SJWs and Extreme Feminism

[Green Blockhead]

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

Well can you answer my question in my last post?

Are you human if you have traits like mine? I'm kind of curious.

Though I'm rewording it to "Would you consider someone with traits like mine human?"

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

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.

Do we know for a fact that the person who first (publicly?) proposed "All lives matter" was white? Because the phrase doesn't include any reference to white people, and without knowing anything else, I could easily see it as an attempt by a member of a different minority to remind everyone that there are more minorities.

Consider the earlier case of George Zimmerman, a member of a different minority. To simply respond that his case was an injustice because he took the life of Trayvon Martin is to ignore the self-defense claim, which factored into the jury's "not guilty" verdict. Latino lives matter, too.

 

[ellie]

Well can you answer my question in my last post?



Though I'm rewording it to "Would you consider someone with traits like mine human?"

What traits are you referring to

 

[Green Blockhead]

What traits are you referring to

You know, redpill and that.

And not solely in terms of feminism either.

 

[ellie]

Well of course you're still human and part of society unless you moved away from all other humans and anything that lets you contact other humans. Redpill crap just means you have a negative effect on society/everyone else.

 

[Carlisle]

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?

Are you seriously so ignorant that you deny that males and whites have privilege in American society? I'm honestly at a loss for words. If you seriously believe that a black transwoman is on equal footing with a white cishet male.... I can't even fathom a response to that because it is so far from reality. I guarantee you that I as a white male who owns a Mercedes would be treated far better by the police than a black man in Atlanta driving a 1998 Pontiac.

I really recommend you go through the #crimingwhilewhite and #alivewhileblack hashtags on Twitter.

And that tacky blog post you shared is nothing more than classism and micro aggressions against people of color. It also completely disregards the fact that the developing world suffers from so many problems because of what white culture did across the globe.

 

[bobjr]

Lets be honest a white man in a 1998 Pontiac will be treated better than the black man in a Mercedes by the police.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

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.

A third problem is a separate problem because it targets a different subset of people. That doesn't mean that there aren't any similarities or causal links between the problems, or that you couldn't launch joint campaigns against them.

But this framework of concepts removes superfluous and culturally loaded terminology and replaces it with minimalistic and clear-cut definitions with more neutral connotations. It makes it easier to deconstruct the problem to its constitutents and analytically examine every constitutent and the interactions between them. It should also help with the problems in explaining the contents to the general public or making them receptive to them. PR is important.

 

[John Madden]

But this framework of concepts removes superfluous and culturally loaded terminology and replaces it with minimalistic and clear-cut definitions with more neutral connotations. It makes it easier to deconstruct the problem to its constitutents and analytically examine every constitutent and the interactions between them. It should also help with the problems in explaining the contents to the general public or making them receptive to them. PR is important.

PR is important

having some appeals to emotion in said PR, rather than simply staying aggressively neutral, is arguably equally important so that people actually feel compelled to engage

 

[ellie]

A third problem is a separate problem because it targets a different subset of people. That doesn't mean that there aren't any similarities or causal links between the problems, or that you couldn't launch joint campaigns against them.

I said there are similarities, but the unique problems have to be solved on their own too. If you somehow managed to get rid of racism and sexism, that doesn't mean you'd also solve the fetishization of Asian women by some western men, though it would probably significantly improve. You could launch joint campaigns, but no one can solve every single problem (that's we have specific charities instead of the "fix every problem ever fund"), so it makes sense that some people might want to focus on one specific problem while others focus on different ones.

But this framework of concepts removes superfluous and culturally loaded terminology and replaces it with minimalistic and clear-cut definitions with more neutral connotations. It makes it easier to deconstruct the problem to its constitutents and analytically examine every constitutent and the interactions between them. It should also help with the problems in explaining the contents to the general public or making them receptive to them. PR is important.

I don't really get what your issue is? Specific words and definitions are important to concisely discuss concepts. For example you can say "the specific issues that trans women experience that stem from the fact that people think they are men trying to trick straight men" or you could say "transmisogyny." Which one is easier to discuss?

 

[Aegiscalibur]

PR is important

having some appeals to emotion in said PR, rather than simply staying aggressively neutral, is arguably equally important so that people actually feel compelled to engage

It looks more like an environment where emotionally loaded campaigns are countered with other emotionally loaded campaigns, creating more and more flames and making it difficult to actually advocate equality. It also seems to easily give birth to straw feminists, who may be few in number but are doing a good job at ruining the movement's public image.

 

[bobjr]

It's almost like humans are emotional creatures by nature.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

It's almost like some people want to use that to their advantage. And it's definitely like you don't mind, when you could avoid jumping to conclusions like the following:

Lets be honest a white man in a 1998 Pontiac will be treated better than the black man in a Mercedes by the police.

As you do not know what "will" happen (especially when you consider the possibility of black officers), it would be much better to speak in terms of tendencies.

Inb4 "people won't take notice or care if you don't speak in emotionally-loaded absolutes"

 

[Aegiscalibur]

I don't really get what your issue is? Specific words and definitions are important to concisely discuss concepts. For example you can say "the specific issues that trans women experience that stem from the fact that people think they are men trying to trick straight men" or you could say "transmisogyny." Which one is easier to discuss?

You know, the "tricking" part isn't even visible in the word's structure, so it doesn't look like it works well.

Anyway, what merits does e.g. "intersectional feminism" have over general "egalitarianism"? The former is not only more culturally loaded but doesn't describe very well what it's about. I could list any number of things like sexism / reverse sexism, minority in terms of number or dominance, or oppression not looking anything like layman oppression. Or how about the vagueness when it comes to defining general concepts like social power?

If you want to make people believe you are in favor of equality, don't make it look like you're trying to do the complete opposite or just obscure the conversation in general. It's counterproductive. I know that physicists screw up their terminology sometimes, but usually not this much. (Obviously they are studying different things, but it shouldn't be hard to do better than this.) Even in this thread, every layman and their mother is pointing out the obvious problem with the word "feminism" with the same basic concept of semantical deconstruction used by feminists themselves, which turns the whole thing into a joke, as usual. Wouldn't it be nice if we could clean up the semantics and get to focus on the actual substance? Not going to happen, but you can hope, I guess?

 

[bobjr]

It's almost like some people want to use that to their advantage. And it's definitely like you don't mind, when you could avoid jumping to conclusions like the following:



As you do not know what "will" happen (especially when you consider the possibility of black officers), it would be much better to speak in terms of tendencies.

Inb4 "people won't take notice or care if you don't speak in emotionally-loaded absolutes"

Yeah, but going "Unless you can predict with absolute certainty what will happen it's meaningless" is so much worse because while that would be great it's useless in most real life scenarios.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Yeah, but going "Unless you can predict with absolute certainty what will happen it's meaningless" is so much worse because while that would be great it's useless in most real life scenarios.

So the absolute terms only become problematic when they are used against your argument? That's very enlightening.

Do you not consider statements like "all Muslims are radicals" ridiculous precisely because they lack proper qualification? Why then would you fail to qualify accusations about the police?

 

[Polecat]

SJWs suck.

I find it interesting that in railing so hard against the ultra-right wing that tries to censor opinions they don't like and impose their religion on everyone, they become the same exact thing: The ultra-left wing that tries to censor opinions they don't like and impose their ideology on everyone. Whereas the ultra-right considers you a horrible sinner if you don't practice their specific type of fundamentalist religion, the ultra-left considers you a tool of the Heteronormative White Supremacist Capitalist AmeriKKKan Patriarchy (Or whatever they're calling society nowadays) if you don't practice their specific type of feminism (Which has completely taken over modern feminism as a whole). Ultra left, ultra right; There is no real difference. Both sides want to control society: One through fundamentalist fearmongering, deceit, and bigotry, and one through political correctness, censorship, and ostracization of anyone who disagrees. I could go on forever about this, but I won't because I don't feel like it.

People need to stop worrying so much about offending someone. If you say any controversial opinion, chances are it'll offend someone, somewhere. Stop putting so much value on sanitizing society so much that it becomes a shell of it's former self. If you worry so much about offending people, there will be no more humor. No more controversy. No more humanity.

And finally, chances are, if you're sitting in a comfortable house located in a nice neighborhood or college campus wearing nice clothes posting on Tumblr on an expensive laptop or computer, you're not oppressed in the least. Stop saying you are. You want oppression, then there are plenty of countries you can take a trip to. Oh, wait, there is no oppression in countries like Iraq or North Korea, proud noble angelic PoCs run those countries! And everyone knows only WHITE people can run tyrannical governments!

 

[ellie]

yes because if you aren't living in the absolute worst possible conditions ever nothing whatsoever is wrong in your life

 

[bobjr]

So the absolute terms only become problematic when they are used against your argument? That's very enlightening.

Do you not consider statements like "all Muslims are radicals" ridiculous precisely because they lack proper qualification? Why then would you fail to qualify accusations about the police?

No, it's just that there are few absolutes that work, you just have general rules you follow, and there are always going to be exceptions.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

So you consider it a general rule that rich black men are treated worse by police than poor white men?


It intrigues me that you said that right after Ellie had just been saying that class prejudice matters, even going so far as to indicate that class prejudice can sometimes outweigh some effects of race prejudice (per her example of a rich black man being viewed in a positive light). She indicated both types of prejudice matter, while your statement indicates only one does.

It is notable for marking the first time I've seen a significant difference of opinions between any of the current Debate Forum mods, and for being a view with which I thoroughly agree with Ellie.

Do you have any data, (non-anecdotal) evidence, or argument to present for your thesis? I'd love to see how it stacks up against the known effects of poverty on crime, directly relevant for claims about how police interact with people from varying economic classes.