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.

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.

Oh but gently caress anyone who talks about appropriation re: whites celebrating dia de los muertos.

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?"

Dusseldorf posted:

"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.

Omi-Polari posted:

I see it as mainly an inter-left war. The SJWers are a product of living in an internet bubble world so you won't typically encounter them unless you enter that bubble. And the biggest social justice shitstorms I've seen have been between people who would describe themselves as leftists. So the extreme manifestations of it come across as heresy hunting. The idea being that heresy is a variance of belief that goes against established orthodoxy, rather than a rejection of the faith altogether. People who completely reject the entire social justice project--and by extension the left--don't make good targets.

Did you all see this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

This is what the speaker wrote that got her the SJW treatment. I'm assuming she's a radical feminist considering the blog and that she was speaking at an anarchist conference.

http://towardfreedom.com/29-archives/activism/3455-the-politics-of-denunciation

Some choice quotes:


Now I think it's interesting there are people--who are on the left--saying this SJW thing is a form of totalitarian extremism. And if you've studied totalitarianism you'll know it's chaotic and sort of lawless by design. The idea being there's nothing set in stone, the rules are constantly changing, and everyone is policing everyone else all the time. You can be betrayed and turned in at any moment. That's a totalitarian system.

This sorta reminds me of reading about western communist groups in the 1930s, weirdly enough. It was a lot different and those were top-down organizations, for one. But this constant sniffing out of minor differences and drumming people out for byzantine ideological reasons reads exactly like how those groups operated. And the way it worked, any party member who happened to be targeted (usually for personal reasons) could be conceivably found guilty of a transgression. Like one example would be a party member who wrote propaganda leaflets being singled out and put on a show trial because being literate enough to write propaganda showed an insufficiently proletarian spirit. This wasn't even in Stalinist Russia but the CPUSA meeting halls in Chicago! Now just replace "bourgeois" with "privilege" and you get the same vibe. I need to read up on the Spanish Inquisition.

idiots besmirching the name of feminism posted:

We also feel that framing the discourse around survivor’s needs as 'political disagreements' or 'political arguments' is in of itself sexist––as it pretends that this conversation should be emptied of subjective narrative, or that there is an equal playing ground in the conversation because the conversation itself isn’t about real power, or that this conversation itself isn’t already racialized and gendered. It is also problematic, in that it suggests that there is a neutral or objective rationality in this debate, rather than the possibility that the debate itself and the content of the debate is a socially contingent result of prevailing power dynamics.

Qu Appelle posted:

I have information from the other side of the 'action'/'disruption', as posted by one of the anarchists that disrupted the speech in question.

(Caveat: Ian Awesome is a friend of mine. However, I wasn't at the conference, I wasn't at the 'action', I didn't know about it until afterwards, and I'm remaining mute on the actual discussions surrounding the controversy that led up to this, because there's background info here that I haven't read/researched. However, I can bring you one of their viewpoints. Nor am I commenting on the validity of their actions.)

https://www.facebook.com/events/693277077405590/permalink/699135776819720/. This is a public post.

Encolpio posted:

The conversation under that first post is insane. Someone says, against the accusation that the conference organisers asked for a police/security presence and snitched to them, that the conference organisers didn't want that to happen and that a school representative did so instead, against the their wishes. Just for saying this she gets accused of using "abuser logic".

dogcrash truther posted:

Actually, the tactics you're decrying as totalitarian have historically been extremely successful so it's not clear why social movements would want to avoid them. Unless you think Mao and Stalin failed to have "real world relevance?"

Tartarus Sauce posted:

Something that often bothers me about liberalism in general is that people often castigate themselves and one another for failing to meet what strikes me as a nigh-unattainable Platonic ideal of Social Awareness and Social Justice.

So, you get people yelling at each other for being "bad allies," or apologizing deeply for being "bad allies" themselves when they make a mistake or gaffe, or discover that they have an unconscious bias, stereotype, or inappropriate thought.

Me, I find the idea of a "bad ally" to be a contradiction in terms, because if you're really that lovely, you're not really an ally, and if you're an ally, then whatever your mistakes, flubs, or screw-ups, you're still fundamentally a friend, and that is what should count in my book.

Supeerme posted:

I rather enjoyed the fact that Tumbler cries about evil the White Man is as they leech from other cultures but then post stuff like this:

Javid posted:

I'd say that image is tumblr.jpg but it doesn't even begin to encompass just how deep and insane it goes.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Kuiperdolin posted:

False flag operation Wake up sheeple.

Be Depressive posted:

The more plausible theory is that fluoridation started as a means of relabeling a toxic byproduct of aluminum as a product for consumption. Similar things are done with raw sewage being reused as fertilizer. It's definitely toxic at high levels but the amount in tapwater is very small. In general the USA has some of the best tapwater in the world.