the social justice bullshit thread

[ApolloBoy]

Also I'd like to present what happens when these goobers completely and totally take over a college campus. It's as hilarious and ridiculous as it sounds ..

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Con ... ?nopager=1

You're seriously citing the Weekly Standard? Holy shit what an awful thread this is

She's absolutely insane, but nothing a good cock wouldn't fix.

For fuck's sake, no wonder gamers get such a bad rep

[Udderdude]

Honestly don't know what the Weekly Standard is, but in any case I'm not telling you to read any of the other articles on there, just that one.

She's absolutely insane, but nothing a good cock wouldn't fix.

For fuck's sake, no wonder gamers get such a bad rep

I know, right? Doesn't matter how many cocks she'd get, she'd still be a batshit crazy lunatic.

[Ed Oscuro]

You're seriously citing the Weekly Standard? Holy shit what an awful thread this is

That was my first thought as well, but the article doesn't seem to be heaped on with steaming garbage and actually has a lot of direct quotes to back up at least some of its assertions. So unless everything is misrepresented or based in lies, it should be okay. I didn't do everything I could have to try and corroborate the main point, but I didn't see anything that suggested it was wildly off the mark.

The WS naturally has a bias towards showing the failure of liberal systems, but there's even a quote in there to the effect that Antioch "needs more liberals" and it's also clear that a lot of the problems are based around financial mismanagement - though the author traces this in part to a liberal bent, it's also clear that other colleges with similar mindsets are doing fine. So even within the article there's no drum-beating that liberalism leads to failure. Even if there was, that's easy enough to discount; this looks like a case study of letting the inmates run the asylum (and that, rather than an attack on liberalism, seems to be the main thrust of the article).

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

I'd never heard of the Weekly Standard either, but I'm not surprised it has a reputation. That article was absolutely terrible. I couldn't make it through all the granny-scaring.

12-INCH-LONG INSEMINATION ROD

See? No need for PIV

[Udderdude]

Cry me a river. The reason shit like progressive is in quotes is because there's nothing progressive about socially ostracizing someone for using the wrong term for Eskimo. Or wearing Nike shoes. Or implementing a rule where each step of a sexual encounter requires escalating verbal consent with every step. Or getting a guy who shot a cop full of bullets to deliver your graduation speech from death row, and then claim he's a "Persecuted US intellectual". Or causing $1 million in damage just for "protest cred". Or any of the other goddamn stupid bullshit that happened at that place.

[Skykid]

She's absolutely insane, but nothing a good cock wouldn't fix.

For fuck's sake, no wonder gamers get such a bad rep

U no like humour?

Or implementing a rule where each step of a sexual encounter requires escalating verbal consent with every step.

Tony and non-gender specific Toni felt the pangs of physical attraction embrace their very cores, and in the throes of an escalating passion to mate, found themselves quickly in the bedroom.

"Okay," Says Tony, "I'm unbuttoning your shirt now, is this ok?"

"Yes, please proceed."

"Thank you for your consent. I'm going to remove my shirt, at which point you will see my upper body unclothed. Is this okay with you?"

"It's ok, you can continue."

"Thank you. I'm now going to ask permission to remove your jeans, and underwear."

"That shouldn't be a problem."

Once fully naked, Tony pulls Toni in for an embrace, only for his partially flaccid member to swing between his/her/nonbinary/gendernonspecific thighs, and make skin to skin contact with the nether regions of his would-be partner.

"Oh my god! MY GOD!" Toni screams, shoving him backward violently.

Tony looking suddenly shocked and flustered begins to plead, "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry! I didn't mean it... it- it was an accident!"

"You've violated me! You're a criminal!! You've raped my very being," Screams Toni, "I'm calling the police!"

As nonbinary/gendernonspecific Toni walks to the phone, Tony slumps to the floor, sobbing. "Why oh why couldn't I be more careful," he thinks to himself, now a blubbering husk of tears.

[glitch]

And from the same mind bogglingly stupid college (Which is also in Canada, so ashamed ..)

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2013/11/move ... ggression/

It is also wrong that Movember aims to link masculinity and being a man to secondary male characteristics, including having a prostate and being able to grow a moustache. To be completely clear, you don’t have to be a man to have a prostate, and you don’t have to have a prostate to be a man. Being a man, according to Movember, implies an archaic view of gender that implies that only a male/female gender binary exists, and that you aren’t really a man if you don’t necessarily identify with that binary. The idea of suggesting that men show solidarity with each other by growing moustaches is completely absurd.

i have to partially agree with that there though.
if this Movember (?) called the prostate a secondary male characteristic he's doubly factually wrong.
fun fact:

In 2002 Skene's gland was officially renamed to female prostate by the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology.

cause, you know, it's the same thing (we just don't get as much cancer in it).
(practically) everyone, male/female/intersex/other, is born with a prostate.
meaning it's neither a male characteristic, nor a secondary characteristic.
so they're factually correct that you don’t have to be a man to have a prostate, and you don’t have to have a prostate to be a man, just not for the reasons they had in mind. dunno what the rest of their word salad is supposed to convey but. ^^;

[Skykid]

so they're factually correct that you don’t have to be a man to have a prostate, and you don’t have to have a prostate to be a man, just not for the reasons they had in mind.

Right, but perhaps it's just trying to highlight cancer risks in men to make men more pro-active about their health and getting checkups to stop them dying unnecessarily. A bit like women and breast cancer. An advert that says:

"Men make sure you get your prostate checked (which, by the way, women also have, and is not gender specific) to safeguard your health!"

^ Isn't exactly necessary. Men have breasts too, believe it or not, but we've been excluded from breast cancer awareness advertising forever.

From the same idiocle:

Being a man, according to Movember, implies an archaic view of gender that implies that only a male/female gender binary exists, and that you aren’t really a man if you don’t necessarily identify with that binary. The idea of suggesting that men show solidarity with each other by growing moustaches is completely absurd.

And the idea of suggesting women show solidarity by joining together to collectively abuse everything male-related is equally absurd.

Humans are famous for warring pointlessly, now we're doing it between genders. This world is hopelessly fucked, and seemingly getting stupider on a daily basis.

[glitch]

so they're factually correct that you don’t have to be a man to have a prostate, and you don’t have to have a prostate to be a man, just not for the reasons they had in mind.

Right, but perhaps it's just trying to highlight cancer risks in men to make men more pro-active about their health and getting checkups to stop them dying unnecessarily. A bit like women and breast cancer. An advert that says:

"Men make sure you get your prostate checked (which, by the way, women also have, and is not gender specific) to safeguard your health!"

^ Isn't exactly necessary. Men have breasts too, believe it or not, but we've been excluded from breast cancer awareness advertising forever.

SkyKid i'm not gonna pretend to understand what they were trying to convey but i feel reasonably confident it wasn't about cancer risks. ^^;

also yeah i know men have breasts. and sometimes get breast cancer. please make sure to do your regular self-examination, wouldn't wanna lose you here. <3

[Skykid]

SkyKid i'm not gonna pretend to understand what they were trying to convey but i feel reasonably confident it wasn't about cancer risks. ^^;

Oh? I must have misunderstood. I thought 'Movember' was an awareness campaign for male prostate cancer, and the article was attacking it for being genderist?

also yeah i know men have breasts. and sometimes get breast cancer. please make sure to do your regular self-examination, wouldn't wanna lose you here. <3

From man to woman, I genuinely thank you for your concern. I feel this display of empathy has reached out across the vast nothingness of space and for one nanosecond reunited the sexes as luminous beings capable of mutual respect.

Can I get your phone number?

[glitch]

lol, i should learn to read links instead of replying to quote blocks alone. ^^;
so Movember is a month, not a person, and he's all about prostate cancer, and the "secondary male characteristic" thing is most likely a mischaracterization by the writer of this article, to whom, in that case, my "lol misinformation" comment applies unaltered.

From man to woman, I genuinely thank you for your concern. I feel this display of empathy has reached out across the vast nothingness of space and for one nanosecond reunited the sexes as luminous beings capable of mutual respect.

Can I get your phone number?

one nanosecond of mutual respect...
how many of those do you get on your phone plan?

[Skykid]

one nanosecond of mutual respect...
how many of those do you get on your phone plan?

About three minutes worth.

[Udderdude]

Get a room, you two.

[glitch]

one nanosecond of mutual respect...
how many of those do you get on your phone plan?

About three minutes worth.

shabby.
i get 15.

[Ed Oscuro]

Maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that Skene's gland / the female prostate presented a significant cancer risk.

Same thing for male breast cancer. One percent (estimated) of all breast cancer cases! If a breast cancer association spends the majority of its funds targeting women, that's in line with what you'd expect.

You can talk about a distinction without a difference - well, there's a distinction here and there is a massive difference probabilistically.

Having an awareness campaign costs money and attention, and there's a significant risk of misdiagnosis or maltreatment (certainly in the case of prostate cancer). So there's basically no point to trying to erase the probabilistic distinctions here. If Movember has a fault, it's the same as any other public awareness campaign that just says the name of an issue without further explanation. But we're all adults that know to have a chat with a doctor, get a second opinion, and all that, right?

Maybe there's something to be said for a more generalized "if something feels / looks wrong, get it checked" movement, but something like Movember doesn't seem problematic in terms of tying health concerns probabilitically to sex.

[glitch]

Maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that Skene's gland / the female prostate presented a significant cancer risk.

it doesn't. i'm not arguing against the campaign.
the writer of that article, in trying to make some point about what "being male" means, called the prostate a male secondary characteristic. i'm pointing out he's clearly more schooled in gender politics than in biology. that's all.

[Skykid]

one nanosecond of mutual respect...
how many of those do you get on your phone plan?

About three minutes worth.

shabby.
i get 15.

That's only the mutual respect part. You're entitled to 57 minutes of unbridled testosterone thereafter.

[Skykid]

Back on track:



I somehow don't think it's the seatbelts that are changing size.

[Skykid]

The receptacle outrage:

[Skykid]

If a piece of cardboard meant she could no longer fit in the seat, I have a feeling she may have been pushing it slightly in the first place.

[Ed Oscuro]

The game developer's argument is terrible.

Here we are, blissfully arguing for a social construct from games in an industry that has repeatedly tried to dodge accusations of training child murderers.

What's the damn mechanism? Why is it that games would be promulgating harmful social constructs of one kind, but not another? Is it just that it's more convenient for the politically mindful activist/developer to ruminate on a certain kind of politics instead of the issue of violence in games?

It also comes to mind that new experiences can do a lot more than "reinforcing" experiences. People still talk about finding out that Metroid stars a woman, or the characters in Fear Factor on the PlayStation, and so on...pretty sure Blazing Saddles hits far above its weight if compared to many of its less-evolved Western predecessors.

I think it is pretty obvious that a lot of these so-called activists are spinning their wheels - instead of telling other people what to make, they should be trying to bring in new experiences to challenge that, instead. It would have a lot more impact.

Maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that Skene's gland / the female prostate presented a significant cancer risk.

it doesn't. i'm not arguing against the campaign.
the writer of that article, in trying to make some point about what "being male" means, called the prostate a male secondary characteristic. i'm pointing out he's clearly more schooled in gender politics than in biology. that's all.

A man can wear a moustache better than he can wear not having ovaries, or trying to demonstrate some aspect of the exclusive aspects of the Socratic definition of being male (i.e., not-ovaried)

Follow this through with me:
Moustaches are commonly associated with the male sex (especially ease of growing facial hair).
Prostate cancer is commonly associated with the male sex.
Breast cancer is not commonly associated with the male sex.

What's the damn problem? Is it just that probability and science don't work when you need to brand a movement? What the hell?

[Skykid]

Pretty sure you're still a white feminist.

[glitch]

Maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that Skene's gland / the female prostate presented a significant cancer risk.

it doesn't. i'm not arguing against the campaign.
the writer of that article, in trying to make some point about what "being male" means, called the prostate a male secondary characteristic. i'm pointing out he's clearly more schooled in gender politics than in biology. that's all.

A man can wear a moustache better than he can wear not having ovaries, or trying to demonstrate some aspect of the exclusive aspects of the Socratic definition of being male (i.e., not-ovaried)

Follow this through with me:
Moustaches are commonly associated with the male sex (especially ease of growing facial hair).
Prostate cancer is commonly associated with the male sex.
Breast cancer is not commonly associated with the male sex.

What's the damn problem? Is it just that probability and science don't work when you need to brand a movement? What the hell?

i think you're confused about what i'm saying.
we are not in disagreement.
i'm all for the campaign focusing on men.
in fact i'm making fun of the guy that's arguing against the campaign's focus on men, for ranting about gender without knowing basic biology. i mean, even with the skene's gland thing aside, secondary sex characteristics are sex characteristics that appear during puberty. the prostrate does not appear during puberty. dude doesn't know his biology. i is a scientist. factual errors bug me.

[Ed Oscuro]

Okay, your sarcasm or something was still getting me confused when I looked up the thread.

I think the article writer would be helped by considering positive/negative duties, and the differences between them.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Cry me a river. The reason shit like progressive is in quotes is because there's nothing progressive about socially ostracizing someone for using the wrong term for Eskimo. Or wearing Nike shoes. Or implementing a rule where each step of a sexual encounter requires escalating verbal consent with every step. Or getting a guy who shot a cop full of bullets to deliver your graduation speech from death row, and then claim he's a "Persecuted US intellectual". Or causing $1 million in damage just for "protest cred". Or any of the other goddamn stupid bullshit that happened at that place.

I'll leave it to you guys, if there's anything worth discussing from that piece. I'm not joking, I literally could not make it through the bigot-baiting horseshit about "it had a reputation for beatniks" and the shocking revelation that "there was no dress code" and "they even had tattoos" - you know - the stuff deliberately put in there to get the curtain-twitching dingbats all riled up.

If it really did conclude with something like "this is why minorities shouldn't get what they want" and people actually come away believing that, then I will cry a river because that is some scary shit right there.

[Ed Oscuro]

Or, you know, you could just slather on some suntan for that thin skin and wade through? This is the same bullshit the left accuses the right of doing all the time - everybody does it; selectively filtering out whatever they don't want to read because it upsets their tummies or something.

As I already said, it didn't make the conclusions you think it does (my summary above).

"It already had a reputation for beatniks" - the most bigoted thing I ever read, made me run away screaming. Get real!

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

I said bigot-baiting. That beatnik thing was a typical example of gutter journalism, put there for granny: "Beatniks? I hate those guys, what else is wrong with this place?" How else was it relevant to the story?

No poorly tummys, I'm laughing along with everyone else. I'm sure there's some awful scenarios worthy of discussion in there as you and others have described, I just can't make it through the article when my eyes are rolling every other line.

I may have skipped over your summary, sorry

[Udderdude]

Thin privilege is being a 5'4 1/2, 105 lb stick figure .. come at me, fatties.

[trap15]

Thin priviledge is being a 5'11", 120 lb stick figure

[moh]

Thin priviledge is being a 5'11", 120 lb stick figure

you're 5'11" and 120lb? I'm 6' and 190lb ,____,

uhhh, ITS MUSCLE....right? don't even get me started on how hard it is to find pants my size in canada.