|
Neurolimal posted:Literally every country, company, or individual worth more than 10 million dollars has people hired to shitpost. This isn't a stunning display of competency. If this is true then it's probably a waste of money for most of them.
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
If these sexually incapable young men are sitting around waiting to be radicalized into any ideology that comes around claiming to help them out, couldn't we just push them towards any of the classic religions that promoted celibacy? Just make them all monks or something. Could secularism have a (small) share of the blame here?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The whole thing of calling people virgins is weird, it's such a teenage type of concept. No significant population of adults in america are virgins. Quick search of the internet says 1.2% of men and .2% of women never have sex. Wait, this is at time of death, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
The problem with making "privileged" the abnormal state is that it implies that in the privilege-less society you want to create, everyone will be poor, everyone will be abused by the cops, and everyone will be made to feel inferior. You want to talk about bad optics, that's bad optics. Making "disadvantaged" the abnormal state is much better, and it doesn't imply that the people are abnormal, just their socially-imposed condition.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or, possibly, understanding that not everybody has the same default experience and complaining about terminology because it does not mesh with your default experience, particularly as someone not on the receiving end of these injustices, is extremely counterproductive to discussing them. This does not make sense to me as a response to what I wrote. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Neither state is abnormal, experiences are entirely relative and in discussion of this sort you need to understand that and not constantly seek to normalize something and define everything else in relation to that, normativity like that is part of what is trying to be dismantled. So you've got two groups, group A and group B. Group A is treated very badly and group B is treated very well. If you saw this and decided to change it, what would the ideal outcome be? It would be an increase in group A's quality of life. If you're thinking "take away some quality of life from group B and give it to group A", your thinking is disturbing in how it defaults to a zero-sum model. If you're thinking "treat group B worse until the two groups are equal", you're directly valuing "equality" over the quality of life of any human, which is absurd. Framing, say, the treatment of whites (better job opportunities, better survival rates in police encounters, better media representation, etc) as privilege and therefore abnormal is bad because it directly insinuates those things should be taken away from white people instead of given to nonwhite people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:The reason that Group A is treated very badly is because Group B controls all the resources and freedoms in the equation. You're acting as if institutional racism and patriarchy just popped into existence, apropos of nothing, and white men magically ascended to the top of the pile. So you're saying that white people should be shot by the police under suspicious circumstances more often? Okay, cool, sounds like a sane and reasonable thing a person I want to control our society would say
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Sure is easier to reduce an argument to the most absurd possible conclusion than it is to actually address it on its merits, isn't it? It's at least somewhat more helpful than ignoring an argument completely and rounding it off to the negative impression you have of everyone who disagrees with you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Just to clarify, there may indeed be a judgmental aspect tacked onto such a statement, but that's the personal preference of the person making the statement, and not actually implied in the fact the statement has brought to light. I think a closer analogy would be "overpopulation and fossil fuel consumption are of course the major causes of climate change", addressed to a mother of three who needs to use an SUV on a regular basis.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Well, yes, exactly. And whether you're being purposefully passive aggressive or not, the phrase "check your privilege" is a way to cut that poo poo out in no uncertain terms. Which is why it's important. You're being pretty dense, dude. He's saying that "check your privilege" is being used to mean "my issue is more important".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Yeah, I'm aware of that and I'm stating my disagreement with that argument by giving examples of how the phrase is commonly used by normal people, and using his examples to illustrate my own point. Do try and keep up. Please do tell me what good you think will come from a conversation that includes the exchange "check your privilege"/"no, check your privilege". 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:None. Zero good will come of that. Who was suggesting people should do that? You, when you suggested that the proper response to someone dicking around using "check your privilege" to mean "my issue is more important" is to say "check your privilege" right back at them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Similarly, if someone is talking about how important fiscal issues are, and someone else says "you're privileged enough to be able to talk about that instead of my problems", the people reading aren't going to go "huh, hes pointing out that privilege exists and affects our focus and goals", they're going to think "this person doesn't like this other person airing out their grievances or theories, and wants to shut it down". Dr. Fishopolis posted:In the second example, one might well say "hey I can't really relate to what you're talking about to be honest. You might wanna check your privilege there, me and my friends and family can barely afford rent."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is one of the privileges that should be checked, though. I don't know, I'd really prefer to keep that "privilege" and extend it to more people, such as, say, everyone. Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is not a privilege; it's a right; a right that is violated for many groups in America.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 01:44
|
|