Ask SJWs about the following topics to figure out how hypocritical they are:
See also: Michelle Malkin, Alan Keyes, and Clarence Thomas.
(More traditional Leftists actually have an answer for some of these challenges, which is largely derived from Foucault.)
I think class is a HUGELY influential variable on a number of levels, but it receives almost zero meaningful airplay anywhere.
This also leads, though, to the hilariously narcissistic version, where whoever's making the argument effectively declares themselves Subject Zero, and that anybody who wants different things to them must be fundamentally broken.
Absolutely, and it's actually the type of situation where some part of me would actually like to say "check your privilege"--a phrase which normally makes my jaw clench, mind you--because it's one case where that shoe actually fits.
"I've never experienced this, therefore it doesn't exist and/or isn't a real problem" is a response I run into especially when talking about LGBT issues, but I've also encountered it in other situations, too.
In a similar vein, my list of grievances and beefs with the SJWs could probably reach to the moon and back at this point, but as someone who does care about some of these issues, it bothers me that a) SJWs spend more time fighting with current and potential allies than with the people and organizations who actually contribute (often quite cheerfully) inequality and injustice in the world, and b)Tumblr antics in general have provided actual bigots with additional excuses and rationalizations for being bigoted.
Case in point:
Me: ::::explains important key things about the "trans experience" to dude quipping about Chelsea Manning::::
Guy: Haw haw haw, there are people on the Internet who think they're wolves, dragons, and anime characters. Ergo, LOL TRANNIES!
Me: ::::explains my understanding of the critical psychological, social, biological, and neurological factors which meaningfully differentiate transfolk from otherkin and therians:::
Guy: You're a liberal hypocrite who's just picking and choosing who's crazy or not, because liberals. Ipso facto, LOL CHICKS WITH DICKS!
I realize that people like this are going to always move the goal posts and find excuses for being assholes, but drat if this type of conversation doesn't make me want to strangle a ficto-kin in the moment.
In other news, a lot of these other SJW bloggers just seem like people whose e-popularity has gone to their head--or, maybe they were narcissistic, grandstanding blowhards before, who knows?
I think the tactics of the SJWs do go to show you that when people discover a reliable tactic for silencing their opposition and/or getting to be the center of attention--even if they stumbled upon it by accident initially--they'll typically take that ball and run with it into the endzone and beyond.
I will say that the one good thing about SJWs is that they've provided a nice, clear line in the sand, so to speak--kind of like how Fred Phelps created a line that even most dyed-in-the-wool homophobes agree shouldn't be crossed. I had friends who were previously starting to drift in an SJW-esque direction, and they've noticeably dialed back on a number of negative tendencies that have since become associated with SJWs. So, uh, yay for SJWs being assholes, I guess.
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 21, 2014
|# ¿ Apr 21, 2014 18:17|
|# ¿ Jul 30, 2021 22:50|
I honestly don't see why a person shouldn't be allowed to get species reassignment surgery if gender reassignment surgery is a thing.
Oh, I agree. I'm extremely keen to someday live in a world where people have the means to customize or alter themselves as they see fit, and don't receive blowback for it.
Tattoos, piercings, implants, genetic engineering, microchips, gender reassignment and/or exploration, prosthetics--it's all fine by me.
But, my point there was that a number of transfolk feel the way they feel for reasons that can seemingly be traced directly back to biology and/or neurochemistry; they aren't just "confused gay people," they aren't trying to be "special snowflakes;" they certainly aren't just trawling for attention; they aren't Buffalo Bill; they aren't delusional; they aren't psychotic; and they definitely aren't ultra-evil gay people who are out to trick unsuspecting "normals" into sleeping with them for malicious shits and giggles. (Well, and note that I'm talking in terms of broad generalities and the big picture here. I'm sure there are people in the world who fit one or more of these descriptions, but they're not the norm.)
The painful clash between how you appear on the outside and what your brain tells you you are can be so acute and intense that people actually kill themselves when they can't bridge that gap.
To put it as simply as I can, there are no people walking around who because of some natural genetic anomaly or a hormonal shift "almost" became cats, wolves, or dragons in the womb. Doesn't happen.
This does, however, appear to happen in various cases of folks who later identify as trans, genderqueer, or the like, and they experience very real and very legitimate struggles in their lives because of it.
The issue with otherkin and their ilk isn't that they'd like to be wolves or dragons, it's that they're insisting that they actually are wolves or dragons, and expect to be treated as such.
(Therians are a somewhat-different kettle of were-fish, so I'm mostly focusing on otherkin for simplicity's sake here.)
Some factions of SJWs then enable these types by then scolding or shaming any meanie who disagrees with Jim that he's really a chocobo, or who fails to refer to Jim using his preferred choco-nouns. So, that's the SJW connection here.
Long story short, my beef is that it just gives bigots an even bigger opening to declare that ALL of these people are "crazy," and all just need to shut up and assimilate. I think it serves to trivialize what some people actually experience and have to grapple with.
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Apr 21, 2014
|# ¿ Apr 21, 2014 20:22|
The short answer is that many trans people these days prefer to avoid the word "transsexual" because it's picked up a lot of negative connotations beyond its literal meaning. Nowadays it's probably more common to just use "trans" as an umbrella term to cover either or both anyway.
From my understanding, sex is biological but gender is a social construct: so no surgery or hormonal replacement is theoretically necessary to be transgender.
Based on my conversations with people across the gender spectrum and the research I've come across, I'd suggest that most people do appear to have an inherent or inborn sense of themselves as basically male or basically female, and from there, society and your family largely tell you what it means to be male or female, and how you should best go about expressing this identity, and then you process all of that data and all those messages through your own personal filters.
But, gender is just one of the many Nature/Nurture questions we haven't quite gotten to the bottom of yet.
Whether surgery or hormone replacement is "necessary" or not depends on the individual transperson. Some folks have decided that some form of one or the other (or both!) will help them to feel whole and complete, while others just need to be able to present as their identified gender, and have people interact with them accordingly.
The reasons why a person might be and/or might identify as trans, genderqueer, genderfluid, or the like are also legion, because of all the possible biological and social and psychological factors that are consistently in play.
So, each individual is unique. My agenda in conversations like those is just to send the message that LGBT people aren't just "trollin' n lol-in'," and that their feelings are generally not just a simple matter of "choice," as if your gender or sexual orientation were like a t-shirt or a breakfast cereal. My core objective is simply to humanize LGBTs as best I can.
re: The Hispanic Vote, I know less about Puerto Ricans, but I can tell you that Mexican-Americans and Cuban-Americans tend to vote quite differently. The Mexican folks I know are mostly Democrats, while I'm familiar with many Cubans being Republican as, I suppose, a way of being solidly and un-ambiguously anti-Commie.
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Apr 22, 2014
|# ¿ Apr 21, 2014 23:53|
People who identify as genderqueer might consider themselves neither male nor female, both male and female, transgender, "third-sexed," or either male or female on a given day, or in a given context. Same with gender fluid.
How someone expresses that identity or non-identity from there will depend on them, of course.
Just based on some of my experiences, I tend to be skeptical of people whose gender identity seems to shift with the tides, because the people I've known who've changed their gender identity every Tuesday have tended to suffer from low self-esteem and identity confusion or ambivalence in general, and/or be major attention whores.
As someone who's fairly gender-apathetic overall, I'd personally like to someday live in a society where sexual orientation and gender expression and identity can become more-or-less a non-issue, so that people might define themselves more by their values, interests, personality traits, and acts. But, that may be a long time coming, because our society still has a lot of hang-ups, neuroses, and fixations around sex, gender expression, and the like.
|# ¿ Apr 22, 2014 14:44|
Even if sexual orientation and gender identity become a non-issue there's still plenty of race, class, and nationality to hate each other with before we're left with just values and interests and other things we actually have control over.
Too true, unfortunately.
I just focused on gender and sex here because that was the topic on the table, and because bringing everything else in just felt like trying to eat an elephant in one bite. But, this exact thought was hovering in the back of my mind.
Race, class, religion, nationality, immigration status, language--the list goes on and on and on, and when humans get over one hang-up, they tend to just drill down and find something smaller or more subtle to nitpick and fight over. (Makes me think of how geeks in various fandoms have taken to grilling "nerdy-come-latelies" to make sure newbies are "real fans"--instead of, you know, just being happy that more people like the same thing they do.)
So, when people give you "noise" around your race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, gender, or what have you, and you notice that you're treated differently from others because of it, it will naturally tend to become a major, central, salient factor in your life and identity, even if it "shouldn't" be in an ideal world.
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 22, 2014
|# ¿ Apr 22, 2014 15:56|
Yeah I've seen cultural appropriation done badly, like the fake native headdress. That's simply poor taste. But cultural appropriation is also inevitable when different cultures communicate. As you say, there's a lot of nuance involved.
Right, well said.
And pinatas themselves are products of cultural appropriation, having apparently (by my reading) originated in China. (Though, the Aztecs may have had something similar even before the Spaniards arrived.)
In the U.S. there's the Tea Party, which fuels itself on grievance and claiming that it's oppressed. But really, the Tea Party is much more interested in demanding other people recognize them as oppressed, rather than actually freeing itself from their oppression. What they consider oppression is that there's a liberal media which doesn't recognize them. Which is a fantasy. And it's extremely doubtful that if the Tea Party got what it wanted - if the liberal media (which doesn't actually exist) went away - that they would stop acting like they were oppressed.
So, it's a symbiotic relationship, basically .
It's also another example of how extremists who represent polar opposites often have more in common with one another than with the moderates who are (in theory anyway) on their side.
SJWs and Teabaggers both like to imagine themselves as pitiful, perennially-put-upon victims, and that's why the standards they apply to others simply aren't fair to apply to them!
Related and amusing, for those who haven't seen them before:
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Apr 23, 2014
|# ¿ Apr 23, 2014 04:42|
I honestly can't take the LGBT acronym seriously because I associate the acronym with lettuce, gay, bacon, and tomato sandwiches.
The gay part must be some high-end artisanal whole-wheat bread baked at the most precious little boulangerie in The City.
I could go for a gay sandwich right about now.
|# ¿ Apr 23, 2014 20:22|
Now I'm imagining Check Your Privilege: The Board Game.
|# ¿ Apr 30, 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.
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 19:43 on May 6, 2014
|# ¿ May 6, 2014 19:37|
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 19:04|
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.
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 20:25|
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.
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 04:15|
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 15:27 on May 9, 2014
|# ¿ May 9, 2014 14:56|
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 02:44 on May 12, 2014
|# ¿ May 11, 2014 16:22|
When people use "problematic," it often reminds me of Lumbergh from Office Space, because there's that same craven, hand-wringy, concern-trollish, vaguely-passive-aggressive quality about it.
"I'm not saying the movie was RAAAAAACIST, but it was problemaaaaaaaaatic..."
It has this quality of someone trying to "hide" by using a "softer" word. The problem is, by now, most people can read the underlying insinuations of "problematic," so you aren't hiding anything.
And when people use it to underscore something that's obviously bad or hosed up, they just make themselves sound stupid. "It's problemaaaaaatic that horror movies usually kill the black guy first." No poo poo, Sherlock?
I suppose it's a step up from people just declaring that something with racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/whatever elements or implications is just irredeemably evil and hateful.
If an otherwise-good thing has some negative implications, elements, or undertones, just bloody say so, and explain what those were. If someone objects or disagrees, then debate and discuss the issue like an adult.
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 12:16 on May 15, 2014
|# ¿ May 15, 2014 12:13|
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.
I absolutely don't think people should rest on their laurels and just ignore, excuse, or dismiss mistakes, problems, or injustices because "it's all good enough," but I do think some people could stand to take a more relaxed attitude to the fact that life is messy and people are imperfect, and that we will probably never be able to create a totally fair, just, equal society (without introducing new inequalities and injustices, at least).
Omi Polari posted:
I've read some theories as to why academics like to use jargon. A lot of it is practical -- it allows you to sum up complicated ideas and move on. But it can also show you lack confidence in what you're saying. And a lot of it can also be used to dress up biased arguments and make the quite ordinary people who do it appear to be fantastic super-geniuses.
(By the way, I really enjoyed your previous comments on totalitarianism. Thanks!)
Cults and the like will also introduce and use jargon as a way of confining, directing, and restricting how members think, a la Orwell.
If you can cut people off from the emotions and thoughts they'd normally have in response to particular words (because you have altered the definitions of those words) or concepts and experiences (because you've introduced weird babble to describe those concepts and experiences), you can put a damper on their bullshit detectors.
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 17:30 on May 15, 2014
|# ¿ May 15, 2014 17:25|
Now imagine one of your talking points is "Republicans and neocons in particular are selfish shits; dumbasses lap up their intellectual diarrhea without thinking" and the next thing that happens is someone ostensibly on your side shouts "Yeah, also 9/11 was done by jews and vaccines are autism shots by ~big pharma~, wake up sheeple".
Oh, goody, those people. indeed. I've had to confront two friends (so far) around their "skepticism" of vaccines and "concern" about autism, and I had one acquaintance years ago who turned out to be a diehard Truther. (And now Sandy Hook Trutherism is a thing, which is even MORE sad.)
What you're talking about (if I'm following) is people feeling obligated to "circle the wagons" and protect everybody within the "tribe," no matter how batshit or toxic--because they're "family," and/or because they don't want to give the opposition an "in" by showing that the group isn't all solidarity, love, and rainbows.
Liberals and conservatives each do it in their own way, and either way, it means you end up with termites in your building, so to speak.
When I talk about people flogging themselves and each other over being "bad allies" and such, I'm talking more-or-less about this:
I remember coming across a blog post somewhere not too long ago where the author basically went on and on about having accidentally mis-gendered someone, and how that proved he "still had work to do" on himself. It was one of the milder and less melodramatic and/or self-blamey posts I've read of this type, and it still reminded me too much of the penitentes who whip and cut themselves in the public square as an act of penance.
Then, in "SJW-esque" circles, I've seen folks in those groups basically demand nothing less than the most groveling, self-abasing apologies for offenses against the group or its creed from perceived "offenders," and it can get pretty creepy and punitive at times.
This is a silly example, but take the shitstorm after Macklemore won the Grammy. People were criticizing him for appropriating hip-hop and stripping it from its power to challenge white supremacy. But to say that hip-hop must do that and serve as the cure for the ills plaguing black America really puts an impossible burden on the artists who do it. That's just an example. Who can really live up to that standard?
Right. Or, within activist groups, sometimes someone will come up with some protest, education, or outreach activity, and somebody will scold the other person for coming up with something that not EVERYBODY would be able to participate in or benefit from.
So, say, somebody who'll suggest creating a webpage or an e-blast or a Youtube channel might be accused of being elitist, ableist or classist, because NOT EVERYONE HAS/CAN USE A COMPUTER, YOU MONSTER. (Note the difference between that, and, say, "Hmm, that's a great idea. How can we make it more accessible for ______?")
Concern-trolling activism (or whatever you want to call it) bugs me, because no matter how good you are, you are never GOOD ENOUGH.
Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 15, 2014
|# ¿ May 15, 2014 19:50|
|# ¿ Jul 30, 2021 22:50|
Well, and the irony is that in trying to flaunt her White Liberal Guilt, the woman just ended up displaying her arrogance, narcissism, and privilege at some level, because her post comes across as just pitying/fretting about people who can't be awesome like her. She just readily assumes she's the center of the universe.
We're now very used to the idea that we don't have to read, watch or see anything unless we've specifically chosen to read, watch or see that particular thing. So when something intrusive filters through, it provokes anxiety. That might be a bit of a stretch, though.
I don't think that's such a stretch. Technology allows us to customize our environment and "express ourselves" in so many ways now, and I think it can foster a sense of expectation and entitlement, especially as we increasingly create echo chambers filled with only the people and things we like and agree with.
I've seen people on Facebook, for example, get intensely, righteously pissy over pretty-trivial things that they could've just skipped over or ignored, because they really have this expectation now that they SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SEE THINGS THAT THEY DO NOT WISH TO SEE.
|# ¿ May 15, 2014 20:37|