If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chronicle Herald)   Let's celebrate remarkable women, with a photo of three white guys   (thechronicleherald.ca) divider line 194
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

12468 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Apr 2013 at 10:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 02:58:47 PM  

Car_Ramrod: bunner: Car_Ramrod: Serious question here, because I care about you: are you having a stroke?

Didn't take you long to dive to the bottom of the discourse ladder, did it, Captain Justice?   :  )

I'm sorry, but instead of answering our legitimate question in response to your earlier rant, you throw back at us another word salad. I just don't understand what you're saying.


OH CRAP!!

I've been feeding a troll.

Damn, you are good. 8.5/10

I'm going to have to highlight you, in pink, just to keep up with your shennanigan's.
 
2013-04-03 03:00:21 PM  

Slam1263: Car_Ramrod: Slam1263: Says the misandrist.

Keep hating men, it never gets old, and it never turns off the audience.

What have I said that insinuates I'm a self-hating misandrist?

Case in point: STOP BEING DEFENSIVE. This is where the "man hating" thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Simply pointing out the fallacies in your argument, is taking as hate.


Hahaha. Oh man, THAT makes me a misandrist? By pointing out that this bullshiat statement:

I am a white man and as such I am incapable of understanding where other people are coming from. My life of privilege makes such a thing impossible.

was nothing more than playing the victim card WHILE trying to nail himself up on some cross? How is that "pointing out fallacies in [my] argument"?
 
2013-04-03 03:01:56 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I'm sorry, but instead of answering our legitimate question in response to your earlier rant, you throw back at us another word salad. I just don't understand what you're saying.


I believe the last sentence.

Slam1263: OH CRAP!!I've been feeding a troll.


www.neatorama.com

Could be, doc!
 
2013-04-03 03:04:56 PM  
God, I hate you white people.
 
2013-04-03 03:08:26 PM  

bunner: Car_Ramrod: I'm sorry, but instead of answering our legitimate question in response to your earlier rant, you throw back at us another word salad. I just don't understand what you're saying.

I believe the last sentence.

Slam1263: OH CRAP!!I've been feeding a troll.

[www.neatorama.com image 499x367]

Could be, doc!


You said:

Feminism is one more good idea that met most of it's stated goals early on and got whored out like everything else does that wants to survive

Then myself and another poster asked  what you think were the stated goals of feminism that were met early on, and when they were met.Is that not a legitimate question?

And I keep trying to read that post you wrote instead of an answer, and I don't understand the point you were trying to make. If you could explain it without jumping from wars to abortion to t-shirt companies, that would be great.
 
2013-04-03 03:08:38 PM  
All you big time, infallible ideologists who bravely suffer the indignities of trying to enlighten those who don't buy what you're selling, I have a PSA.

The *second* you get all snotty, arrogant, condescending, dismissive and start blowing dime store bullsh*t at the people you are  disagreeing with, you have officially -

Dicked the dog, pissed in the petunias and generally tun out of sh*t to say and, bonus...

and any credible facets of your alleged argument are out behind the dumpster blowing sailors of Marlboros and pints of SoCo.  This is here your roll your eyes more and I shut off your misunderstood martyr malarkey because, frankly, it's been done better.
 
2013-04-03 03:10:02 PM  

Car_Ramrod: was nothing more than playing the victim card WHILE trying to nail himself up on some cross? How is that "pointing out fallacies in [my] argument"?


Victim card? I was making fun of you, you farking idiot.
 
2013-04-03 03:13:09 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I don't understand the point you were trying to make.


It might be that all of the "Oh yeah, I dare you to support that statement!" minutiae, talking point "gotcha" horsesh*t in the world ain't gonna repaint the big picture .  I do recall mentioning business ownership, medically staffed abortions, reproduction without being "oppressed" by a family structure that's male inclusive ( male inclusive, *snort*) and a few other things, but that's not what you're here for.  You're here to put pins in your "win" talking point salad board spaces.  You're here to demonstrate your inarguable moral superiority as a male feminist.  Because that's all feminism's tattered remains are good for, sadly.  And I'd be a complete hypocrite if I said I have a flying william or nilliam f*ck about that.
 
2013-04-03 03:14:32 PM  

umad: Car_Ramrod: was nothing more than playing the victim card WHILE trying to nail himself up on some cross? How is that "pointing out fallacies in [my] argument"?

Victim card? I was making fun of you, you farking idiot.


www.reactiongifs.com
 
2013-04-03 03:16:48 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I was making fun of you, you farking idiot.


www.reactiongifs.com

Thanks  for proving my point.  Bye, oh sir white the snotty.
 
2013-04-03 03:21:50 PM  

bunner: Car_Ramrod: I don't understand the point you were trying to make.

It might be that all of the "Oh yeah, I dare you to support that statement!" minutiae, talking point "gotcha" horsesh*t in the world ain't gonna repaint the big picture .


"Gotcha horseshiat"? "Support that statement minutiae"? Don't hide your inability to answer a simple question behind Palin-esque empty phrases. "Feminists completed their stated goals long ago." "What goals and when?" "THAT'S A GOTCHA QUESTION!" How about you don't make statements you can't support? That's part of building a successful argument and having an actual discussion.

I do recall mentioning business ownership, medically staffed abortions, reproduction without being "oppressed" by a family structure that's male inclusive ( male inclusive, *snort*) and a few other things

Right, because abortion rights and general reproductive rights aren't being constantly threatened to be taken away from social conservatives in power in the House and various state governments. And OMG, some women are allowed to own businesses, then everything is equal now! Just like how Obama being President means there's no more racism!

And what are you talking about with "male inclusive"? Where did that come from?

but that's not what you're here for.  You're here to put pins in your "win" talking point salad board spaces.  You're here to demonstrate your inarguable moral superiority as a male feminist.  Because that's all feminism's tattered remains are good for, sadly.  And I'd be a complete hypocrite if I said I have a flying william or nilliam f*ck about that.

I'm here trying to talk about what I feel is the role of feminism in America today. I've linked and quoted an article that I feel makes some very strong points, and I'm trying to engage in conversation with people that seem very hostile to the very idea of feminism existing today.

And for not giving a fark, you seem to be posting quite a bit.
 
2013-04-03 03:25:18 PM  

bunner: Car_Ramrod: I was making fun of you, you farking idiot.

[www.reactiongifs.com image 500x244]

Thanks  for proving my point.  Bye, oh sir white the snotty.


And Brave Sir bunner did run away after repeatedly refusing to answer a very simple question about his beliefs. Thank you for leading the way and showing what it means to lead a true discussion. Bravo.
 
2013-04-03 03:29:28 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I'm here trying to talk about what I feel is the role of feminism in America today. I've linked and quoted an article that I feel makes some very strong points, and I'm trying to engage in conversation with people that seem very hostile to the very idea of feminism existing today.


Maybe you should try talking to people in a non-condescending manner and consider the fact that most of us Neanderthals who are still living in the dark ages haven't been indoctrinated with years of third-wave feminist dogma. You can't use the same conversation style with us retards as you do in your gender studies class. You seem very badly to want us to change, but you're not quite smart enough to understand that you can't get people to change by belittling their experiences or mocking everything they say.
 
2013-04-03 03:31:28 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I'm here trying to talk about what I feel is the role of feminism in America today. I've linked and quoted an article that I feel makes some very strong points, and I'm trying to engage in conversation with people that seem very hostile to the very idea of feminism existing today.


Of course you are, sunshine.

Car_Ramrod: Victim card? I was making fun of you, you farking idiot.


www.reactiongifs.com

Check

Car_Ramrod: And for not giving a fark, you seem to be posting quite a bit.


So, "gotcha"?  I think you misunderstand me.  I give a f*ck about the "topic" to the degree it deserves.  It's your endless posture of "see how calm and straightforward I am" smug horsehs*it that I don't give a f*ck about.  Not should I.  You spout endless rehashed dime store bogeyman bullsh*t and act like you're trying to change the world and your pure intent is unquestionable because you are not a woman.  But at the end of the day, it's just devise rhetoric with a template more shopworn that a greasy rag.  And you expected nothing other than your reedy opprobrium to degenerate into a snotty remark exchange once you found a suitable sucker.  Neither did I.  You just f*cked up the last bit.   :  )  Have fun shtotmin' da castle!  You're a posturing prat and you can't blame that one me because I noticed.
 
2013-04-03 03:34:15 PM  
Nobody wants equality; everyone wants advantage.
The only time you hear anyone talk about equality is when they themselves don't feel that they have advantage.

You wanna knock me down and be on top? Fine. I can understand and respect that. Just be up front about it, and don't hide behind some bullshiat "social justice" movement.
You care about true equality about as much as I do.
 
2013-04-03 03:37:11 PM  

Slam1263: How ageist of you.


The Greatest Generation is dying off, and gays are getting civil rights. People get more greedy and inflexible as they age, news at 11. Consider this my big shrug.

Quinsisdos: There is a difference between "a few nut jobs" and a determined group of people who actually manage to have a negative effect on society.

I'm sorry, but as long as the more moderate feminists continue to fail to call out and remove the more radical members of their movement, especially transphobic radfems like Cathy Brennan, I will not call myself a part of it. I'm tired of NAFALT.


My impression is that there no longer is a "feminist" movement, but rather a number of competing movements and ideologies all competing to call themselves "feminism". Even back in the beginning, that was true, but now more than ever they're splintered all over the map and trying to co-opt a powerful name. It's hard to call someone out when you're not even sure that they're speaking the same language as you, but I do see pretty epic battles in everything from online forums to academic papers regarding what Feminism is and isn't.

Crazy misandrists have insulated themselves from the rest of the world as much as any echo chamber, and I seriously think that the media focuses on them as the most lurid, tabloid-worthy examples, rather than showing the wide range of competing ideas. Doubly so for the Daily Fail, which is basically a tool of oppression and exploitation of anyone and everyone but wealthy non-celebrities. They do exist, and you will run into them if you're involved in social justice no matter how hard Thaetetus pretends they've never existed, but they're still just one portion. Tribalism is just rampant everywhere in social discourse these days.

Maybe the time has come to get rid of the word. Can't we go back to being humanists rather than continually redefining feminism? This country was founded partially by secular humanists, after all, and "humanism" perfectly sums up equality of opportunity for all.
 
2013-04-03 03:41:33 PM  

foxyshadis: Crazy misandrists have insulated themselves from the rest of the world as much as any echo chamber, and I seriously think that the media focuses on them as the most lurid, tabloid-worthy examples, rather than showing the wide range of competing ideas.


That's because people like lurid and what people like can move money around if you cater to them.  Education is antithetical to that.
 
2013-04-03 03:43:42 PM  

WhippingBoy: Car_Ramrod: I'm here trying to talk about what I feel is the role of feminism in America today. I've linked and quoted an article that I feel makes some very strong points, and I'm trying to engage in conversation with people that seem very hostile to the very idea of feminism existing today.

Maybe you should try talking to people in a non-condescending manner and consider the fact that most of us Neanderthals who are still living in the dark ages haven't been indoctrinated with years of third-wave feminist dogma. You can't use the same conversation style with us retards as you do in your gender studies class. You seem very badly to want us to change, but you're not quite smart enough to understand that you can't get people to change by belittling their experiences or mocking everything they say.


I must disagree with the idea I've been condescending. I have not once belittled anyone's experiences. I've repeatedly said that feminism doesn't think that the lives of white males are perfect, nor that the inherent biases in society affect all men (or women for that matter) equally. I've also tried to put forth the idea that feminism doesn't fault every male for these biases. All I've said is that these biases exist, and statistically, the average man has an advantage the average woman does not have. Or, to be more accurate, I suppose, the average man does not have the societal obstacles that the average woman has. I've ALSO repeatedly said that some of the goals of feminism are to reduce the biases that happen to favor women over men (like domestic violence, child custody, physically demanding jobs, etc). This SHOULD show why feminism is a good thing for both genders. Somehow, it just gets laughed at or dismissed.

Meanwhile my points have been called bullshiat with no supporting argument as to why, you claim I'm indoctrinated, and that I must've been involved in gender studies classes, that I'm stupid and condescending. I'm trying to be as level headed as possible as I've been in these discussions many times before, and the default setting for most of those I debate against is anger about feminism even existing, and feel that they're being personally attacked. It's frustrating.

Tell me, how can I be less condescending? Who have I mocked?
 
2013-04-03 03:47:46 PM  

WhippingBoy: Nobody wants equality; everyone wants advantage.
The only time you hear anyone talk about equality is when they themselves don't feel that they have advantage.

You wanna knock me down and be on top? Fine. I can understand and respect that. Just be up front about it, and don't hide behind some bullshiat "social justice" movement.
You care about true equality about as much as I do.


I'm a straight white male with an upper-middle class background. I'm the poster boy for privilege in America. How is wanting equality for everyone going to knock anyone down to put me "on top"?

Granting equality doesn't mean making other people's lives worse. I'm curious why you think it does.
 
2013-04-03 03:47:53 PM  

foxyshadis: Maybe the time has come to get rid of the word. Can't we go back to being humanists rather than continually redefining feminism? This country was founded partially by secular humanists, after all, and "humanism" perfectly sums up equality of opportunity for all.


If you had read the bullshiat article he keeps posting you would know that "humanist" supposedly trivializes the living hell we force on our women. It also goes on to say that the feminists have our best interests in mind anyway. There is no need to fight specifically for the rights of all people, because all problems are because of TEH PATRIARCHY!
 
2013-04-03 03:49:27 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Somehow, it just gets laughed at or dismissed.


That's only because it is bullshiat.
 
2013-04-03 03:56:29 PM  

bunner: Car_Ramrod: Victim card? I was making fun of you, you farking idiot.

Check


I posted a gif of the wonderful Jennifer Lawrence in response to someone doing a shiatty job of making fun of me, and that's a minus against me? That's fun.

bunner: Car_Ramrod: And for not giving a fark, you seem to be posting quite a bit.

So, "gotcha"?


Wut?

I think you misunderstand me.  I give a f*ck about the "topic" to the degree it deserves.  It's your endless posture of "see how calm and straightforward I am" smug horsehs*it that I don't give a f*ck about.  Not should I.

I'm sorry for trying to have a reasonable conversation about this. I didn't realize that was a negative.

You spout endless rehashed dime store bogeyman bullsh*t and act like you're trying to change the world and your pure intent is unquestionable because you are not a woman.

If it's such basic bullshiat, why don't you refute it? It should be so easy to counter if it's dime store bullshiat. And am I not allowed to be a feminist because I'm a man? Should I not want the lives of my female friends (as well as females in general) to be improved? I'm not sure why you think my intent is impure.

But at the end of the day, it's just devise rhetoric with a template more shopworn that a greasy rag.

What exactly about what I've said is divisive? Assuming that's the word you meant. I've shown time and time again why feminism has goals that benefits both genders.

And you expected nothing other than your reedy opprobrium to degenerate into a snotty remark exchange once you found a suitable sucker.  Neither did I.  You just f*cked up the last bit.   :  )  Have fun shtotmin' da castle!  You're a posturing prat and you can't blame that one me because I noticed.

How am I a posturing prat? You keep on writing these paragraphs full of sound and fury, but what point are you trying to make? The only point I've seen you actually attempt is that feminism accomplished its goals long ago and is useless today. But when I tried to discuss that point, you evaded and threw down more folksy sayings and vague insults. I don't get it, man. What are you so angry about? What is the point you're trying to make? What exactly have I said that is so horrible?
 
2013-04-03 03:57:17 PM  
Pure poetry, bunner.

Do you have a newsletter?  I will subscribe to it.
 
2013-04-03 03:58:05 PM  

umad: Car_Ramrod: Somehow, it just gets laughed at or dismissed.

That's only because it is bullshiat.


Which part and why? How is it this hard to get some actual arguments out of you? Did you read the list of things that supposedly favors women that feminism is against? What did you think of it?
 
2013-04-03 04:03:11 PM  

Dion Fortune: Pure poetry, bunner.

Do you have a newsletter?  I will subscribe to it.


Heh.. thanks.  Actually, I am presently working as a writer but I'm being paid to make fictional characters interesting.  No room for a newsletter.  I blame the patriarchy.
 
2013-04-03 04:07:24 PM  

foxyshadis: Maybe the time has come to get rid of the word. Can't we go back to being humanists rather than continually redefining feminism? This country was founded partially by secular humanists, after all, and "humanism" perfectly sums up equality of opportunity for all.


The same reason there are advocacy groups for thousands of different groups of people, whether they be gender specific, race specific, vocation specific, age specific, medical diagnosis specific, etc. Eliminating everything and instituting a humanist approach sounds awesome, but it ignores the fact that not everyone goes through life with the same challenges. Humanism is a good thing, and people should strive to make everyone's life better, but to ignore the need for specific advocacy is to ignore inequality. You don't need to eliminate humanism to value feminism.
 
2013-04-03 04:08:57 PM  

Car_Ramrod: umad: Car_Ramrod: Somehow, it just gets laughed at or dismissed.

That's only because it is bullshiat.

Which part and why? How is it this hard to get some actual arguments out of you? Did you read the list of things that supposedly favors women that feminism is against? What did you think of it?


What the fark did you think I thought of it. I thought it was 100% bullshiat. If the feminists were so concerned with the rights of men then you would have been able to post more than a single source saying so. You've been telling us that we aren't supposed to generalize about feminism based on the actions of a few individual misandrists, but we're supposed to let this one woman speak for all of feminism? Why is she an authority but the average man-hater isn't?

Even if she speaks the truth, how about a citation or two where some feminists are actually fighting for these rights for men? Show me a story where they protested the treatment of men in family court. Talk is cheap. You can make claims all day but they are worthless if you don't have proof to back them up, and you don't.
 
2013-04-03 04:12:01 PM  

umad: foxyshadis: Maybe the time has come to get rid of the word. Can't we go back to being humanists rather than continually redefining feminism? This country was founded partially by secular humanists, after all, and "humanism" perfectly sums up equality of opportunity for all.

If you had read the bullshiat article he keeps posting you would know that "humanist" supposedly trivializes the living hell we force on our women. It also goes on to say that the feminists have our best interests in mind anyway. There is no need to fight specifically for the rights of all people, because all problems are because of TEH PATRIARCHY!


The article basically said what I'd expect from Jezebel; misandry, whining, attention whoring, and total narcissism. The inability to gaze outside of their own navel and consider any plights but their own is a common theme there.

Fark it, call me when a man can wear a dress down the street and not get beaten up or catcalled, or take a job as a nail artist and want to be taken seriously as a straight man, and we'll discuss how women are uniquely oppressed.

/Luckily, Gawker gets to take the MRA and misogynist whiny attention whores. Must be nice to play both sides of the coin and laugh all the way to the bank.
 
2013-04-03 04:12:20 PM  
www.seriouscat.com
Chicks dig arrogant apologists.
 
2013-04-03 04:16:20 PM  

Car_Ramrod: WhippingBoy: Car_Ramrod: I'm here trying to talk about what I feel is the role of feminism in America today. I've linked and quoted an article that I feel makes some very strong points, and I'm trying to engage in conversation with people that seem very hostile to the very idea of feminism existing today.

Maybe you should try talking to people in a non-condescending manner and consider the fact that most of us Neanderthals who are still living in the dark ages haven't been indoctrinated with years of third-wave feminist dogma. You can't use the same conversation style with us retards as you do in your gender studies class. You seem very badly to want us to change, but you're not quite smart enough to understand that you can't get people to change by belittling their experiences or mocking everything they say.

I must disagree with the idea I've been condescending. I have not once belittled anyone's experiences. I've repeatedly said that feminism doesn't think that the lives of white males are perfect, nor that the inherent biases in society affect all men (or women for that matter) equally. I've also tried to put forth the idea that feminism doesn't fault every male for these biases. All I've said is that these biases exist, and statistically, the average man has an advantage the average woman does not have. Or, to be more accurate, I suppose, the average man does not have the societal obstacles that the average woman has. I've ALSO repeatedly said that some of the goals of feminism are to reduce the biases that happen to favor women over men (like domestic violence, child custody, physically demanding jobs, etc). This SHOULD show why feminism is a good thing for both genders. Somehow, it just gets laughed at or dismissed.

Meanwhile my points have been called bullshiat with no supporting argument as to why, you claim I'm indoctrinated, and that I must've been involved in gender studies classes, that I'm stupid and condescending. I'm trying to be as level headed as ...


The people you're trying to reach don't feel that they've had any undue advantages or lack of societal obstacles. Or at least they feel that the advantages that they've encountered are balanced by different advantages given to other people that they themselves did not receive. So you point out some very real examples of these perceived advantages. And then "we" point out some very real examples of what we perceive to be (balancing) disadvantages. Rather than acknowledging these disadvantages, they're summarily and condescendingly discounted (basically any man who dares to complain about anything is lumped into the dreaded "MRA" crowd, and his concerns are only worthy of mockery). I've struggled, sweated, bled and sacrificed for (almost) all of the "advantages" I have in my life. The message I'm getting is that that's "no big deal" because everything must have been so easy for me. If you can't see how that's condescending, I don't know what to say.

Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on *you* personally. It's just that you're spouting the same tired, bigoted dogma that I've heard a 1000 times before.
 
2013-04-03 04:17:21 PM  

Car_Ramrod: foxyshadis: Maybe the time has come to get rid of the word. Can't we go back to being humanists rather than continually redefining feminism? This country was founded partially by secular humanists, after all, and "humanism" perfectly sums up equality of opportunity for all.

The same reason there are advocacy groups for thousands of different groups of people, whether they be gender specific, race specific, vocation specific, age specific, medical diagnosis specific, etc. Eliminating everything and instituting a humanist approach sounds awesome, but it ignores the fact that not everyone goes through life with the same challenges. Humanism is a good thing, and people should strive to make everyone's life better, but to ignore the need for specific advocacy is to ignore inequality. You don't need to eliminate humanism to value feminism.


But the point is that feminism is meaningless, because there is no one feminism. There are tens of thousands of different feminisms, from feminists who believe their job is well done to feminists who believe men are evil and sex is rape, and everything in between. It's no longer a thing, it's just an empty word that means whatever anyone wants it to mean, and due to the lack of any definition, there's no possible way to have a discussion about it. 90% of the discussion is always about what it is, not useful things like steps to move forward, or applicability to modern life, and so on.

Why even bother using the word, in that case? Why not pick another label to ascribe your actual beliefs, instead of using a label that is a huge umbrella that covers both your actual beliefs and beliefs you find abhorrent?
 
2013-04-03 04:17:52 PM  

foxyshadis: The article basically said what I'd expect from Jezebel; misandry, whining, attention whoring, and total narcissism. The inability to gaze outside of their own navel and consider any plights but their own is a common theme there.


And I'm sort of fine with that as long they quit trying to use my navel.

foxyshadis: Must be nice to play both sides of the coin and laugh all the way to the bank.


That is the precise business plan template that every single useful social movement has been co-opted by since Judas sold Jesus.
 
2013-04-03 04:24:42 PM  
foxyshadis:
Why even bother using the word, in that case? Why not pick another label to ascribe your actual beliefs, instead of using a label that is a huge umbrella that covers both your actual beliefs and beliefs you find abhorrent?

Ask Christians and their myriad of denominations with differing beliefs under one umbrella.  Ask conservatives or liberals or Muslims.  Ask atheists.  Umbrella groups with differing systems where, even if they don't agree on everything and some of it is really farked up, they're stronger in large numbers.

Meanwhile, stop derailing the issue with semantic diversions about the name and look again at the issues.  Ramrod's listed several times issues that every put upon white dude in this thread has pulled up - depression, the draft, children, the doofus syndrome, getting killed for Uncle Sam, and every issue is something that feminism is trying to work on, to the benefit of men as well.

What is the goddamn farking problem?

At this point, it's rhetorical.

Forget it, Car_Ramrod.  It's Chinatown.
 
2013-04-03 04:26:13 PM  

WhippingBoy: Rather than acknowledging these disadvantages, they're summarily and condescendingly discounted (basically any man who dares to complain about anything is lumped into the dreaded "MRA" crowd, and his concerns are only worthy of mockery).


Have I done that?

I've struggled, sweated, bled and sacrificed for (almost) all of the "advantages" I have in my life.

Have I said otherwise? At least you recognize there are advantages you've gained through happenstance.

The message I'm getting is that that's "no big deal" because everything must have been so easy for me. If you can't see how that's condescending, I don't know what to say.

Have I said that?

Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on *you* personally. It's just that you're spouting the same tired, bigoted dogma that I've heard a 1000 times before.

It just seems everyone in this thread is arguing over what they imagine my argument to be, instead of what I've actually said, which I can't imagine could be described as "bigoted". And it's endlessly frustrating.
 
2013-04-03 04:27:43 PM  

KhamanV: What is the goddamn farking problem?


The problem is that all of those suppositions, assertions and nebulous assurances are just that.  And what if they weren't?
 
2013-04-03 04:32:59 PM  

KhamanV: and every issue is something that feminism is trying to work on, to the benefit of men as well.


For the 100th time, citation needed. Show me where feminists are actually working on these issues rather than simply giving them lip service. Now put up or shut the fark up.
 
2013-04-03 04:49:41 PM  
I'm still waiting on that citation. Come on Ramrod and Khaman! You both talk such a big game about feminists fighting for men's rights. Surely you both have countless examples to prove your point.

I know the proof will never come, which is why this is hilarious:

Car_Ramrod: "Gotcha horseshiat"? "Support that statement minutiae"? Don't hide your inability to answer a simple question behind Palin-esque empty phrases. "Feminists completed their stated goals long ago." "What goals and when?" "THAT'S A GOTCHA QUESTION!" How about you don't make statements you can't support? That's part of building a successful argument and having an actual discussion.

 
2013-04-03 05:06:45 PM  

KhamanV: Ask Christians and their myriad of denominations with differing beliefs under one umbrella.  Ask conservatives or liberals or Muslims.  Ask atheists.  Umbrella groups with differing systems where, even if they don't agree on everything and some of it is really farked up, they're stronger in large numbers.

Meanwhile, stop derailing the issue with semantic diversions about the name and look again at the issues.  Ramrod's listed several times issues that every put upon white dude in this thread has pulled up - depression, the draft, children, the doofus syndrome, getting killed for Uncle Sam, and every issue is something that feminism is trying to work on, to the benefit of men as well.

What is the goddamn farking problem?

At this point, it's rhetorical.

Forget it, Car_Ramrod.  It's Chinatown.


The main problem is that Car_Ramrod keeps vocally insisting that his view of feminism is the One True Feminism, and that using a term like humanism to describe the bettering of all humanity is wrong, while feminism obviously makes more sense. In bizarro land. The splintering of Feminism has caused as much "You're not helping" problems as the Westboro Baptist Church and Ted Haggard, to use your own analogy; maybe you should think twice about whether you really want to be associated and co-opted by the most extreme fringe elements.

As long as Car_Ramrod wants to argue about the true meaning of feminism and why it must be called feminism and not anything else, because no one else has problems that feminism can't fix, I'll push back.

Now as for you, can you explain how feminism is trying to work on any problems? Individuals advocate, charities advocate, vague ideals do not advocate. Stop mixing them up. Individuals do good work both under the feminism banner and outside of it.
 
2013-04-03 05:18:11 PM  
I'm gonna blow through the BS for a moment and get down to cases, sine that seems to be the point.

Feminism as sold and packaged will amount to something other than a codified piss an moan fest precisely one hour after:

Women divest themselves of the allegedly inalienable and inarguable privilege - regardless of promises spoken, agreements made, understandings reached or actions asserted under any circumstances, personal, interpersonal, business, political, economic or otherwise, regardless of the size of the steaming turd they left in the pool or the Dresdenesque rubble left in the wake of their lack of need to be responsible for their own words or deeds - of being allowed to shrug, stare at their feet and say "whatever.  I changed my mind.", and skate away to the magic land of impunity by gender.

Then.  Period.  Not until.  No woman on earth will be taken at her word or be until they shred their pussy pass.  THAT, oh Lochinvar, is the real world.  And if you don't believe me, ask a woman .  Women are WAY more sick of the sh*t women pull than we'll ever be.
 
2013-04-03 05:43:49 PM  
Such discrimination! They aren't "three white men", they are three women who just happen to lack in the aesthetic department! Not every woman has a hairless face or a pretty symmetrical form! Besides, wearing a suit isn't just for men!
 
2013-04-03 05:44:22 PM  
 
2013-04-03 06:22:40 PM  

foxyshadis: Crazy misandrists have insulated themselves from the rest of the world as much as any echo chamber, and I seriously think that the media focuses on them as the most lurid, tabloid-worthy examples, rather than showing the wide range of competing ideas. Doubly so for the Daily Fail, which is basically a tool of oppression and exploitation of anyone and everyone but wealthy non-celebrities. They do exist, and you will run into them if you're involved in social justice no matter how hard Thaetetus pretends they've never existed, but they're still just one portion. Tribalism is just rampant everywhere in social discourse these days.


The irony? That long Erin Pizzey quote comes from a piece written for...The Daily Fail. I quoted it off someone's blog because I didn't want to give the Fail any more page hits.

It was a sad day when I realised GIFT applied to social activists too.
 
2013-04-03 07:05:28 PM  
Don't you know? Men can have vaginas too apparently!

Check your privilege, cis scum!
 
2013-04-04 03:59:35 AM  

foxyshadis: This country was founded partially by secular humanists, after all, and "humanism" perfectly sums up equality of opportunity for all.


Yeah no, let's NOT recommend people attempt to emulate the attitude of a bunch of rich white men who somehow decided that although they were totally in love with "humans" that it was still apparent that anyone not white or male or owning land what a bit naff.  Not even worthy of voting in their lovely land of "freedom".  Their polemics are pretty, it's just a shame they usually failed to walk the walk.  The Bill of Rights is a humanist document but women still couldn't vote, and (mainly black) people were still held as slaves.

And please don't try and make the word "humanism" even LESS meaningful than it already is.  It currently has about 10 meanings, depending on the country and period of history you're talking about.  Let it have some peace and quiet.
 
Displayed 44 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report