|
Berke Negri posted: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 What do you mean by sensitivity?
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:44
|
|
) 
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
ashgromnies posted:What do you mean by sensitivity? Trying your best to be considerate of people's gender identity and how they would like to be referred to.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I was more referring to the term "SJW" and the weird extreme stuff people are pulling from tumblr like transethnic people hahahaha are you loving serious? "yeah um I was born with the wrong ethnicity i truly identify with blacks more than my own family from china because i like rap music give me rights pls"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Transableist is the worst "yup I am an able bodied person who should be a paraplegic, I spend my days in the park in a wheel chair eyeing jealously all the people who actually have to use wheelchairs thknking how fortunate they are."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Ungoal posted:hahahaha are you loving serious? "yeah um I was born with the wrong ethnicity i truly identify with blacks more than my own family from china because i like rap music give me rights pls" yeah basically though I suspect a majority of them are white people who believe they are Japanese
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted: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). Increasingly, it seems like some people are confusing "Choices, trade-offs, and sacrifices we make in life" and "inconveniences one encounters" with "lack of privilege." Next, tops will be complaining that *bottoms* are the ones with privilege, because as a top, you end up with a lovely dick. Earwicker posted:some snippy poo poo with Jezebel about Kim Kardashian is really the same thing. To be fair, I think they were right to defend Kim Kardashian (that feels weird to say) in this case, because Jezebel is being bitchy and unfair when they expect everyone to discover Social Justice in Kindergarten. They should just be happy that she's had a revelation that's inspired her to become more concerned about and aware of racism and the like.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:Increasingly, it seems like some people are confusing "Choices, trade-offs, and sacrifices we make in life" and "inconveniences one encounters" with "lack of privilege." I would say that the way that Jezebel writer treated Kim Kardashian actually hurts their cause of women's liberation and social justice. They are rejecting an open and receptive person because it's easy and socially popular. It also reveals them as petty and catty... ooooh Kim Kardashian, we don't like her, what a bitch! Time to write rude and dismissive things about her needlessly, while simultaneously bitching about people who are rude and dismissive of us... All the anti-Kardashian hate I've seen has a strong current of misogyny to it, calling them "vapid" and "whores" and the like. I personally see no reason to dislike/hate Kim Kardashian, I've ignored her and she hasn't been upset at me about it. For an ostensibly feminist writer to engage in pointless, petty social posturing through needless sarcasm and dismissal is highly questionable. Edit: sorry to 'mansplain'(be male and express an opinion) 
ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 12:15 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:To be fair, I think they were right to defend Kim Kardashian (that feels weird to say) in this case, because Jezebel is being bitchy and unfair when they expect everyone to discover Social Justice in Kindergarten. They should just be happy that she's had a revelation that's inspired her to become more concerned about and aware of racism and the like. Ok sure? I wasn't making any kind of point about Kardashian at all, just pointing out that an article like that is really a far cry from "SJW" type stuff. ashgromnies posted:I would say that the way that Jezebel writer treated Kim Kardashian actually hurts their cause of women's liberation and social justice. They are rejecting an open and receptive person because it's easy and socially popular. Jezebel's cause is not "women's liberation and social justice", it's "making money though people clicking on ads". It's a celebrity gossip blog, part of Gawker, not some social justice organization. Being catty and petty is simply part of their business model. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 13:11 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Three different groups have been targeted with this phrase. One group is the people who legitimately fight for social justice in a constructive manner being dismissed by bigoted assholes. I think this group should embrace the label. There is nothing inherently negative about it. They should be proud to be considered social justice warriors. The warrior part might by silly hyperbole but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Another group is the people who apply social justice concepts to crazy things like transethnicism or whatever and freak out about it alot. These people are almost certainly mentally ill and in a perfect world they would receive professional help. All you can really do is ignore them. You are not going to be able to reason with them and mocking them is cruel. There is really not that many of them, it's just their outlandishness bring alot more attention to them. It's not really anything to worry about, it's just kind of sad. The third group is the one I'm concerned about. It made up of people who fight for legitimate social causes but do so in such an abrasive and abusive manner that they really are doing more harm than good. There have been plenty of examples in this topic. I think a more accurate label for these types of people would be "Self Righteous rear end in a top hat". A large amount of them are teenagers. Almost all teenagers are self righteous assholes though. They just need time and experience to grow up. But once they do there will be a new batch of rear end in a top hat teenagers to take their place. They should be addressed though. I think alot of otherwise reasonable people let self righteous assholes speak for social justice topics because self righteous assholes label everyone who disagrees with them a bigot. On places like Something Awful actual communication gets stifled because self righteous assholes lead the conversations. It's kind of sad because it seems like that is how all conversations on the internet go.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Ok sure? I wasn't making any kind of point about Kardashian at all, just pointing out that an article like that is really a far cry from "SJW" type stuff. Have you read Jezebel? They have a lot of focus on issues of social justice and feminism. Check this interview with the founder: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/10400095/Jezebel-founder-I-wanted-to-make-womens-magazines-irrelevant.html quote:“I hoped that by using pop culture, celebrity and fashion, we could politicise young women, kind of subversively. It would have a strongly feminist sensibility,” she says. The stated goal is feminism and by extension social justice. If you want to be cynical and say they only said that in order to get money from people, whatever, but I will take her at her word.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Yes, I know what they say they are about, but yes I do take a cynical view of them and every other part of the Gawker organization (and to some extent the for-profit media in general) and I think that messaging is largely being used as marketing. Their primary goals are pageviews and clickthroughs.
Earwicker fucked around with this message at 13:58 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Marketing is reality in a way, though, if people accept it. Jezebel might be a cynical operator playing the feminism card for marketing, but it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that a lot of people take their mission statement at its word and see Jezebel as one of the largest and most influential feminist media resources, thus giving it legitimacy as such in the general public. The posters on Jezebel call themselves "Jezzies" and many see themselves as feminist crusaders, and Jezebel as a feminist site.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Ok sure? I wasn't making any kind of point about Kardashian at all, just pointing out that an article like that is really a far cry from "SJW" type stuff. Right, it is. I think Salon's response to Jezebel was definitely non-SJW, and actually right-on. As for what Jezebel "is" (besides lovely), if I had to guess, the bloggers are probably a mix of cynical and earnest, and that the managers and editors probably lean more towards being cynical, even if the founder was sincere. Either way, when you incentivize or reward a given behavior, people will usually repeat it. If drama, gossip, and bitchiness gets you those coveted clicks, re-tweets, and re-blogs, then you'll generate more drama, gossip, and bitchiness. Some people will be cynical and self-aware abut generating this content, but most people will find some way to rationalize or justify it, because most people can't handle long-term tensions or conflicts between their values and their behavior. And, regardless of what may be lurking "under the hood," Jezebel presents and/or sees themselves as a feminism/social justice blog, and many people take them at their word. So, browsers and readers can (and seemingly do) come way with the impression that "this is what feminism looks like (or can look like)." Like Ash said, marketing is "reality." I personally can't stand the style of "snark feminism" that Jezebel embodies, where anyone who disagrees with you is uhhhhhhhhh LOL sooooo stoooopid ohmygod hurr what-about-the-menz? , and we all say "gently caress" a lot to prove how edgy we are, and that we do too have a sense of humor. I don't know if Jezebel "created" that style per se, but it at least normalizes it, and I'd say it encourages it. A few feminist friends of mine who read Jezebel (and other blogs, of course) have seemingly become more and more "like that" over time, and that's not cool. Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 16:27 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
poo poo, Jezebel is old-timey slang for a woman with loose, questionable, or no morals at all, just the name implies a "taking this word back" sorta thing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:It also reveals them as petty and catty Yeah, uh, yeah, that'd be Jezebel.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Bleu posted:Yeah, uh, yeah, that'd be Jezebel. it's kinda gross because they present themselves as a voice of feminism but act exactly like the worst stereotypes of women. like literally acting in the way that makes men go, "women, amirite?"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
You're talking like being petty and catty are inherently bad/unattractive things and also I don't think Jezebel is written with men in mind.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:You're talking like being petty and catty are inherently bad/unattractive things Probably because they are.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:You're talking like being petty and catty are inherently bad/unattractive things This is a joke right?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:it's kinda gross because they present themselves as a voice of feminism but act exactly like the worst stereotypes of women. like literally acting in the way that makes men go, "women, amirite?" We learn: Jezebel is social_justice_warriors.txt
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 10:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
How did this website,of all places,become a haven for this type of person? It's actually puzzling in a wider sense, how a disproportionate (maybe, I don't know a lot about the internet and its makeup) number of people with a dizzying array of weird defects and preoccupations end up on a forum ostensibly built around mocking freaks of all sorts.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
Faux-rear end Nonsense posted:How did this website,of all places,become a haven for this type of person? It's actually puzzling in a wider sense, how a disproportionate (maybe, I don't know a lot about the internet and its makeup) number of people with a dizzying array of weird defects and preoccupations end up on a forum ostensibly built around mocking freaks of all sorts. It was well suited to take off here precisely because of that. Both this forum's culture and the culture of online social justice had/have a fairly hostile, snarky, superior ('smartest forums on the internet', etc.) tone in general; members were inclined to turn on their own very quickly and identification with either group could be strengthened by mocking those who are either 'wrong' or 'freaks'. So sjw stuff might have taken off here because of it's group dynamics being similar to those already present rather than its content. Encolpio fucked around with this message at 13:52 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Faux-rear end Nonsense posted:How did this website,of all places,become a haven for this type of person? It's actually puzzling in a wider sense, how a disproportionate (maybe, I don't know a lot about the internet and its makeup) number of people with a dizzying array of weird defects and preoccupations end up on a forum ostensibly built around mocking freaks of all sorts. You see, there was this thing called LF...
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Faux-rear end Nonsense posted:How did this website,of all places,become a haven for this type of person? It's actually puzzling in a wider sense, how a disproportionate (maybe, I don't know a lot about the internet and its makeup) number of people with a dizzying array of weird defects and preoccupations end up on a forum ostensibly built around mocking freaks of all sorts. Well, I dunno, how'd you end up here?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
SA never seemed like a haven to the kind of SJWs we're mocking in this thread. I've never seen anyone seriously complain that we don't take their trans-nippon dragonsouled idenitity seriously or whatever. The SJW complaining on SA is mostly people upset that they can't use the word human being for hilarious irony anymore. In which case we've turned our back on our history of mocking 'freaks' like... homosexuals and brown people?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Faux-rear end Nonsense posted:How did this website,of all places,become a haven for this type of person? It's actually puzzling in a wider sense, how a disproportionate (maybe, I don't know a lot about the internet and its makeup) number of people with a dizzying array of weird defects and preoccupations end up on a forum ostensibly built around mocking freaks of all sorts. So, why do people with quirks and defects make fun of people with quirks and defects, basically? Not clear on which website you're referring to. Because people always take comfort in being able to point to someone who is worse off (or just plain worse) than they are. "Well, sure, I ______, but at least I'm not/I don't_______ like THAT GUY." The behavior increases when people are eager to fit in with a group, or are are frightened of being ostracized or mocked themselves. Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 03:44 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:SA never seemed like a haven to the kind of SJWs we're mocking in this thread. I've never seen anyone seriously complain that we don't take their trans-nippon dragonsouled idenitity seriously or whatever. I'm really sick of hearing people say that when every other thread on this site has a sexism derail that pops up out of thin air. We can't even put together a gamers.txt or crappy webcomics thread without a bunch of dipshits chatting about sexism nonstop. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm glad people here are relatively sane, but boy does that "gently caress Misogyny 24/7" thing get old. You'd think they would get tired of agreeing with each other. Impatient Skype JO fucked around with this message at 17:59 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Impatient Skype JO posted:I'm really sick of hearing people say that when every other thread on this site has a sexism derail that pops up out of thin air. We can't even put together a gamers.txt or crappy webcomics thread without a bunch of dipshits chatting about sexism nonstop. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm glad people here are relatively sane, but boy does that "gently caress Misogyny 24/7" thing get old. You'd think they would get tired of agreeing with each other. I don't disagree, I just don't think that the kind of SJW-ing we've mostly been complaining about is very prevalent here, like Faux-rear end implied. At worst we get some threadshitting, and even that usually has a point even if it's a bad place to make it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
tweekinator posted:Probably because they are. Oh. This now puts all my past relationships in clear perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Impatient Skype JO posted:I'm really sick of hearing people say that when every other thread on this site has a sexism derail that pops up out of thin air. We can't even put together a gamers.txt or crappy webcomics thread without a bunch of dipshits chatting about sexism nonstop. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm glad people here are relatively sane, but boy does that "gently caress Misogyny 24/7" thing get old. You'd think they would get tired of agreeing with each other. Sorry people are interrupting your god given video game chatting time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:I don't disagree, I just don't think that the kind of SJW-ing we've mostly been complaining about is very prevalent here, like Faux-rear end implied. At worst we get some threadshitting, and even that usually has a point even if it's a bad place to make it. SA certainly isn't an otherkin clubhouse or whatever, but it's certainly got a lot of, er, 'socially conscious' posters on it. For instance, pop your head into any mock thread (or any random thread, really) and chances are that somehow, misogyny is one of the main topics. I mean, I like the fact that so many goons are progressive, but we really don't need to hear about it all the time. Dusseldorf posted:Sorry people are interrupting your god given video game chatting time. Wow, you're so sassy. A jaded crusader with liquor in his soul and a keyboard in his claw, jonesing for a chance to slap a mean-rear end burn on a goon.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Impatient Skype JO posted:
I made my opinion on "SJW"s clear in my first post of this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I made my opinion on "SJW"s clear in my first post of this thread. Don't try to justify yourself, nobody cares
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Impatient Skype JO posted:Don't try to justify yourself, nobody cares "Nobody cares" - a man who just wrote a long winded rant about being interrupted while posting about Bayonetta's thong-vision in video game forum.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:"Nobody cares" Are you trolling? Or do you not see the problem with a thread being derailed by off-topic discussion, regardless of what the topic is? For your edification, the keyword here is "video game forum". BAD ASS minion memes! fucked around with this message at 21:01 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
He's doing that thing people do where they get all flustered and pretend to have been TROLLING THE WHOLE TIME by writing some wacky poo poo. Either that or he's really opposed to people making fun of gamers for something other than sexism.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:The SJW complaining on SA is mostly people upset that they can't use the word human being for hilarious irony anymore. In which case we've turned our back on our history of mocking 'freaks' like... homosexuals and brown people? But how will I fight the ethno-queer industrial complex?  Honestly, since I don't read tumblr (tumbl? Is that a thing? hopefully no) I don't really encounter the more absurd "SJW" people. Instead, most of the time that I hear people accused of being a SJW it's because they're trying to divest from fossil fuels of Israel, or decided to protest ROTC rather than just hope that the military changed it's policy on trans people. In my experience, a lot of the time its used as an excuse to get out of engaging in dialogue -- by painting people who disagree with you as myopic fanatics it becomes a lot easier to avoid engaging with the issues that they're trying to discuss, and dismiss them. That said, I'm sure there are a lot of people who are doing a disservice to whatever cause they're in support of by being obnoxious about it or not actually doing anything about it, and deserve the scorn. I just worry that the label SJW lends itself too easily to extending beyond just the people who aren't trying to effect change in a worthwhile way to those who are.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:22
|
|
RIP ZEEZ
|
Dusseldorf posted:"Nobody cares" FAAAAAAAART Also there is this place called D&D...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Faux-rear end Nonsense posted:How did this website,of all places,become a haven for this type of person? It's actually puzzling in a wider sense, how a disproportionate (maybe, I don't know a lot about the internet and its makeup) number of people with a dizzying array of weird defects and preoccupations end up on a forum ostensibly built around mocking freaks of all sorts. We're a gated community. It took off as a force among upper-class college-aged whites and that's largely who posts there. You would also get banned for a lot of the traditional humor due to a leftward shift in politics that was backed by moderation. A lot of jokes became off limits and ban worthy but you could go maximum rear end in a top hat as long as you justified it with left politics.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Impatient Skype JO posted:SA certainly isn't an otherkin clubhouse or whatever, but it's certainly got a lot of, er, 'socially conscious' posters on it. For instance, pop your head into any mock thread (or any random thread, really) and chances are that somehow, misogyny is one of the main topics. I mean, I like the fact that so many goons are progressive, but we really don't need to hear about it all the time. So ... talk about something else? As far as I know, people are free to talk about whatever they like within a given forum as long as it's on topic, and it's the moderators who decide what's on topic, not random forum users. If it's off-topic, the mods will shut it down, in my experience. So if a moderator is letting the discussion happen, then it seems it's on topic within the forum's rules? It's also possible to have multiple discussions happening simultaneously. If you aren't interested in one discussion, just have another alongside it. If people are interested they'll respond. If they're not, they won't. You can't force people to only talk about the topics you like best. I don't really look in the video game forums too often so maybe it's different there, but most threads I look at, the discussion moves so fast, it doesn't really stay on one topic for that long unless you're checking it every few minutes. I almost never get to respond to topics I'm interested in because I don't check the forums all that regularly. Usually when I do check, I find that four or five topics have been discussed since I last looked. If you feel like a certain discussion is taking up too much forum space, just leave and come back in like a day, the conversation will have moved on.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 04:36
|
|
