|
Nick_326 posted:Switching gears, here's some horrible bullshit from Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail: For context to people who don't follow British media, Jimmy Savile was a TV presenter that frequently worked with children that was always kind of known to be a total creep, but after his death was confirmed to have been a pedophile. So this guy is basically saying that giving teenagers vaccines against STD's that cause cervical cancer and along with access to contraception is like queuing them up to be raped. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jan 7, 2013 |
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
Presto posted:I've of the opinion that we really should just give Chuck the "Something Awful Lifetime Achievement Award For Being Totally Wrong About Absolutely Everything Ever" and not pick on him in this thread, because it's just too easy. But...but...but where does that leave Bill Kristol?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Holy poo poo you could play Angry Regressive Bingo with that op-ed. It manages to combine bitching about Benghazi with bitching about affirmative action. That certainly is... a kind of achievement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
redmercer posted:That'd be a really lovely thing to happen to someone first day out of their wheelchair There's something very Gift of the Magi about trading his old wheels for the ones falling on him from the sky.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Nice Davis posted:Did he start getting senile that early? What the hell? I've been watching a lot of Game of Thrones recently, and so I'll put it in those terms since it seems very apt. Michael Reagan is a bastard, and was treated like it by Ronald and Nancy. He was adopted by Ronald Reagan during Reagan's first marriage to Janet Wyman that broke up when Michael was about 4. He then spent from age 6-18 in boarding schools, and only saw family only a few days a month. So it's kind of likely that if Michael was dressed up a bit and looking similar to the hundreds of other guys graduating that day that he might not have been able to recognize a son that he was not particularly close to and didn't see very often.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
losonti tokash posted:What the gently caress is this I was kind of pissed at the lack of context in your post at first, but there's so many things wrong with that graph that I believe that you've actually landed on the proper response. I'm surprised it doesn't have a Fox News bug floating in the corner of it and a news ticker at the bottom. They take the textbook definition of an outlier in the data, and then fit the  curve to it. The rest of the curve very obviously doesn't match up with the rest of the points at all. The axes are comparing two things that are not actually in direct relation to one another. It's comparing overall tax revenue to only one specific kind of tax as if it's the only tax operating in the economy.It's a thing of beauty. If I were a college professor I would use that graph as a test question with the free response question: "What's wrong with this graph?" There's so many technical things wrong with that graph that it wouldn't even be very ideological. You could agree with the Laffer curve and all the supply-side economics you want, and it doesn't make that graphic make any more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Tharizdun posted:You're kinda reaching here. He's not doing the 'nice guy' routine, he's writing a hilarious bit on how women, just like men, really want to bone rich, famous handsome people; they just lie about their reasons because society makes them. There's some misogyny in it, but the bits at the end where he talks about(paraphrasing) "if a girl likes you then she likes you, it isn't about some kind of trickery" is pretty enlightened compared to the kinds of poo poo that might otherwise be said in that sort of article. It's also a pretty good setup for his punch line at the end.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:So that guy is an actual example of someone believing this: Is that someone unironically calling police officers welfare queens? Is there supposed to be a joke there? In what context was this originally posted? I'm dumbfounded... right wingers are usually never consistent enough about their stated beliefs to call for cutting police/military... because what's fascism without a wehrmacht and accompanying police state.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Maybe I am not on the same page as you but in the US it is not socially acceptable to do violence against women. Widespread? Quite. If you mean that normalization means people do it a lot then yes you are right. You're missing the overall point that it contributes to the normalization of the objectification of women, and that violence against women in games is often an extension of that objectification. The sense is that women are just objects to be treated however someone wishes to treat them. Anyone with an extra X chromosome is essentially being otherized. This contributes to the us vs. them mentality that so often pops up in discussions of gender, and serves to perpetuate the negative attitudes toward women that already exist in society. She could have talked about feminism in the context of society generally, but that's a well-worn path. She likes games, though, and so decided to do a series on what the depiction of women in games says about our culture in the same way she had done before with other media. Her argument is not the same as Jack Thompson's argument at all. Jack Thompson was convinced games directly made people more violent. Anita Sarkeesian's argument is that games often perpetuate some pretty extreme forms of bias against women that exist in our culture. She's not saying games are a cause. She's saying that games are a symptom, and that normalizing these things via their depictions in games can reinforce people's negative associations. This is very similar to the depiction of minorities in media. Does casting black people as criminals often cause racism? In very simple terms it probably doesn't. It stems from racism, but it also perpetuates an association between black people and crime that can go a long way in reinforcing negative attitudes. It's impossible to ignore the impact of media on culture. Most people taking issue with Anita Sarkeesian probably wouldn't bat an eye at the assertion that Ellen and Will & Grace* helped create a positive association with gay people among the general US population. However they somehow take issue with the idea that negative associations can be reinforced. To use the gay example again, if you go back 50 years you can see depictions of gay people in media as being prurient, perverse, criminal, and deranged. It was an oft-used element in noir and detective stories. You should know that on the most recent episode of the Idle Thumbs podcast Anita Sarkeesian actually responds to this exact question directly. So if you want an answer from her then you can listen to that to get it. It's in the e-mails section near the end. *Will & Grace's depiction of gay people looking back now was progressive for the time, but not actually all that great. I'm not saying it's a gold standard or anything. I'm just using it as an example of the impact of media on culture in a positive direction, but not necessarily as a panacea that's without side effects. ErIog fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Crazy is the default from this guy but this is just so bizzare and incoherent I had to post it. Apparently the reason people have dirty, nasty, depraved sex like rimjobs and blowjobs is because of feminism. Before feminism people only had missionary, lights-off, partially clothed sex which is obviously the most enjoyable kind. Girls is such a good honey-pot/litmus test for insanity. There's a lot you can write that would be negative about the show, and it's not like it would even be that hard. The show is sometimes stunningly awful in the most creative of ways, but you get the sense that maybe the way you're enjoying it is not the way Lena Dunham intended. Crazy people and misogynists just can't help themselves, though, and go off into the wilderness in their critiques of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Same is true for straight men. No reason patriarchy shouldn't apply to gay men too Same is true for Laura Ingraham. Patriarchy and Classism are like the speedball of societal problems, a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Why must we take GamerGate at face value. Why do you have to give them the benefit of the doubt? If the American Family Association claims to be promoting "stable families that are good for raising children," would you take their outrage, their arguments at face value? I don't think you would. I think you would call bullshit when they spent 99% of their time actively trying to prevent gay people from creating stable families. Would you take white supremacist outrage about "white genocide" at face value? Again, I don't think you would. I think you would read the 14 words, understand what they are saying with your brain, and conclude it's warmed-over neo-nazi propaganda. Somehow with GamerGate, though, you think they should be given the benefit of the doubt like they're arguing in good faith. GamerGate was never about games. It was about a bunch of guys being very aggressively not interested in hearing what people with extra X chromosomes had to say about their toys. You can tell this because of the figures they decided to wrap into their conspiracy theories as they spiraled out of control. There were people having their "video game journalism ethics" called into question who had loving gotten fired for exercising proper ethics. There were people being called unethical that pissed a lot of people off when they talked about unethical relationships in European gaming press and Geoff Keighley doing the Halo 4 interviews. GamerGate never gave any fucks about ethics, and to believe they did means you basically don't actually know anything about games press. Anyone with knowledge of the actual industry could look at their list of "unethical" journalists and conclude they had their heads up their asses. The "well.. they're talking really loud so maybe they have a point" angle is really only argued by people who agree with the movement in question, but are too cowardly to voice affirmative support due to it not being socially acceptable. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
JaggyJagJag posted:I guess growing up people tend to just say LGBT so I assumed they were one unified ccoalition. Can anyone shed light on why a gay man would say the things he does? I assumed as someone who heard similar bigoted rhetoric his whole life he would be more sympathetic. It's an uneasy coalition, and transgender is a weird thing to lump in with L/G/B because it's not an issue of sexual attraction. So a lot of gay people do not identify at all with the trans movement because it's something they've not experienced. It's similar to how a lot of straight people couldn't identify with the experiences of gay people(and maybe still can't in some ways). Wanting to be a different gender and having sexual attraction to the same gender are very different experiences. Until Obama announced his support for gay marriage there was debate in the black community over that issue. Gay rights activists were comparing it to miscegenation laws, but that argument did not gain traction with a lot of black people. Some of them had trouble identifying with the comparison. One of the strategies of the anti-gay organizations, before the tide of public opinion became stronger, was to exploit gay marriage as a wedge issue in the black community in order to get votes. Experiencing discrimination or being stigmatized by society is not a universal rallying call because it takes work to identify with experiences that are not your own. Religion can also play a role in which values you believe should be protected in society. It's possible to be a religious person in America that didn't agree with miscegenation laws but also doesn't support gay marriage due to the particular brand of religion they follow. LGBT is an aspirational acronym that shows what a lot of people want the movement to be, but is not necessarily reflective of the goals of individual efforts. Trans-activists sometimes worry that the T part of LGBT could be jettisoned if it was politically unhelpful to the aims of LGB people. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I'm a fan of the term "Gender and Sexual Minorities" (GSM) since it's a big umbrella and explicitly references the position of those groups in society. Doesn't this have exactly the same problem as LGBT, though? It's putting 2 things together that seem from an outside perspective like they fit together even though they have separate experiences, separate grievances, and a to certain extent separate demands from society. Sometimes their viewpoints can even be at odds with each other. For instance, drag, as a mostly gay cultural phenomenon, is somewhat of a minstrel show from the perspective of some trans people. Do gay men care if they can mark a W on their license? I don't think that they do. I think working together toward mutual benefit in society is a really powerful and great thing. However, umbrella terms like GSM or LGBT assume a shared set of values in a way that can create really damaging misunderstandings if people are not very careful in how they go about constructing their movements. This was a real problem within the women's equality movement. There was an assumption of shared values between white women and minority women that led to real rifts when it turned out those values didn't precisely line up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Or gossipy bullshit served as the catalyst for a nerd outrage reaction that was overdue. If they were so outraged over ethics then why did they go after Jeff Gerstmann who was notably fired for giving a bad review to a game that was being advertised? I don't even know why I'm responding to you. You're basically concern trolling. GamerGate would never in a million years have led to more ethical games journalism by going after the people they were choosing to go after. ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They don't make the distinction until they do. To add to this, there have been a lot of strides towards gay acceptance in the last few decades. There have not been those same strides toward accepting trans people. For people who were slowly convinced that gay people aren't duplicitous perverted mental cases, trans people are still a bridge too far. There has not been a trans version of Ellen. There has been no trans Will and Grace. The most high profile mainstream trans events have been Chas Bono on Dancing with the Stars and Chelsea Manning. Chas Bono was had a mixed reception, and Chelsea Manning was heavily politicized along political lines. For your average cis-gendered(I hate this term too, sorry) straight person, LGB being mixed with T is very confusing. You hear stuff like, "well, we have gay marriage now, doesn't that solve trans issues?" Well, it does and it doesn't. Am I going to be imprisoned for using a public bathroom? What if I get doxxed, and my employer chooses to fire me despite my having successfully lived as my preferred gender for years? Am I going to be hassled every time I have to show the ID where my gender doesn't match what I currently look like? These are issues gay people do not have, and there has not been any concerted effort to educate people. In my experience, bigots dislike gay people, but they have a unique separate visceral fear of trans people. They really don't like the idea that they don't have the power to decide another person's gender. They feel that gay people are sexual perverts, but they feel trans people are transgressing a much more fundamental biological "reality." They take it as a categorically different betrayal of the social order. Even well-meaning liberals often fall into the  trap where having a penis means you like <insert typically male-centric thing here>. They find the idea of someone being sexually attracted to the same sex a lot easier to understand. They do not understand what it's like to wake up every day in a body you feel does not represent yourself. It has not been explained to them.Then on top of all this you have people who think they understand because they know who Ru-Paul is, and that's just  all the way down.
ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I believe that the biggest cause of this sort of thinking is that wealthy people are afraid that acknowledging their huge advantages will diminish their accomplishments. In my experience it's less that people are afraid of diminishing their accomplishments and more worried about being perceived as not having worked hard enough. You'll hear this really often from well off people. "Oh, these people, they act like rich people don't have to work for anything, but that just isn't true.." because they willfully misunderstand the points being made about privilege in America. The same thing happens with white privilege. You can find zillions of comments like, "Lol, yeah white privilege exists, like I'm not busting my rear end every day." There's a very very deep belief in American culture that if you work hard then you deserve however much you make, and people who "don't work hard," deserve to lie down in the street and die. This is how the middle class justifies their meager economic security, and how the very rich justify ridiculous wealth. Just like everybody believes they're an "above average driver," or "smarter than most people," everybody also tends to believe, "I work harder than most people so... " and it results in them not feeling bad for whatever classes are beneath them. At the very top you'll get a lot of them to actually acknowledge some measure of privilege like, "yeah, I'll admit I got into <insert Ivy> because of my family, but that's a tough school. I had to work hard. I've had to work hard at Goldman Sachs." It's all "just so" stories and Just World fallacies because otherwise they'd have to come to terms with the fact that pretty much everybody works hard, and the people who work the hardest are the ones that are starving. If they were to realize that they might realize the inherent problems of capitalism, but that kind of thinking is very much "Here be dragons," territory in terms of political discourse. The idea that starvation, in a world that produces a surplus of food and that is ruled by fiat currency, is simply a problem of distribution rather than a lack of available capital never occurs to them. ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 09:24
|
|