The Culture War: Dreams of a Better World

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Culture War: Dreams of a Better World

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

stone cold posted:

Can you cite specific toxic behaviors in nebulous "these movements" that aren't 100% made up by you?

What do you get when you get two marxists together? A party.
What do you get when you get three marxists together? A split.

A well-known joke about leftists and their inability to work together to achieve anything. But if you're asking about POC or feminists specifically, no clue.

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 22:10

Squashing Machine: Jul 5, 2005; I mean boning, the wild mambo, the hunka chunka

Jack Gladney posted:

I guess if one jerk participates in any mass movement, the entire movement is forever discredited because it couldn't stop that one jerk from being rude to you or not considering your hurt feelings the movement's top priority?

I guess we're just going to talk past each other forever then. I never said this was worth discrediting any movement over, but it is ultimately harmful if you're interested in actually achieving anything. If you want to whittle down your membership to the five activists of most pure heart, you have every right to, but the rest of the world is going to burn while you do.

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:05

Koalas March: May 21, 2007

Losing so-called "allies" who dehumanize you is no great loss.

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:07

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Squashing Machine posted:

I guess we're just going to talk past each other forever then. I never said this was worth discrediting any movement over, but it is ultimately harmful if you're interested in actually achieving anything. If you want to whittle down your membership to the five activists of most pure heart, you have every right to, but the rest of the world is going to burn while you do.

You sure showed those straw activists for doing things like caring about their cause and listening to intersectional concerns, gold star!

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:07

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Squashing Machine posted:

I guess we're just going to talk past each other forever then. I never said this was worth discrediting any movement over, but it is ultimately harmful if you're interested in actually achieving anything. If you want to whittle down your membership to the five activists of most pure heart, you have every right to, but the rest of the world is going to burn while you do.

What socially progressive movement has seen freefalling membership such a way? Feminism? Anti-racism? LGBTQ?

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:08

Squashing Machine: Jul 5, 2005; I mean boning, the wild mambo, the hunka chunka

Tesseraction posted:

What socially progressive movement has seen freefalling membership such a way? Feminism? Anti-racism? LGBTQ?

The Democratic party, if we can even call it all that socially progressive anymore?

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:11

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

Squashing Machine posted:

The Democratic party, if we can even call it all that socially progressive anymore?

You're reaching, dude. The Democratic party is more interested in votes than in any kind of purity, intellectual or otherwise.

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:12

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

Koalas March posted:

Losing so-called "allies" who dehumanize you is no great loss.

Yeah who needs a coalition?

# ? Jan 11, 2017 23:12

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Squashing Machine posted:

The Democratic party, if we can even call it all that socially progressive anymore?

If this is the best example you can provide of a freefalling membership I'm not sure there's a problem. Also, it's not a movement.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 00:03

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Liberals are trash, white liberals are double trash.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 00:50

Futuresight: Oct 11, 2012; IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

I feel like those probations were out of order and exactly perfect for this thread at the same time. When the poster used "regular" I assumed they meant "white" too (though it actually became clear after a couple posts what they actually meant)... but why is that probatable? Once they've stepped away from "regular" you've loving won the argument regardless of what they originally meant. You then explain to them that "regular" is too easy to misinterpret so they should avoid using language like that in the future and just describe what they mean like "non-activist women" or "women who aren't plugged into the wider debate" or whatever because clarity is important in charged topics like this.

But no, they stepped out of line for a bit and had to be punished for it. Beautiful.

Also microaggression as a term used outside of academic papers needs to gently caress off and die already. It's the most bullshit term in actual conversation and it does not help get people onside or explain the real reason why what they did is a problem. Just say using "regular" to describe white people makes it sound like everyone else is abnormal and it makes people feel bad to read it. If they say so what then you explain the problem with microaggressions without using the actual word. When they say they didn't mean it, pretend you believe them because to do otherwise is loving useless and has no path forward, then explain to them that they need to be more careful with their word use because the poo poo I said earlier. Having a term like microaggression used against you in a debate feels horrible. It feels like an attack on your level of education and an appeal to authority at the same time. Just use regular person words, and by regular person I mean someone who isn't plugged so tight into academia or activism to know all the secret correct people words. The other person wants to feel like they're arguing with an actual person with a personally held position, not like they're arguing against an entire academic consensus.

Though Jargon is a real pet peeve of mine in general so I don't know how important it is, I just know I hate it.

You got this power like yesterday Koala so I hope you get the broader context of what people are trying to say here.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 01:27

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Higsian posted:

I feel like those probations were out of order and exactly perfect for this thread at the same time. When the poster used "regular" I assumed they meant "white" too (though it actually became clear after a couple posts what they actually meant)... but why is that probatable? Once they've stepped away from "regular" you've loving won the argument regardless of what they originally meant. You then explain to them that "regular" is too easy to misinterpret so they should avoid using language like that in the future and just describe what they mean like "non-activist women" or "women who aren't plugged into the wider debate" or whatever because clarity is important in charged topics like this.

But no, they stepped out of line for a bit and had to be punished for it. Beautiful.

Also microaggression as a term used outside of academic papers needs to gently caress off and die already. It's the most bullshit term in actual conversation and it does not help get people onside or explain the real reason why what they did is a problem. Just say using "regular" to describe white people makes it sound like everyone else is abnormal and it makes people feel bad to read it. If they say so what then you explain the problem with microaggressions without using the actual word. When they say they didn't mean it, pretend you believe them because to do otherwise is loving useless and has no path forward, then explain to them that they need to be more careful with their word use because the poo poo I said earlier. Having a term like microaggression used against you in a debate feels horrible. It feels like an attack on your level of education and an appeal to authority at the same time. Just use regular person words, and by regular person I mean someone who isn't plugged so tight into academia or activism to know all the secret correct people words. The other person wants to feel like they're arguing with an actual person with a personally held position, not like they're arguing against an entire academic consensus.

Though Jargon is a real pet peeve of mine in general so I don't know how important it is, I just know I hate it.

You got this power like yesterday Koala so I hope you get the broader context of what people are trying to say here.

That's a whole lot of words to say that you're mad you can't say the n-word.

Also, very rude to imply that poor and less educated people are bigots imo

# ? Jan 12, 2017 01:44

I Killed GBS: Jun 2, 2011; by Lowtax

Higsian posted:

I feel like those probations were out of order and exactly perfect for this thread at the same time. When the poster used "regular" I assumed they meant "white" too (though it actually became clear after a couple posts what they actually meant)... but why is that probatable? Once they've stepped away from "regular" you've loving won the argument regardless of what they originally meant. You then explain to them that "regular" is too easy to misinterpret so they should avoid using language like that in the future and just describe what they mean like "non-activist women" or "women who aren't plugged into the wider debate" or whatever because clarity is important in charged topics like this.

But no, they stepped out of line for a bit and had to be punished for it. Beautiful.

Also microaggression as a term used outside of academic papers needs to gently caress off and die already. It's the most bullshit term in actual conversation and it does not help get people onside or explain the real reason why what they did is a problem. Just say using "regular" to describe white people makes it sound like everyone else is abnormal and it makes people feel bad to read it. If they say so what then you explain the problem with microaggressions without using the actual word. When they say they didn't mean it, pretend you believe them because to do otherwise is loving useless and has no path forward, then explain to them that they need to be more careful with their word use because the poo poo I said earlier. Having a term like microaggression used against you in a debate feels horrible. It feels like an attack on your level of education and an appeal to authority at the same time. Just use regular person words, and by regular person I mean someone who isn't plugged so tight into academia or activism to know all the secret correct people words. The other person wants to feel like they're arguing with an actual person with a personally held position, not like they're arguing against an entire academic consensus.

Though Jargon is a real pet peeve of mine in general so I don't know how important it is, I just know I hate it.

You got this power like yesterday Koala so I hope you get the broader context of what people are trying to say here.

Getting that angry over sixers, hahahaha

# ? Jan 12, 2017 01:46

I Killed GBS: Jun 2, 2011; by Lowtax

*Higsian types up a rebuttal, everyone's off probation by the time he finishes*

# ? Jan 12, 2017 01:47

Koalas March: May 21, 2007

Higsian posted:

I feel like those probations were out of order and exactly perfect for this thread at the same time. When the poster used "regular" I assumed they meant "white" too (though it actually became clear after a couple posts what they actually meant)... but why is that probatable? Once they've stepped away from "regular" you've loving won the argument regardless of what they originally meant. You then explain to them that "regular" is too easy to misinterpret so they should avoid using language like that in the future and just describe what they mean like "non-activist women" or "women who aren't plugged into the wider debate" or whatever because clarity is important in charged topics like this.

I didn't probate them just because I felt like it. Multiple reports came in and I responded. I might not have probated them if they had listened to me and not doubled down on their dumb poo poo.

quote:

But no, they stepped out of line for a bit and had to be punished for it. Beautiful.

Yeah, that's kind of it works. It was sixer. Mods hand them out as jokes sometimes.

quote:

Also microaggression as a term used outside of academic papers needs to gently caress off and die already. It's the most bullshit term in actual conversation and it does not help get people onside or explain the real reason why what they did is a problem.

This is absolutely incorrect.

quote:

Having a term like microaggression used against you in a debate feels horrible.

THERE it is.

quote:

Though Jargon is a real pet peeve of mine in general so I don't know how important it is, I just know I hate it.

Sorry I'm not gonna live my life by your weird "jargon pet peeve"

quote:

You got this power like yesterday Koala so I hope you get the broader context of what people are trying to say here.

I get that you have absolutely no idea what you're doing here and probably taking a six hour probation way too loving seriously.

In conclusion:

# ? Jan 12, 2017 01:50

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Higsian posted:

Just say using "regular" to describe white people makes it sound like everyone else is abnormal and it makes people feel bad to read it.

Koalas March posted:

Holy poo poo, where to start. Framing white women as "regular women" even with the scare quotes is gross as hell. And telling black women how to combat misogynoir is just unnecessary. Are you a black woman? No? Then shut the gently caress up.

Telling trans people what issues should be important to them and how to combat transphobia is also gross AF. Are you trans? No? Then you know what to do.

Stop telling women to be subordinate, what battles they need to fight and how to fight them.

stone cold posted:

Nope sorry, you're still super bigoted for assuming white cishet women are regular women, and that the only POC women are black women.

I'm glad chicanx, the larger latinx community, AAPI, SE, South and Central Asians, and Middle Eastern women all don't exist to you!

Maybe white women should be less threatened by POC women in power and be less fragile.

peep all this hard to understand jargon

higsian can you type me a novel explaining how you're not fragile

# ? Jan 12, 2017 01:51

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

Personally held positions are often bolstered and informed by academic consensus. In fact, some debates people have with others include things such as "information", "facts", and "sources", many of which can be academic in nature! Walking into a place and stating outright that you're not going to bother to learn other people's fancy-shmancy terminology is the argumentative equivalent of calling yourself illiterate.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 01:51

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

stone cold posted:

You should tweet and email every POC woman who is trying to get a leadership position right now in the movement in Washington that they're playing a disgusting game, that sounds helpful af.

You're the one deflecting my friend. Myself and others have made some coherent, consistent criticisms of the practices and beliefs of activists, as they exist in the year 2016. Your response was to continuously interpret them as attacks on POC as a whole. Do you actually recognize a difference between the two? Do you believe it's acceptable to use that kind of interpretation, to score points in an internet argument?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:12

Futuresight: Oct 11, 2012; IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

Ya'll realise I posted that in the context of a debate right? I don't give a poo poo about the probations themselves, I'm pointing them out because I think they support my argument. And again you do that weird personal attack thing where you ascribe motivation and then attack it. I don't care about microaggression being used against me, I hate to see it used in an argument period because I think it's terrible and I've seen it and similar terms gently caress up arguments over and over. But whatever, like I said keep using it if you're not convinced, I'm only addressing it for a second time because of how you replied to it.

Just look at all those personal attacks I got from that post. One poster couldn't even decide which personal attack to jump on so they double-posted em.

Again, I don't care about the attacks themselves, I care about highlighting them in the context of the debate. And look at how loving mild my position is compared to breadth of positions that can come into the topic of culture war. Why are you attacking me personally for my arguments? Do you think this is a winning strategy? I'm coming back because the personal attacks didn't land. If they did land I'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach me.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:15

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Koalas March posted:

Here's a good rule: If someone is an rear end in a top hat, mentally classify them as a jerk and move on. Don't condemn an entire movement because someone hurt your feelings.

The problem starts when said assholes are given leadership positions, or their behavior is excused because criticizing it leads to character attacks on yourself. At that point, the movement is effectively in decline, and cannot recover until something changes. If you believe the loss of allies from this situation is 'no biggie', because the fact that they left means they weren't really allies in the first place, then you're going to find yourself very lonely, very quickly.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:18

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

Higsian posted:

I'm coming back because the personal attacks didn't land. If they did land I'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach me.

What a real hero

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:18

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

rudatron posted:

You're the one deflecting my friend. Myself and others have made some coherent, consistent criticisms of the practices and beliefs of activists, as they exist in the year 2016. Your response was to continuously interpret them as attacks on POC as a whole. Do you actually recognize a difference between the two? Do you believe it's acceptable to use that kind of interpretation, to score points in an internet argument?

lol what coherent arguments have you even made? y'all came in all "why won't those dumb POC and trans women shut up and let the regular women do all the talking and the feminism?"

like cite me a specific example where you made a coherent argument that wasn't bigoted

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:20

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

rudatron posted:

The problem starts when said assholes are given leadership positions, or their behavior is excused because criticizing it leads to character attacks on yourself. At that point, the movement is effectively in decline, and cannot recover until something changes. If you believe the loss of allies from this situation is 'no biggie', because the fact that they left means they weren't really allies in the first place, then you're going to find yourself very lonely, very quickly.

But I already questioned this:

Tesseraction posted:

What socially progressive movement has seen freefalling membership such a way? Feminism? Anti-racism? LGBTQ?

...and that's not necessarily requiring "freefall" but what progressive movement is losing membership in any significant way?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:21

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Higsian posted:

And again you do that weird personal attack thing where you ascribe motivation and then attack it. I don't care about microaggression being used against me, I hate to see it used in an argument period because I think it's terrible and I've seen it and similar terms gently caress up arguments over and over.

If they did land I'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach me.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:22

Futuresight: Oct 11, 2012; IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

Chelb posted:

What a real hero

Fine, let me rephrase it so the meaning is more clear:

When you use these kinds of personal attacks in an argument, someone is only coming back to argue in good faith if the personal attacks didn't land. If they did land they'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach them.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:25

I Killed GBS: Jun 2, 2011; by Lowtax

Higsian posted:

If they did land I'd either be raging

So they landed then?

Because you're absolutely not arguing in good faith.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:25

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I feel like I made a good post about it here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3804788&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=7#post468209589

I also take bigotry seriously, I don't think it's acceptable behavior. Please provide proof of your accusation.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:26

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Higsian posted:

Fine, let me rephrase it so the meaning is more clear:

When you use these kinds of personal attacks in an argument, someone is only coming back to argue in good faith if the personal attacks didn't land. If they did land they'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach them.

If you can't cope with being a bigot, maybe you're the one who needs self reflection.

This is a whole lotta words to be all "I'm white and fragile :qq:

"

E: dropped a colon

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:26

Koalas March: May 21, 2007

Higsian posted:

I'm coming back because the personal attacks didn't land. If they did land I'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach me.

rudatron posted:

The problem starts when said assholes are given leadership positions, or their behavior is excused because criticizing it leads to character attacks on yourself.

Hey before you post anything else in this thread, both of you answer this:

Do you really not see the problem with telling a black woman who is talking about combating racism that her mind is "race addled"?

Do you not see the problem with using the term "regular women" in any context?

Do you not see the problem with telling a black woman, who educated and shares their experiences with microaggressions on this very site that you hate them, they're dumb and figments of people's imaginations and oh boy if you accuse someone of a microaggression it might hurt their fragile feelings?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:26

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Higsian posted:

Fine, let me rephrase it so the meaning is more clear:

When you use these kinds of personal attacks in an argument, someone is only coming back to argue in good faith if the personal attacks didn't land. If they did land they'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach them.

what if nobody's interested in reaching you

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:27

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

Higsian posted:

Fine, let me rephrase it so the meaning is more clear:

When you use these kinds of personal attacks in an argument, someone is only coming back to argue in good faith if the personal attacks didn't land. If they did land they'd either be raging or quitting the debate. Either way you'd never reach them.

It'd be pretty cool if you could answer my original point - that dismissing the use of academic terminology or consensus in an argument is pretty much denying legitimacy to someone because they don't make you feel intelligent enough.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:27

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Koalas March posted:

Hey before you post anything else in this thread, both of you answer this:

Do you really not see the problem with telling a black woman who is talking about combating racism that her mind is "race addled"?

Do you not see the problem with using the term "regular women" in any context?

Do you not see the problem with telling a black woman, who educated and shares their experiences with microaggressions on this very site that you hate them, they're dumb and figments of people's imaginations and oh boy if you accuse someone of a microaggression it might hurt their fragile feelings?

Shouldn't you be directing those questions at the people who made those posts?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:28

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

rudatron posted:

I feel like I made a good post about it here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3804788&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=7#post468209589

I also take bigotry seriously, I don't think it's acceptable behavior. Please provide proof of your accusation.

Just to check, is this aimed at my last post? I don't think I made an accusation but if I've come across as such I'm willing to explain myself.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:29

Koalas March: May 21, 2007

rudatron posted:

Shouldn't you be directing those questions at the people who made those posts?

No, I'm specifically asking you.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:32

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

rudatron posted:

A fairer society can give that to them. But instead, what happens, is that rich Woke coastal elites, look at their foreign hired help cleaning their kitchens (which they pay below minimum wage), feel guilty about that class privilege, then project that as racial privilege onto white trailer trash dying from opioid overdosing.

Assuming that a. housework is only done by nebulous foreigners b. foreigners only do housework isn't at all bigoted. Like, yikes dude. Also, I feel like that has a pretty big misogyny element to it.

rudatron posted:

Like it's just absurd, the people who are actually benefiting from racialized oppression in this country, have the loving gall to tell the lowest white people that they are guilty, that they are what's wrong with America.

Yep, definitely there's no poor POCs out there who "have the gall" to point out that yeah, poor white people can be bigots. Boo hoo.

rudatron posted:

The white (but increasingly diverse! Turns out non-whites can be assholes as well!) professionals get to advertise how Empathetic and Enlightened they are, without having to ever demonstrate or use a single empathic circuit in their brain, or put themselves in anyone else's shows for like 2 seconds.

I thought you wanted people uplifted, but it kinda seems like you just hate minorities. Like I'm glad that pointing out racism and advocating for minorities is only for woke points and not out of basic human goddamn decency.

You're a bigot.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Ah, no, it's at stone cold. The thread moves a little fast.

But if you're looking for evidence, I think Clinton losing an unlosable election, is demonstrating some serious problems, with the effectiveness of activist outreach.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:33

Futuresight: Oct 11, 2012; IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

Koalas March posted:

Do you really not see the problem with telling a black woman who is talking about combating racism that her mind is "race addled"?

That is definitely a problem.

quote:

Do you not see the problem with using the term "regular women" in any context?

Nope, I even directly addressed why it is a problem in my post. My disagreement was purely to do with how it was handled.

quote:

Do you not see the problem with telling a black woman, who educated and shares their experiences with microaggressions on this very site that you hate them, they're dumb and figments of people's imaginations and oh boy if you accuse someone of a microaggression it might hurt their fragile feelings?

I never said that microaggressions were dumb, I said the term was dumb. Describing the phenomenon of microaggression is something I agree with completely, I just think using the term itself is counterproductive. I also softened this by explaining my dislike of jargon in debate with everyday people.

If you think my objections to any position you've so far expressed is anything more than arguing about the best way to advance that position and convince people of it, then that's a miscommunication.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:35

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Like I can't even tell you how xenophobic it is to assume all foreigners are the hired help.

My grandpa came over to this country from the Philippines as a doctor, in the age when Filipinos were 'houseboys', you loving racist prick.

But nope, nebulous foreigners can only do menial labor in your world.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:35

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Koalas March posted:

No, I'm specifically asking you.

I don't really see why you're asking some other, random poster, about the behavior or 3rd party, nor do I see how it's applicable to this debate. What other people say is not my responsibility. Could you care to explain yourself?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 22:10

I Killed GBS: Jun 2, 2011; by Lowtax

Rudatron, you didn't used to be anywhere close to this racist. Did Bernie break your brain?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 02:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Culture War: Dreams of a Better World

«‹›20 »