|
It's because of people like these:  
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
__________/ "sjwsay: Intersectionality was coined in 1989, but did not see widespread use outside of specific social science academia (certain Womens Studies courses. Maybe) for a decade and a half. Kyriarchy was coined by Fiorenza to sound clever and explicitly means exactly the same goddamned thing as Patriarchy, and is such a nonsense word that ONLY SJW feminists use it. Your SJW identification with MLK jr. is a common SJW argument against people who say 'calm the gently caress down'. MLK did say beware the white moderates. He specifically also said and meant that to describe "White People who say they support you (black people) but are generally are against the disruption of the Status Quo" not "People who aren't exactly like you or share your goals but not your extreme(ly annoying) methods." You say PYF has to really scour the blogs, but honestly it took me five minutes on twitter to fall bass-ackwards into a nest of this poo poo, because they are an echo chamber, all linked together and trying to out-justice each other, while also trying to silence anybody who disagrees with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
What the hell is kyriarchy supposed to mean anyway? As a Greek term, it's drat near a pleonasm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:What the hell is kyriarchy supposed to mean anyway? As a Greek term, it's drat near a pleonasm. imagine if the nexus of all systems of oppression formed a pyramid
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
step aside posted:imagine if the nexus of all systems of oppression formed a pyramid My ancestor was a witch who was burned on a pyre. Watch your trigger words.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
I am a trans-ancestor of a witch, so same for me.
Last Buffalo fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:SJWs are post-college middle/late twenty-somethings whose lives didn't pan out like they were supposed to... they ended up with a worthless degree, a lot of debt, and a lack of quality jobs. They feel oppressed by this, and then in turn look for oppression in all walks of life, of gays, of blacks, of women, and turn that oppression into their oppression, deriding the system and placing the blame on things like patriarchy and rape culture... they make their failure at life seem more acceptable when they point out that everyone is oppressed because of the system, so they move the blame for their failures from themselves to another entity. Don't forget the cavalcade of poo poo pouring from the fingers of teenagers. The internet twists and skews political opinions in strange ways, especially when teenagers try to learn about the world exclusively through the internet. The same thoughts bounce around, reverberating greasy waves of perpetual angst to the point that college freshmen would sooner lament horrible poo poo in the world than laugh with friends at a party. When talking about horrible poo poo in the world constantly occupies your free time, you become deluded, swept into the paranoid neuroticism oozing out of tumblr. You soon loose the ability to think rationally for stretches at a time, developing symptoms similar to an anxiety disorder. You take your crippling self-loathing as a sign of the horrible poo poo in the world oppressing you, not allowing you to live happily; crushed by the weight of the world. However, you don't realize your own fallacy. You don't realize what you've done to your mind, to your ability to think and to your capacity to function as a normal human being. You have one place left on this Earth to return to, and that's motherfucking tumblr.com
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:Intersectionality was coined in 1989, but did not see widespread use outside of specific social science academia (certain Womens Studies courses. Maybe) for a decade and a half. I wasn't politically active then, but working and talking with people who were (in the UK, maybe it's different elsewhere), and reading some of the literature at the time, it definitely did see use. People were definitely aware of the concept, too (it's pretty intuitive), but lacked the succinct way of saying it until Crenshaw's coinage (which I was dating from the 'Mapping the Margins' article, sorry). quote:Kyriarchy was coined by Fiorenza to sound clever and explicitly means exactly the same goddamned thing as Patriarchy, and is such a nonsense word that ONLY SJW feminists use it. Er, I don't know how to say this other than 'no it doesn't'? It specifically means something quite specific, as in that link I provided (which, you'll note is a theology encyclopedia, not an 'SJW tumblr thing' - honestly, I've heard it used more by theology types than on tumblr or w/e). I don't have a copy of Wisdom Ways or But She Said to hand, but I try to explain why she uses a different term below, and have copied and pasted the Ford definition below. Did you look at it last time?  Which strikes me as meaning there's a small but definite difference between the two. There totally is a discussion about whether it's an appropriate term - I've read a lot of criticism of Fiorenza for 'watering down' feminism's focus on patriarchal norms - but that's not really a debate you seem to be interested in having, nor is one that really relates to 'SJW'. quote:Your SJW identification [ed: what is joke? how do humour] with MLK jr. is a common SJW argument against people who say 'calm the gently caress down'. MLK did say beware the white moderates. He specifically also said and meant that to describe "White People who say they support you (black people) but are generally are against the disruption of the Status Quo" not "People who aren't exactly like you or share your goals but not your extreme(ly annoying) methods." Maybe my joke (that MLK was an SJW - obviously he wasn't since that term has only emerged as a generally antagonistic term in the last three years) fell flat, I'm sorry if it didn't work, but that's kinda beside the point - I don't think we disagree all that much (on what MLK said), but I cited him as an early example of the way that debates about the conditionality of the support offered by members of a non-oppressed group to members of an oppressed group - which is an earlier version of the same debates people are having today. Obviously, the people having them today are mostly teenagers, still finding their political feet, and so they're nowhere near as sophisticated, but are you really surprised at that - do you think it's a good reason to sneer at any and all discussions of the word 'ally'? I'm not sure where you're getting all this 'common SJW argument' stuff, either - can you please return to the original context in which it was posted? quote:You say PYF has to really scour the blogs, but honestly it took me five minutes on twitter to fall bass-ackwards into a nest of this poo poo, because they are an echo chamber, all linked together and trying to out-justice each other, while also trying to silence anybody who disagrees with them. Cool, maybe re-evaluate your following list, perhaps? Everything I've encountered suggests that there may be 'echo chambers' (though not really), but they're outnumbered by either good (if sometimes clumsy) discussions. Numerical Anxiety posted:What the hell is kyriarchy supposed to mean anyway? As a Greek term, it's drat near a pleonasm. Not really - 'arche/αρχη' is lordship as in rulership, , while 'kyrios/κυριος' is lord as in 'sir', a term of respect to someone more immediate to you. You see it in Koine Greek texts all the time - political authority is 'arche', but when someone's being addressed respectfully, it's usually 'kurios', because that just applies to someone at the top of an immediate system of power - a family, business, inter-ethnic society. As a neat extra, Fiorenza also gets the benefit that kurios was almost always used to denote males - she's not entirely divorcing it from the idea of patriarchy - but she's definitely drawing attention to class/social/familial structures of power and domination as well. It's all in the link I posted initially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
My main reason I don't like them is because they all look like that guy posted on the first page the one with rosacea and huge fat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
WINNERSH TRIANGLE posted:
Maybe only if you keep it to address - outside of that sphere, "kurios" can refer to authority, or through transposition to the one who enacts that authority. "Kurios" or "dominus" will show up in legal formulas that way. Even if you want to call it something like "sir," it needs be read according to the etymology of the term, through "sire," "seigneur," etc.. And even then, I don't call someone sir because I have a sentiment of respect for them that comes from me, it's because they wield authority and because they demand it - that aspect may have fallen out in current usage, but it's far from neutral in its history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Let me see if I can break this down: (I'm going to define a lot of terms most people already know.) A social category is one's gender, age, sexuality, economic status, physical ability, etc. Social categories are divided into agent groups and target groups. Agents are whoever's on top. The people considered "default" or "normal." White people, straight people, affluent people, people aged 18-39, men, the physically able, etc. Everybody else in each category is considered a target group. Privilege is best defined as the luxury of obliviousness, where members of agent groups get to ignore and/or deny systemic inequality and overall poor treatment of target groups. The path of least resistance (when speaking of social justice issues) is the desire of people in agent groups who know that they can help, not to. Like laughing uncomfortably when your friends make super racist jokes instead of calling them out on saying something that's pretty damaging. Allyship is when a member of an agent group decides to stop taking the path of least resistance, and speaks out for target groups. So basically, agents on SA were being oblivious, a bunch of targets started calling them out on it, aided by a bunch of allies, and the result was about what you'd expect. Some people learned, some people didn't, a lot of people on both sides didn't approach the issue with the maturity it requires for effective communication, and in the end, the term Social Justice Warrior became a catchall insult for anybody who dares say, "Hey. You're actually hurting people who don't deserve it right now" because now targets and allies of actual social categories are getting lumped in with the same kind of people who would argue for the rights of people who'd want to marry body pillows with pokemon drawn on them or whatever. It's pretty analogous to "well if we let the gays marry, what's to stop a man from marrying his dog?", which paints every ally and target as being silly. That's pretty much my take on it. One big game of "Stop being a dick." "I'm not a dick! YOU'RE the dick!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
I didn't mean to imply that tumblr was the origin of that language, I meant that the way it's used by people on tumblr is in showing other people within that group that you're one of them. And yeah, I think you're downplaying the prevalence of the cargo cult social justice phenomenon in general. This isn't something you have to go digging for. WINNERSH TRIANGLE posted:Yeah, pretty much what FatKraken said. What I was trying to say is that even if 'SJW' do have their own particular argot (I'm talking about the stuff that icantfindaname was talking about, since that's what tends to try to enter into mainsteam debate in a way that otherkin/'factives'/w/e don't, since they're more subcultural), this isn't the hideous new Orwellian creation that people portray it as, but is actually stuff that's been being discussed in anti-racist, feminist, and other communities for twenty years at the very least. In my experience, the use of terminology like that seems completely unnecessary in many cases. If you're giving a LGBT issues 101 lecture to the completely uninitiated there's no reason to use that language because it seems to me the concepts can be described perfectly accurately without them. The idea that a poor black gay woman has it worse off than a rich white gay woman is blindingly obvious. Maybe at a higher level of academic discourse the language is useful, but in regular public outreach you don't need to introduce an entire terminology to describe this stuff. It's obnoxious. I agree with most (all?) social justice causes but I don't understand how you can be so tone deaf as to not realize how this comes off. If you do realize but don't care, I suppose that's your right, but still I don't see why you would continue to do it if you realized that it came off negatively in certain cases. Fatkraken posted:That's the real problem with people like this. The points they bring up are often legitimate, or at least closely related to legitimate points. But they are subtly (or unsubtly) twisted and presented in such obnoxious ways, and the people we're talking about are so closed minded and unable to appreciate any point of view but the one of their little echo chamber, that they tarnish the real movements and hinder real change. So you have to be careful throwing the term SJW around as a perjorative in mixed company, because a lot of the time there will be at least a few people who take away the message that social justice as a whole is bad, rather than that fairly tiny subset of trolls/aggressive arseholes/idiots who care more about winning arguments and feeling smug than actually making things better. So is it not a legitimate criticism to say that SJWs are obnoxious and give the social justice movement a bad name? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I didn't mean to imply that tumblr was the origin of that language, I meant that the way it's used by people on tumblr is in showing other people within that group that you're one of them And really, every time I've ever seen these attack tactics used, it was against a straw multiculturalist and not a person's actual position. I don't care if there's some a-hole on tumblr or even from SA's own history who used the language to troll people for who-the-gently caress-knows-why. It doesn't mean the words don't hold valid meaning or that the viewpoints they express are any less meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:But the argument is pretty consistently "lol trigger" or "lol privilege," attacking the position for being silly because the language is new and different. Your perception that anybody using the language of multiculturalism is just trying to be identified and back-patted is just another way of shoving the language down so nobody can talk about the actual problem. They're terms that were invented to describe things we had no word to describe, just like every other term. I disagree that there was no prior language to describe those things. "Please don't talk about rape in this setting, it's offensive to victims of sexual abuse", as opposed to "you're triggering me". How is white privilege any different from institutional and personal racism? It's a meaningless distinction at the level of 99% of public discourse. I don't have a problem with the language, but if you don't see how it comes off as annoying and obnoxious to insist on using specialty language for things that can seemingly be described perfectly well without it I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Well in both of your examples, you listed single words that replaced entire sentences, so there's that. Edit: Even if that weren't the case, your argument really seems to boil down to "people I don't like use this language, so it's bad."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Well in both of your examples, you listed single words that replaced entire sentences, so there's that. "Triggering" = "Offensive" "Privilege" = "Institutional racism" I also don't think wordcount efficiency is why people on tumblr use that language. LividLiquid posted:Edit: Even if that weren't the case, your argument really seems to boil down to "people I don't like use this language, so it's bad." No my argument is "if people find the language obnoxious why use it?" If you know that the language comes off as obnoxious and annoying why would you use it instead of language that doesn't come off as obnoxious and annoying? Like I said there seems to be no compelling reason to use it in public discourse. I'm not an academic, so I believe that that terminology is useful in an academic setting, but in interactions with the uninitiated? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
To call offensive speech a "trigger" actually gives it too much credit, insofar as one would suppose that a trigger implies a kind of direct causality. Does speech that participates in a culture that, say, objectifies women contribute to instances of real violence against women? Sure. Does it directly cause given instances of violence? That's a much harder argument to make, and probably impossible. Sure, that kind of speech can offend, but offensive speech shouldn't necessarily be prohibited - legally, freedom of speech leaves quite a bit of room for this. Ethically, it's a different question, and one should probably avoid in a good deal of cases, but offending people can be good. One wants to shame the sexists, racists, etc., out there, no?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
I think a lot of the reason SJWs keep using what are considered by most people as fighting words is that they are not trying at all to be empathetic with their audience. If they were, and truly cared about their cause, they would switch tactics and language to something that got results. Two wrongs never make a right, but three or four... worth a shot, right? On the other hand, who wants to empathize with white cis neurotypical scum? they're not even human
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
That's ultimately what separates a Social Justice Warrior from an empathetic ally. Online Social Justice Warriors are more concerned with appearing indignant about vocabulary use and righteous fury at people who might not (and probably don't) know any better. True campaigners can explain to you why what you said was hurtful. SJW's expect you to not only know but also to be well informed of their ridiculous and ever-changing notions of how they classify every possible sleight. It's sort of like this: Imagine you went to Germany and didn't speak a signal syllable of German. A kind and normal person would try to work with you to figure out that you want to order a Coke. The SJW analogue in this example would be more concerned with making sure everyone knew how loving stupid you were for not speaking the language and how insulting you were being. Also they're French and don't speak German either but damnit they understand how the Germans must feel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:"Triggering" = "Offensive" quote:"Privilege" = "Institutional racism" Triggering/being triggered is a current experience that triggers almost PTSD-like symptoms because of past experiences. This week's Stranger in Seattle told the story of a woman who is triggered by the smell of potpouri because she was raped by her father in a room with loads of it. They're not being offended. They're experiencing anxiety. Privilege, as I stated before, is the luxury of obliviousness in having agent status in a social category. One might take for granted that everybody can see, for instance, because they are privileged as people with sight. That has nothing to do with racism, although, yes, whites are also privileged as white people. quote:I also don't think wordcount efficiency is why people on tumblr use that language. Edit: CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:I think a lot of the reason SJWs keep using what are considered by most people as fighting words is that they are not trying at all to be empathetic with their audience. If they were, and truly cared about their cause, they would switch tactics and language to something that got results. Two wrongs never make a right, but three or four... worth a shot, right? I understand the desire to laugh it all off and make one dickhead the representation of the other side's argument, but you're even thinking of SJW's as a "they," and everybody else as a "we." People who fight systemic inequality and bigotry shouldn't be given dismissive labels. I mean, it's tempting to rage back when all I feel is blowback when I bring things like this up, and I'm repeatedly stereotyped as an angry killjoy because I think inequality is pretty hosed up. When you can say things so dismissive of me, it's tiring to always have to keep the level head, because if I get angry about it, I'm just another uppity fag. LividLiquid fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:
SJWs don't fight systematic oppression and bigotry. They call people out for liking Brave because it was made by Americans so is terrible appropriation of Medieval Scottish Culture. Other examples of cultural appropriation include going to a Chinese restaurant, Tattooing of any kind and the use of feathers for decoration (not in designs that ape those used by indigenous cultures, but any feathers in any way). They are also dead set against interracial marriage. "Tumblr or Stormfront" is a real game you can play and it's surprisingly easy to find quotes that are hard to place. They demand to be acknowledged as trans-fat reincarnated Japanese tortoises. They decry racism at one turn and complain about how black people are ruining their precious anime the next They demand respect as Rape Victims because one of their made up multiple personalities raped another of their made up multiple personalities in a previous life. They They find people actively working for equality and trying to educate, who once used a slur in complete ignorance and apologised for it profusely or who criticised a culture they were born into, and tell them to kill themselves SJW as a term is, or at least should be, specifically aimed at people who couch their own bigotry, hate and ignorance in progressive terms and use it to bully and belittle others. There really are people who think "triggering" is the same as things they don't like, and that if you post a picture of a cheese sandwich on your blog without a trigger warning you are a literal Hitler. Honestly. No that's not the proper use of the word, but a small group has picked up on a bunch of great terms and twisted them beyond all recognition. When many people talk about SJWs, these are the people they are thinking of. But like I said, the existence of this small group of people has given shitheads and bigots great ammunition to use against the vast majority of sane, rational and genuinely progressive advocates of social justice. Given it's rising prevalence as an insult to actual social justice advocates and minority voices, I'm probably going to stop using the term "SJW" in pretty much all situations just to avoid misunderstandings. It was intended as a term for the bullies, trolls and shitheads, but has expended as a catchall insult for good people with good opinions and I don't want to be associated with people who use it that way. Fatkraken fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Triggering/being triggered is a current experience that triggers almost PTSD-like symptoms because of past experiences. This week's Stranger in Seattle told the story of a woman who is triggered by the smell of potpouri because she was raped by her father in a room with loads of it. They're not being offended. They're experiencing anxiety. So, that's a lot of words to say Triggering = Upsetting quote:Because words only become commonplace through usage, and no matter what words are picked, they're going to be mocked in the pursuit of not having conversations that are uncomfortable. No, it's like Arugula, when you deliberately choose words that most people haven't heard, you sound to most people like you're trying to minimalize them. Like you, to quote a recently famous SJW who recently did more to hurt the causes she was allying herself with than she's ever done to help, "Can't enact the labor to explain it to us." quote:In several ways, this could be considered the same kind of argument as "if black people would just stop calling people racists, there'd be no racism and we'd all get along!" No, it really isn't. While some goons and MRAs might go around calling everybody who says anything about rights an SJW, Social Justice Warriors are a thing, they do, through the use of these academic words, ingratiate themselves into actual rights movements, and they are doing it not because they really care about the movements, but because they are narcissists who want to fight everybody and be better than everybody else and make everything all about how they're the best person in the world. SJWs aren't people who point out injustice, they're the people who attack and minimalize and insult and drive away otherwise supportive people who might unwittingly use "priviledged" language. Seriously, watch this interview, This Suey Park person is the epitome of SJW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNK-e6nnFGY And if you don't think she just killed the whole Native Rights movement she was standing up for by focusing her echo-chamber rage machine on Stephen Colbert, I don't know what to say. edit: read this blog from one of the leaders of the Native Rights groups she sabotaged with her SJW behavior: http://ladyhoneybea.blogspot.de/2014/03/cancelcolbert-collateral-damage-to-eonm.html?m=1 quote:I understand the desire to laugh it all off and make one dickhead the representation of the other side's argument, but you're even thinking of SJW's as a "they," and everybody else as a "we." People who fight systemic inequality and bigotry shouldn't be given dismissive labels. All people who "fight systemic inequality" are not created equal, which is why -as has been pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread- we distinguish between Social Justice Advocates and Social Justice Warriors My Q-Face fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
So you're differentiating between "SJW"s, and people who actually want to raise awareness of systemic inequality. That's great, but I am pretty consistently dismissed as "lol sjw  " every time I point out, say, a character in a television show who is a gay stereotype that I feel is damaging. This thread is all about how/why people use SJW to dismiss people with legitimate points beyond trolling, and this happens to me all the time, so if you're not one of those people, bully for you. But it still happens, and it sucks, and even if you're a paragon of virtue and are just angry about a-holes on the internet using the same language as I do for their own selfish purposes, your counterattack doesn't actually hurt them. It hurts me. It hurts you. It hurts everybody who actually gives a poo poo about equality, and just feeds into the narcissism I suspect you think you're fighting against. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:
No it isn't, it's explicitly focused on that trolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No it isn't, it's explicitly focused on that trolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
The question was "why is SJW an insult? social justice is good!" The answer has basically been "some people use the language and systems of social justice to be idiots, bullies and shitheads, or end up being just as racist or destructive as the people the claim to be fighting against. Regular people call those shitheads Social Justice Warriors, implying they care more about the fight than the actual issues. Unfortunately bigots have taken that insult and now apply it to all social justice using it to dismiss legitimate arguments" I mean, that's the thread, basically. No one is denying that you and people like you are being dismissed and belittled using the same language. It's really just more evidence that the conflict-seeking narcissists are damaging the movement more than they are helping it, which was the point of the term in the first place before it was co-opted. like I said I have no plans to continue using it and will come up with some more descriptive language when talking about people like Jenn the trans-fat Japanese tortoise or Riley the aggressive racist, or people who claim that if you don't believe their mind contains the souls of a ten thousand year old demon, a my little pony and a columbine shooter it's exactly the same as deliberately mis-gendering trans people or hating Asians. There needs to be language to talk about these fuckers without also encouraging dismissal of legitimate points, but at this point SJW appears to have passed it's sell by date.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
We need another insult for people who take TV shows too seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:We need another insult for people who take TV shows too seriously. aatrek
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:
God, she is just a ruthless self promoter. When he asks about the whole point of the satire, the racist names of some sports teams, she hand waves it away by saying "Hey, I cared about it before. Now this is my thing. Don't hate, bro." She's like another Guy Aoki in the making.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
FatKraken posted:All kinds of good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Maybe I missed it but can someone post a link to the PYF thread that keeps being mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:
Haha yes, they are totally "fighting systemic inequality" by posting angry words on the internet. Social crusaders they are Luckily most will grow out of it in a couple years when they actually get a job and don't have the time or energy to be outraged about stuff 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
The reason SJWs are so disliked isn't because they support things people hate. Ideas like "Sexism still hurts people" or "institutional racism is real and needs to be addressed" are not radical ideas. Its that you must make these ideas the focus of a thread about emulator games, which doesn't advance any cause. And when you disagree with them, they quickly label you the opposition instead of trying to have a conversation or convince anyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:What the hell is kyriarchy supposed to mean anyway? As a Greek term, it's drat near a pleonasm. This is how most of these things work, you take incredibly basic, almost self-evident concepts and then give them a very complex name which can then be attacked and used as a boogeyman. "Kyriarchy" basically boils down to the idea that there are lots of reasons why people might discriminate against you and that you might be better off as a rich white woman than a poor black man. I'm sure the original person who created it went into a little more detail, but that's super boring. It's similar to how most feminists now seem to use the word "patriarchy" to mean "the accumulated culture and governmental structures of all human history", and the solution to any problem is to "smash patriarchy", which almost sounds punchy in that format, instead of just being a big tautological ball of wishes and nothing. Of course, the other benefit to making up a bunch of words is that once they're released into the wild, you can find multiple people in the same group that interpret them to mean entirely contradictory things. You'd think that this would be a negative, but as long as they're willing to agree that "kyriarchy is bad", whatever their interpretation of "kyriarchy", they're actually happy to be on the same page. The SJW crowd exploits this to the fullest degree, wherein you're no longer talking about the difference between rich feminism and poor feminism, you're now talking about your oppression as an otherkin who was bullied in middle school, and as long as you talk in special SJW code, it's entirely legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Imagine if somebody posted a video of an obese trans woman masturbating in the mirror and injecting saline in to their own testicles, and your reaction is to scream transphobia at the person who posted it That is SJW definitely and it has happened on these very forums. hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Why are we posting entire essays on feminism here and discussing the meaning of words and terms that don't matter in this discussion? Social Justice Warriors are people who have lost touch with reality. Instead of seeing that life screws everyone and we should be working together to improve life for all, they become aggressive towards people for things they can't help. They see your white skin and instantly put your hardships below that of someone with dark skin, just because they were born that way. So I as a white male, am lower on the scale than a black female, even if said black female was Hillary Banks from the Fresh Prince. They have no sense of context and lose their poo poo when their views aren't being upheld 100%. Lets take "I poo poo on him" as an example, in a fetish community it could mean, literally making GBS threads on someone, but in another context it means "He got screwed over". But to a SJW, this is offensive to any one who has ever been poo poo on and has mental health issues with it, because they have no sense of context or language. They cannot understand that we live in a world where words are fluid and you cannot expect every situation to hold your hand and never ever say something you don't like/is bad for you to hear. They are so busy trying to be unoffensive to everything, that they become aggressively "unoffensive" and start to attack any one who doesn't fit their own narrow views, which get re-enforced via their own community, until they become so warped they're unable to function in context beyond their own small bubble. We all agree that sexism is bad, it's basic common sense that men and women should not be treated equally. But instead of seeing that men are more likely to be engineers, as men just enjoy that type of thing more on average, they see there isn't a perfect 50/50 split in gender in Engineers and claim this is because men keep women out (which has some merit, but isn't the whole picture) rather than seeing that, men just like building poo poo more than women on average. Then we get into bat poo poo territory, where illnesses are no longer illnesses but instead are "valid life choices". Such as being incredibly over weight or mentally ill and instead of seeking treatment, they should be supported in chasing unhealthy life choices. But that's a whole different kettle of fish way beyond SWJ territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
In my experience IRL, social justice warriors will pick fights about terminology and be extremely aggressive (especially, passive aggressive) in sharing their opinions about others' behaviour, but have no time to actually volunteer with or interact with people of other races or belief systems, or to apologize for behaviour that would be loving rude coming from anyone else. I love the line "IT'S NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU" because it's exactly the wrong approach to take with people who aren't informed about something - how the gently caress do you expect your average tax-paying baby boomer to understand and sympathize with what a transgender person faces, if all you ever do is attack them and call them ignorant when they express curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:The question was "why is SJW an insult? social justice is good!" Yeah this is right on. I work in medical anthropology which is largely about the intersection of class/race/gender/sex/etc and medicine, and there are totally real and verifiable differences in patient outcome along group lines for reasons we can easily research. Terminology like "kyriarchy" and yes, "triggering" are actually pretty important not just in my job but in general-- like, sure you can say them in as many words or avoid using Big Words, but we need them academically to refer to specific concepts and on a personal level it can be helpful to communicate what is actually happening. Since I work in medicine for example, I can say with complete confidence that triggering is a very real thing that has nothing to do with just experiencing anxiety or "offense" or whatever but is entirely about the actual experience of PTSD, which is both medically and personally relevant. Now it's real fuckin different and real fuckin annoying when it's a 16 year old who doesn't wanna talk about something so it's a "trigger" (which is largely what you see on tumblr btw, because it is mostly populated by teenagers; that said I've definitely found awesome academic resources and posters thru tumblr so it's not a complete cesspool), so yes, these terms are absolutely important and have a place but there is a reasonable anger when people co-opt poo poo for their own benefit. Which is what people mean when they refer to SJWs, and I agree with everyone else saying it's frustrating because my work/research gets dismissed by my friends as a SJW pet-cause because I'm not white, or not a man. That's dismissive and annoying as gently caress, especially because like Fatkraken says there is a very real contingent of people who use that poo poo for their own benefit. I know a guy who is constantly talking about what a great feminist and gay ally he is, and postures about how "constantly shocked" he is by sexism in gaming or whatever, but he's pretty much the biggest misogynistic piece of poo poo I know who treats every woman in his life like garbage. Basically what I'm getting at is the biggest difference I see between someone who engages in social justice work (even including just personal "hey, that poo poo can hurt people and here's why" explanations) and people who are taking advantage of the work and terminology of others is that the people who are taking advantage have ethical "opinions" not really values. For example the dude I was talking about earlier, he collects "positions" in the same way people collect records. It has nothing to do with his values, experiences, or even anything he gives a poo poo about-- it's really so he can gently caress girls and feel really superior to others when in fact he's actually perpetuating the same garbage he's railing against (like people who are supposedly "transethnic" being racist as gently caress, etc). It's annoying and honestly pretty dangerous, because they're projecting the idea that they're "safe" people to be around when really they're actually the worst ever. I know a girl who was sexually assaulted by this guy even and hated HERSELF for it because he was so safe and she must have given him bad signals. It's not even really that these people are breaking down social justice work or anything it's mostly just that they are actually the people they supposedly hate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
TheRedCrumpet posted:We all agree that sexism is bad, it's basic common sense that men and women should not be treated equally. But instead of seeing that men are more likely to be engineers, as men just enjoy that type of thing more on average, they see there isn't a perfect 50/50 split in gender in Engineers and claim this is because men keep women out (which has some merit, but isn't the whole picture) rather than seeing that, men just like building poo poo more than women on average. I was with you up until this part where you bust out the biotruths. Men just enjoy it more because they do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Eej posted:I was with you up until this part where you bust out the biotruths. Men just enjoy it more because they do? Isn't it common sense that evolution breeds gender based likes and dislikes to some degree? Exposure has something to do with it sure, but I don't think it's purely gender roles that make men enjoy aggressive sports more than women do on average.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:48
|
|