whether I agree with it, I'd like to use a term that is less vague and nebulous.


if you're looking at Tumblr to form your opinion about it, you're doing it wrong. Keep in mind that many people on tumblr are hardly experts, and they work with information that has trickled down to them from people or friends that they know studying sociology or gender. I probably wouldn't form my opinion on quantum mechanics for example by browsing some casual physics forum on the internet. I would grab a book from Lawrence Krauss or Richard Feynman, or talk to one of my friends majoring in physics. Having opinions is easy, knowing what you're talking about is hard. I mean, imagine how arrogant we would find someone that set out to disprove evolution, without ever discussing the work of Darwin, Richard Dawkins, or Steven Jay Gould? Or if someone wanted to do away with metaphysics without ever discussing the works of Kant or Nietzsche? It seems as though the most virulent critiques of feminism come from those who have not read one single feminist work in their entire lives, and that's what is priceless.
Then it's pretty good that my stance on feminism is not based on Tumblr. But what if one actually questions the terminology, methodology, or conclusions of some sociologists?

And I honestly don't see why Nietzsche would be necessary for understanding metaphysics. Technically a smart enough person could bypass Kant, but I get why he was mentioned. But Nietzsche?
 

scizor42

Back from break
As a white, heterosexual male, i do think that the OP is viewing things with a little bit of "privilege" (i.e. you didn't have to go through the same stuff as a lot of other people do). This isn't any form of attack on your character or anything, it is just the statement that you (nor i, in fact, although i have been able to see it happening and the results of it) haven't had to deal with inequality or discrimination, and thus do not see it as easily.

To adress certain issues, no one "is feeling compelled to address issues that don't exist". Any number of statistics can be used to prove, without a doubt, that sexism and racism run rampant in this country. For example, the racial assets (how much money an average black person owns versus that of a white person) gap in the USA currently is worse than it was in South Africa during the apartheid. I'm sure you can google and find plenty of other sources to prove this point, so i won't belabor it further.

As for your specific examples, they do actually make sense if you look at them in their nuance.

"All lives matter" was specifically a phrase used to discredit the phrase "Black lives matter", which was a phrase used by many black rights activists to point out that police brutality is unfairly levied against people, mostly by race. Again, there are umpteen statistics online to back this up.

As for the "banning" of the word Freshman from Elon University (which was really only from its website and student orientation according to the link you gave me, so i am hesitant to call it a ban). Rape and sexual harassment has been a huge problem in Universities recently, and in addition the word freshman has a lot of other stigma attached to it; for example, when i was in my freshman year of high school , the senior president of student government told the freshman to "quit acting stupid".

With the "flatulence" issue, it again raises a good point; women often feel like they cannot pass gas in public because of societies norms, while men get an easier time of this. While i wouldn't call male flatulence rape, most educated feminists wouldn't either.

The issue with video games is also well known. It is never a prince getting rescued by a princess (or another prince, for that matter). Females in video games are also often horribly sexualized (although i disagree with most feminists solution to this. I think, instead of making all women in video games not sexualized, we should sexualize some of the men in video games).

As for the TMI phrase, the complaint is that it is levied against women a lot more than against men.

Of course, some of the things you mentioned as "feminists" or "black rights activists" saying are a bit off the deep end, or rather would be, if any good portion of feminists or black rights activists were saying them. Simply posting a few examples of a few radical feminist beliefs is not sufficient to conclude that all feminists are like that, as all groups have a few crazy people in them (christians who bomb abortion clinics, muslims who bomb planes, people who carry out school shootings, people who game the welfare system, people who game the corporate law, etc.)

This isn't to say that there aren't problems with the feminist movement. The name, for one, falsely implies that feminists are only looking for the advancement of women, when rather they are looking for equality of the sexes. However, these aren't sufficient to throw out the feminist and civil rights movements as a whole, as they do some very good things.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
Any number of statistics can be used to prove, without a doubt, that sexism and racism run rampant in this country. For example, the racial assets (how much money an average black person owns versus that of a white person) gap in the USA currently is worse than it was in South Africa during the apartheid. I'm sure you can google and find plenty of other sources to prove this point, so i won't belabor it further.
I'm sure a lot of racism exists, but the poverty of minorities isn't only caused by racism but also by being born into poor families, which is more like discrimination based on family. You need to make that distinction in the analysis of evidence.
 

Lolsgod

Sexy Trainer
I'm sure a lot of racism exists, but the poverty of minorities isn't only caused by racism but also by being born into poor families, which is more like discrimination based on family. You need to make that distinction in the analysis of evidence.

EXACTLY, We as a society need to fully understand that EVERY situation needs to be handled in a case by case basis. As soon as you start only seeing race in crimes then you start delude yourself that certain people can never be at fault for their own actions. People need to stop trying to speak for others and just speak for themselves, just because you THINK or you FEEL that something is a certain way, it does not mean it is.
 

ellie

Δ
Staff member
Admin
I'm sure a lot of racism exists, but the poverty of minorities isn't only caused by racism but also by being born into poor families, which is more like discrimination based on family. You need to make that distinction in the analysis of evidence.

and you think the fact that so many more minorities are poor isn't because of racism? for one, a lot of rich families are rich because their ancestors are. especially in these days class mobility is pretty low, and within some of our grandparents' lifetimes it was legal to openly discriminate against minorities. that definitely has an effect on how much wealth is available to be passed down to their children and grandchildren. then there's the countless studies showing discrimination in employment opportunities for non-white people. if you have a harder time getting a good job doesnt it follow that youd be poor too? and if you had a lower paying job youd have less money to pass onto your children.


class/economic distinction is important too, that's what intersectional feminism is all about. but to argue that all/most problems are caused by class (which i'm not saying you are arguing but i have seen some people say exactly that) is completely wrong. a poor white man will face significant challenges, but a poor white woman or a poor black man or poor black woman will have extra unique challenges on top of that.
 
Yuck. This entire thread reeks of white male privilege. The fact that you are one of those whiny white people shouting "ALL LIVES MATTER" proves it even more. With everything going on right now, white people need to shut up and listen, to put it bluntly.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
and you think the fact that so many more minorities are poor isn't because of racism? for one, a lot of rich families are rich because their ancestors are. especially in these days class mobility is pretty low, and within some of our grandparents' lifetimes it was legal to openly discriminate against minorities. that definitely has an effect on how much wealth is available to be passed down to their children and grandchildren. if you have a harder time getting a good job doesnt it follow that youd be poor too? and if you had a lower paying job youd have less money to pass onto your children.
Obviously. But in that case the individual who is born into a poor family is not subjected to racism because the victims of racism in the past are distinct from their descendants. The distinction is important because these are entirely different problems and require entirely different solutions.

When the problem is racism, solve racism.
When the problem is poverty due to "hereditary racism," solve poverty.

If you want to call both with the same term, I'd say your rhetoric is only obscuring the situation. I mean, there's no reason why we couldn't, but you'll have to make the distinction eventually because they are empirically distinct.

then there's the countless studies showing discrimination in employment opportunities for non-white people.
Well, that's just plain racism, not this hereditary stuff.

class/economic distinction is important too, that's what intersectional feminism is all about. but to argue that all/most problems are caused by class (which i'm not saying you are arguing but i have seen some people say exactly that) is completely wrong. a poor white man will face significant challenges, but a poor white woman or a poor black man or poor black woman will have extra unique challenges on top of that.
Obviously a poor black man may suffer both from being poor and from being black. That's a no-brainer (intersection in set theory indeed). But these are distinct problems, and they need distinct solutions. I suppose someone might hate poor black people in particular (in fact, I'm pretty sure this exists), but that is a third issue.

Doesn't that explain it neatly enough?
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Yuck. This entire thread reeks of white male privilege. The fact that you are one of those whiny white people shouting "ALL LIVES MATTER" proves it even more. With everything going on right now, white people need to shut up and listen, to put it bluntly.

Invoking the mythical "white male privilege?"

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/shades-of-privilege

All lives should matter. Whose claiming otherwise?

Why did this stupid meme start? (Most memes are stupid. Feel good sound bites that have no basis in reality). Because of supposed police brutality in the case of Garner and Brown. (At least that is the first time I started seeing this meme). Do you want police brutality to only be stopped if it involves minorities or do you want all police brutality stopped? Do you only care if a minority child dies? Don't you want to be inclusive?
 

ellie

Δ
Staff member
Admin
Obviously. But in that case the individual who is born into a poor family is not subjected to racism because the victims of racism in the past are distinct from their descendants. The distinction is important because these are entirely different problems and require entirely different solutions.

When the problem is racism, solve racism.
When the problem is poverty due to "hereditary racism," solve poverty.

If you want to call both with the same term, I'd say your rhetoric is only obscuring the situation. I mean, there's no reason why we couldn't, but you'll have to make the distinction eventually because they are empirically distinct.

Well, that's just plain racism, not this hereditary stuff.

Obviously a poor black man may suffer both from being poor and from being black. That's a no-brainer (intersection in set theory indeed). But these are distinct problems, and they need distinct solutions. I suppose someone might hate poor black people in particular (in fact, I'm pretty sure this exists), but that is a third issue.

Doesn't that explain it neatly enough?

It seems like you mostly get it, but people who are a part of 2+ discriminated-against groups generally have unique problems on top of what they experience from those groups alone. In the example of a poor black man, they often are perceived as lazy moochers or dangerous criminals even when they're not, which doesn't happen (as much) to poor white men (who are more often perceived as just being down ok their luck) or rich black men (who are often seen as the "good" members of their race) . More concrete examples include transmisogyny and all the issues that come with that, and the way Asian women are sexualized uniquely that doesn't happen to white women or Asian men (and other woc of course but the Asian women one is the most well known example.

Basically you are definitely right that you have to solve the different types of discrimination independently, but I think you kind of gloss over with the "3rd problem" part. Most people who are part of multiple groups have different extra problems on top of those base problems, and while the extra problems might be helped somewhat by solving the base problems, they need to be solved independently too.
 

Grey Wind

Well-Known Member
LDSman said:
All lives should matter. Whose claiming otherwise?

Why did this stupid meme start? (Most memes are stupid. Feel good sound bites that have no basis in reality). Because of supposed police brutality in the case of Garner and Brown. (At least that is the first time I started seeing this meme). Do you want police brutality to only be stopped if it involves minorities or do you want all police brutality stopped? Do you only care if a minority child dies? Don't you want to be inclusive?
The problem with saying "all lives matter" is that you're deliberately changing a term used by black people in conversations about racism towards black people to be inclusive of white people. It's not about saying that only black people matter or that only people should only care if black children die (and thinking that honestly reeks of internalised racism but w/e), it's about combating racism that is specifically towards black people. White people trying to change the phrase need to stop being so self-centred and realise that it's not about us.

I guess you could make the case that the person linked in the op didn't realise what they were saying or something, but the reaction to "all lives matter" in general is completely justified.


Why did this stupid meme start?
Also, this is awful.
 

ForeverFlame

Well-Known Member
Do you want police brutality to only be stopped if it involves minorities or do you want all police brutality stopped? Do you only care if a minority child dies? Don't you want to be inclusive?

You're ignoring the fact that police brutality is obviously more of a problem for minorities than it is for white people. It's a problem for everyone, but it's a disproportionate problem. And the name of the movement reflects the inequality.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
You're ignoring the fact that police brutality is obviously more of a problem for minorities than it is for white people. It's a problem for everyone, but it's a disproportionate problem. And the name of the movement reflects the inequality.

Prove it. Minorities getting more publicity does not meant that more minorities suffer from police brutality.
 
Top