|
Now I'm imagining Check Your Privilege: The Board Game.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
You discover an untapped oil reserve in your backyard, guaranteeing a stable future for your children. Lose 5 charisma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:Now I'm imagining Check Your Privilege: The Board Game. The white male piece is like the iron in Monopoly: nobody wants that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:The white male piece is like the iron in Monopoly: nobody wants that poo poo. I'd imagine the white male piece starts 15 spaces ahead of everyone else and gets paid 23% more than the female pieces. I'd go white male piece every time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I'd imagine the white male piece starts 15 spaces ahead of everyone else and gets paid 23% more than the female pieces. I'd go white male piece every time. You may start off ahead, relatively speaking, but it's no guarantee of success. The other pieces have too many hose cards. It's hard to play unless you've bought a lot of IAP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:My alma mater held a demonstration on campus about suicides on college campuses: http://www.tnhonline.com/news/annual-stand-against-silence-vigil-1.3164500#.U2AhAaJn4fU I'm seriously confused as to how you think that's a "blistering take down" of anything at all. The actual statistic that the commenter is referring to (but doesn't understand) comes from the Dept. of Justice, I don't know why it's being attributed to "SJW's" or "college activism". Earwicker fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
My favorite thing about this thread is the way it started out as making fun of social justice warriors and then derided into like five pages of posts about female engineer majors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Not sure about anything else, but rape jokes are funny.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
I kind of like the ones only indirectly about rape, the ones about how video games train you to be a bad selfish person. Those are pretty good jokes but they seem to trigger some people pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
It works as an insult because besides being a rather insufferable philosophy, concern for "social justice"* seems to correspond incredibly well with being a broken person. I've never met anyone who used the terminology irl that wasn't a complete trainwreck and anytime the personal details of someone who acts like that online comes out they are always a gross disgusting imitation of an actual human being. The percentage of them who act out of genuine concern for others is incredibly low and the majority seem to follow it due to depressed self-loathing, gently caress-you-dad-ism, internet addiction placing them in a bubble with other people who follow it, or overcompensating (just on this forum we've had multiple outspoken sjw types that turned out to be really really into rape and one whose relationship with their black girlfriend was a master-slave relationship). And once these people move into the internet social justice sphere it just tends to make them worse and alienate what few normal social connections they had. *there are people who are concerned for social justice and fairness in society that aren't broken and are usually good people but they tend to speak in different terminology, don't post online about it constantly, and make a distinct category that you wouldn't confuse with the kind of people we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
SickZip posted:*there are people who are concerned for social justice and fairness in society that aren't broken and are usually good people but they tend to speak in different terminology, don't post online about it constantly, and make a distinct category that you wouldn't confuse with the kind of people we're talking about here. This is a good post. Berke Negri posted:Cultural Appropriation is a Very Real Thing but the problem with SJWers is the nuance that fashion and taste are ephemeral things influenced by multiple factors. It is one thing for a white hipster girl to "play" in fake native headdress but another for clothing that incorporates Native motifs into the design. This can be lost on a lot of people who pull the appropriation card reflexively. Cultural Appropriation is a Very Overrated Problem. Seriously, appropriating things other people have come up with and copying/changing/improving them is the main way anything good about any culture has been spread and developed. Please don't seriously say "but you aren't native/oppressed enough to do A Thing  ", manbabies.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:52
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:This is a good post. The only argument against cultural appropriation I can see would be one against cultural invasion, in other words: a majority group appropriating a minority group's cultural expressions to the point where members of the minority group feel unwelcome participating any more. I've been wondering about this lately, e.g, there's a genre of music coming up now with ridiculously pale white kids from all over the world(internet dweebs) appropriating black rap memes and fashion. Look up Yung Lean or Spooky Black. It could just be an ironic joke, but they seem sincere with it -- which is itself laughable. I dunno, poo poo's wack niggas.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
I honestly think reading tumblr gives you cancer and shouldn't be used as a meter stick for anything ever. They have as much reach as the Internet allows, as do we posting on a forum. It just seems like a huge reach because the Internet was kind of designed to feel like another reality. For a lot of people, they are their actual true, lovely selves online even if we don't like it. If you spend a poo poo ton of time building an online identity it will gently caress with how you identity with things, simple as. That said, SA opened me up to a lot of different facets of life across our globe. I've reconsidered how I approach a lot of things now concerning the welfare of others. It's one of the many cool things the Internet can do even though it's a loving snake pit for the most part. I say go outside and do something for your fellow man. Like, that is all you can really do. Think globally, act locally? Bueller?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Armani posted:I say go outside and do something for your fellow man. Like, that is all you can really do. Think globally, act locally? Bueller? You know, I see this being bandied about a lot, but I don't see anybody really suggest a concrete example of what they mean. Is this supposed to be a cure-all to absolve you of your social justice sins?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:You know, I see this being bandied about a lot, but I don't see anybody really suggest a concrete example of what they mean. Is this supposed to be a cure-all to absolve you of your social justice sins? I don't think English is that guys first language.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:You know, I see this being bandied about a lot, but I don't see anybody really suggest a concrete example of what they mean. Is this supposed to be a cure-all to absolve you of your social justice sins? I think it means that posting on the Internet about big problems, like racism and sexism, is less effective than actually volunteering at a women's shelter, soup kitchen, involving yourself in real political action like voting, cleaning up roadside litter, being respectful and nice to your fellow humans etc.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
/\/\/\ But you don't get to destroy people's lives that way. Pass. \/\/\/ Doesn't matter. This is the Internet. Someone has to pay. For reasons. CAPT. Rainbowbeard fucked around with this message at 19:00 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:But you don't get to destroy people's lives that way. Wait, whose lives are being destroyed here?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Atma McCuddles posted:I think it means that posting on the Internet about big problems, like racism and sexism, is less effective than actually volunteering at a women's shelter, soup kitchen, involving yourself in real political action like voting, cleaning up roadside litter, being respectful and nice to your fellow humans etc. That much I can understand, but there's rampant evidence that any of that doesn't stop people from being prejudiced asshats, whether they're the dreaded SJWs or actual bigots, homophobes or transphobes. Say what you want about being respectful to your fellow man, but when numerous people, whether from major corporations or the house next door to you aren't even capable of that, then it's a bit more understandable to be somewhat upset sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:You know, I see this being bandied about a lot, but I don't see anybody really suggest a concrete example of what they mean. Is this supposed to be a cure-all to absolve you of your social justice sins? No, it's supposed to be a way to actually help some people. If you're into that kind of thing. The easiest way to do it is to go to Volunteermatch or some other source of volunteer opportunities locally. If you're into social justice, you could give your time to any number of organizations that are dedicated to helping minorities in some way. I put a lot of time into grassroots campaigning for marriage equality and it was awesome when it became legal in my state. Did I cause that single-handedly? Of course not, but my efforts were a part of it. That said, I don't think there's anything to prevent a person from doing that and ALSO posting on the internet when it's relevant. You don't have to pick one or the other, and it's not like every internet post is stealing a bowl of soup from a homeless person or something.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:You know, I see this being bandied about a lot, but I don't see anybody really suggest a concrete example of what they mean. Is this supposed to be a cure-all to absolve you of your social justice sins? I'm pretty sure lots of people feel the exact same way when they're told to check their privilege or whatever. But for real, it's not that hard to understand, especially if whoever the post is directed at is involving themselves in a bunch of debates about social justice and how people are oppressed. If you don't know what "go[ing] outside and do[ing] something for your fellow man" entails, then you're what good are you to actual, tangible social justice? (Not 'you' as in you personally, I mean generally)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
SickZip posted:It works as an insult because besides being a rather insufferable philosophy, concern for "social justice"* seems to correspond incredibly well with being a broken person. My sense is that most people who spend their lives waging a one-note crusade or banging a particular gavel over and over and over are often driven by their unwillingness and/or inability to confront and take responsibility for their own personal demons and traumas. Key example that comes to mind here is Suey Park, the woman who wanted to #CancelColbert. After reading several interviews with her and articles about her, my impression of her was that she's a very angry, bitter individual who collects victim labels like Pokemon, craves pity *and* attention, and can't really bring herself to fully confront certain family issues and conflicts head on, so she's zeroed in on whitey as a kind of "safe" villain that she can blame for All the Bad Things. To be fair, most people who are passionate about a cause or an issue typically were first inspired to take up arms because of something they experienced or witnessed personally. But, I typically see a difference between the people who are chiefly driven by compassion and a desire to right wrongs, and the people who are mostly driven by bitterness, vengefulness and resentment. The latter type of person can often be identified by their willingness to take major detours from the mission (or even, sabotage it altogether) if it means they get to kick somebody's rear end. Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Suey literally used the "it's not my job to educate you" argument when she was asked to present her viewpoint in an interview. She's the worst things about the SJW stereotype. It's a smug condescension: "the point I'm trying to make is obvious, and you'd get it if you weren't such an idiot." Look at posts from SJWs in GBS and elsewhere -- they're full of insults and admonitions for people to "go and die". Awful. Ultimately SJWs are people who don't understand that anger doesn't make for good conversation. Anger can be used to destroy and hurt people who you think are oppressing you, but it won't convince them in argument. This is why I think shutting down "tone arguments" is moronic. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Ultimately SJWs are people who don't understand that anger doesn't make for good conversation. Anger can be used to destroy and hurt people who you think are oppressing you, but it won't convince them in argument.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Park can't decide for herself if she is legitimate voice of dissent, accelerationist provocateur, or tortured victim. I'd argue one shouldn't jump to really assign mental health labels to her as if this somehow invalidates her points as that is kind of a lovely thing to do. I think the core problem is twitter is an absolutely terrible way to hold a conversation. Park's brand of activism thrives on it, it excels as a mean of pushing information, but for actual debate and dialogue it is about as good as trying to win an argument in a youtube comment thread. The "reporting" on the back and forth that weekend over twitter was embarassing and gladly forgotten come Monday.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Park can't decide for herself if she is legitimate voice of dissent, accelerationist provocateur, or tortured victim. I'd argue one shouldn't jump to really assign mental health labels to her as if this somehow invalidates her points as that is kind of a lovely thing to do. The more extreme SJWs literally come right out and say white people/straight people/privileged people shouldn't be allowed to participate in conversations. Which I guess is fine, they do sort of have a point. The problem, though, is that they have absolutely no self awareness of how this comes off, namely incredibly obnoxious and aggravating. I truly believe that SJW activism has done absolutely nothing in terms of results on a societal level. Acceptance of gay marriage and decreasing bigotry in general in society has nothing to do with them, it's pretty much a coincidence that it's happening at the same time. Nobody has ever been converted by being told 'gently caress you you're poo poo kill yourself'. There is a place for that sort of rhetoric and interaction when dealing with bigots who just will not see the error of their ways ever, but people should understand that that's not going to actually improve things, it's just going to contain bigots to their own enclaves and keep them out of the public light. It doesn't actually fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I truly believe that SJW activism has done absolutely nothing in terms of results on a societal level. Acceptance of gay marriage and decreasing bigotry in general in society has nothing to do with them, it's pretty much a coincidence that it's happening at the same time. "SJW" is a pejorative label that people have started lobbing at each other about two years ago, of course it has done nothing. I'm pretty sure most of the more extreme people you guys are complaining about in this thread are around 14 years old and are not any more indicative of any kind of actual societal movement than the poo poo goons were dredging up on Livejournal in the previous decade. Which, granted, did not have the catchy name. I seriously doubt, if you pick 10 people off the street over the age of 20, that more than one would have even heard of the term. The movement for gay marriage and opposition to bigotry in society started a long time before any sort of "internet activism" or before the internet was even usable by regular people. While it was in the 2000's that we really started to see gay marriage be accepted broadly in the US, the seeds for that were planted in the 1970's with a lot of hard work done in the intervening decade. But that certainly doesn't mean anyone who supports those causes online is an "SJW" or that they only supports those causes online, these days the internet is just one of many mainstream media channels and using it as a platform isn't any better or worse (or exclusive) than using telephones or TV or newspapers as a platform. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 13:41 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:This is why I think shutting down "tone arguments" is moronic. I generally agree. I find that many of the SJW "Rules" originally had a reasonable rationale behind them, before that rationale got lost or perverted. The "tone argument" is no exception to this. I have encountered people who like to intentionally play "button button" by asking people to phrase their argument or objection "just so," and then maaaaaaaaaaaaybe they'll consider it. This is disingenuous bullshit, and does deserve to be called out. But, the total moratorium on "tone arguments" has given some "oppressed victims" an excuse to straight-up bully, harass, and browbeat people they disagree with or dislike. When someone protests or objects, they're told that marginalized people have a right to be "angry," and shamed for making a "tone argument." My general feeling is, you absolutely have a right to be angry, but you do not have a right to express your anger any way you want. The emotion does not justify the behavior, and this is a standard that is good for all geese and ganders, be they privileged or not. Of course, the standards of behavior might shift based on the situation, what's at stake, or the power dynamic between the parties involved. There are times to be firm, loud, and even rude, just as there are times to be polite, considerate, and tactful. Problem is, a lot of SJWs burn their bridges before even attempting to cross them.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Why are you SJWs so butthurt all the time?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:I generally agree. They have a right to be angry and express that anger, and other people have a right to completely ignore shrill, insulting crazies. Any course in conflict management is going to push being compassionate, understanding, and emotionally disinvested as much as possible. Where this conflicts with SJW ethos is that identity politics by nature is something people become emotionally invested and clingy towards. I think the push in Western society of "finding yourself" leads to this sort of thinking and adjective/identity fetishism. People are "finding themselves" through adjectives and taxonomy, making those the ultimate meaning in their life rather than lived experience. My belief is that taxonomic adjectives of identity(gay, trans, POC, nerd, whatever) shouldn't be for the individual, but for other people to use to reduce complexity. SJWs take the taxonomic classification and construct their identity based on it. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 20:20 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Patton Oswalt making a brilliant point and making overly aggressive SJW types look stupid today: http://mashable.com/2014/05/07/patton-oswalt-fake-apology-tweets/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:My favorite thing about this thread is the way it started out as making fun of social justice warriors and then derided into like five pages of posts about female engineer majors. They always do.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:My belief is that taxonomic adjectives of identity(gay, trans, POC, nerd, whatever) shouldn't be for the individual, but for other people to use to reduce complexity. SJWs take the taxonomic classification and construct their identity based on it. I'd say that's a fair analysis and explanation of the situation. Thank you! The REALLY bizarro people on Tumblr (and elsewhere) come across like they've just had a shopping spree at the Label Store, and that's what a lot of us find laughable. quote:Patton Oswalt making a brilliant point and making overly aggressive SJW types look stupid today: http://mashable.com/2014/05/07/patt...om-Tw-main-link God I love that guy.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Suey literally used the "it's not my job to educate you" argument when she was asked to present her viewpoint in an interview. She's the worst things about the SJW stereotype. As far as I can tell that phrase was first used to mean "you shouldn't expect that any random member of a minority is an activist", because members of said minorities were tired of people engaging them in arguments about the political history of their identity when they were just trying to go about their ordinary lives or post on a personal blog. I don't really understand how that harmless concept devolved into people like Suey calling themselves activists and then refusing to do part of the work of activism, which is educating people about the issue you're campaigning on. I imagine that some midpoint was when legitimate progressive blogs started using it to mean "I already wrote a post on the tangential issue you're bringing up, let's not rehash the argument in the comments of this different post" and that the issue was further confused in places like tumblr when the lines between "political activism" and "personal blog" were blurred in the minds of the teenaged userbase. Since 2006 or so I have followed the "progressive blogosphere" to some extent, and it's been amusing (and frustrating) to see how concepts that were once unique to such places have spread and become bastardized. I never would have imagined back then that so many people on the internet would be familiar with these terms, with or without derision for them.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:"SJW" is a pejorative label that people have started lobbing at each other about two years ago, of course it has done nothing. Bye-bye, whiny white dudes: Tucker Carlson, Tal Fortgang and the weakening grip of entitlement Kim Kardashian “discovers” racism — what’s wrong with that? How whites should talk about white privilege: (Hint, it’s not like Tal Fortgang) Nintendo’s anti-gay cop-out: Why its demented same-sex ban is no game
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
I think if you pulled random people off the street and asked them about this, you'd get different answers depending on where you were. But I'd say that the SJW-type language is very much part of how people of a certain strata now talk about politics, which is middle-class urban progressives. But this is also probably incomprehensible to people outside that strata. Which leads me to believe it's largely a matter of social signalling within those communities. Being able to use a SJW vocabulary allows you to compete for social status - you're able to demonstrate that you possess the right values among people of the same cohort. This confers certain advantages and ... ahem ... privileges. I have friends like this. Here's a story. I went to a drag king show (think drag queens, but drag kings), so of course everyone there had a Tumblr and was super into progressive identity politics. I'm sitting on the patio having a drink with a group of drag kings and a friend, who is a straight dude and a progressive activist. I'm gay and don't work in activism at all. This is the scenario. One of the drag kings gets up and goes inside. I say to the group: "Oh she looks fantastic, doesn't she?" Dude friend: "He." Another drag king: "It's okay she goes by she." Dude friend: "Oh." The drag king: "But when in doubt, gender-neutral pronouns."  I wasn't in doubt, so no harm, no foul. No one was triggered or offended or anything. But socializing in this world increasingly feels like being on a knife's edge. And people are constantly policing the people around them, even when no one has broken any rules. So I think it's mainly about social signaling. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I think it's become more popular than that, now to the point of it being a regular part of the media debate. The walls between internet backwaters and the mainstream are a lot fuzzier than they used to be. Here are just a few headlines pulled from Salon.com right now: To be fair Salon is kind of a backwater.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:To be fair Salon is kind of a backwater. Edit: HuffPost is hardly a barometer for quality commentary, but it's popular. SJW stuff is all over it. The Gay Voices section in particular has been consumed by it. Like here's an article about "top privilege" which uses an anecdote about how bottoms are underprivileged because they can't eat Chipotle before sex (which isn't true, anyways). quote:But the one thing I think many people will still see as a top privilege, especially with gay men, is Chipotle. Tops still can eat at Chipotle before sex, and that is a privilege. A huge one. 
BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 01:49 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Sensitivity when dealing with gendered pronouns is fine, but I think that part of the problem is ambiguity and inability to know how someone wishes to be addressed unless they explicitly tell you, or someone else does (but then who are they to assign gender to another person  ) Throw in that many people, even well intentioned, are on new confusing shaky ground as transawareness/acceptance becomes a thing. Well adjusted people can understand this and tell the difference between someone being a dick about stuff and someone confused, but there's enough room for an rear end in a top hat with a borderline personality to turn every pronoun usage into an explosive incident.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I think it's become more popular than that, now to the point of it being a regular part of the media debate. The walls between internet backwaters and the mainstream are a lot fuzzier than they used to be. Here are just a few headlines pulled from Salon.com right now: I was more referring to the term "SJW" and the weird extreme stuff people are pulling from tumblr like transethnic people, or people who think that eating Mexican food is "reappropriation". Salon is a pretty poo poo site but I don't think an article calling Tucker Carlson a whiny white dude or getting into some snippy poo poo with Jezebel about Kim Kardashian is really the same thing. Omi-Polari posted:Like here's an article about "top privilege" which uses an anecdote about how bottoms are underprivileged because they can't eat Chipotle before sex (which isn't true, anyways).  I think you may be taking that quote a little more seriously than the author intended.Earwicker fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:21
|
|