|
Just carry on down the road we are on and we'll soon be free of the tyranny of human life, and indeed all life imo.
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Here's my dating tips for any of the alt-right who really struggle: 1. Wash. Every day. Your entire body. If this is too much of a burden, perhaps just start at your genitals and work outwards. 2. Be honest with your intentions. You just want casual sex? Believe it or not, there are many, many women out there who just want that too. If you say "Hey, I'm not looking for anything serious, just some fun" then there will be a lot of people who will go for that, particularly if you take point 1 into account. If you only want casual sex, and not anything more, then don't pretend like you want anything more, it's just going to end up in disappointment for everyone involved. Likewise, if you're looking for something more meaningful, express that honestly and you'll also get a lot of people who want to go for that. And that's kind of it, really.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:The left avoids conflict which is a good thing, but manifests itself in ways that do them no favours. The passivity means there's no fire. Don't conflate the left with liberalism. They're not actually the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Which usage, and by who? The alt-right, and the right in general, who have been using it a lot, because they want to discredit it. I assume science and all associated terminology are also now gauche because Creationists have latched on to certain terms, because the Devil can quote scripture.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Are you seeing NO irony at all, here? No? Academics frequently have people show opposing views to theirs, it's part of what makes academia academia. I suspect you're not thinking of this in an academic sense though, but are about to spout something about Tumblr or whatever, at which point I direct you to: OwlFancier posted:If your argument against a particular political belief is "college students are bad at it" then I think perhaps you may just have to give up on life because no possible political position is tenable by that logic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
The concept of privilege actually carries no associations with blame, and if you feel it does then you've grossly misinterpreted it and it says more about you than the concept itself. What is says is, "As an x person, you get certain advantages that y person does not" That is literally all it says. There is no "and therefore you are to blame" tacked onto the end, either explicitly or implicitly. When people are told to "check their privilege" what it means is "You are not taking into account that the situation you're in is not the same as the situation other people are in". Again, no blame assigned. Unless, of course, you have an incredible persecution complex and believe that any directed response to you that isn't directly praising you is condemning you, and even when it is praising you you're still suspicious because you're a paranoid lunatic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
This entire train of discussion is hilarious because the same effective arguments intelligent design proponents use are being trotted out in a defense of a concept supposedly enlightened people are upset with. "I don't like you using this academic concept because it upsets me" is one of the principle objections to people using accepted, scientific language to talk about the origins of life and things like evolution because creationists don't like the concept. It has nothing to do with the words they use, and even if they were to coach it in terms they would 'agree' with, it would still be deeply upsetting because it's supportive of a view of the world they don't like.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Even if it were to get to the point where we have to talk in literal baby talk because the accepted, academic terms are too threatening it still won't be enough because it's not about the word, it's about the concept it conveys, and it's just tone argument ontop of tone argument, made even worse in this particular case because it's not even an inflammatory or controversial word, it's the accepted god drat academic term to describe the phenomena. Again, it's not even a new concept. It dates back to 1903, over 100 loving years. It's existed literally longer than everyone who is complaining about it being a made up term. gently caress you. The term isn't made up, you are 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It's very bizarre for posters on SA, who otherwise are obsessed with the meaning of words, to feign ignorance and overlook the normal English meaning of the word 'privilege' and claim that the social justice term privilege isn't antagonizing at all. Words have different meanings in different fields. Who would have thought? Do you also agree that it's only a theory of evolution, too?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Who says it's suppose to end the conversation? The DM, because they failed their saving throw vs. basic human interaction and therefore are unable to speak or mount any sort of defense or dialogue with the person who gave them the card. It's not their fault that they're unable to engage in a meaningful discussion, the card's +10 to dampening was just too strong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Out of curiosity, how is it the accepted academic term to describe the phenomena? And what does "accepted academic term" mean in social sciences? I know lots of then "accepted academic terms" that are no longer used as social modes because they are noncontributory or latterly debunked in respect to the long term. Much like other terms of art, it has become the generally accepted term because it is the term used by the majority, if not all, academics in the field to describe the particular phenomenon it describes. Much like how "evolution" has become the accepted term to describe the process by which natural selection adapts creatures for survival etc. I'm sure if a better term came along, it would end up being adopted, much like how "Darwinism" lost favour when describing that particular thing, because people other than than Darwin had made significant contributions to the theory and as a general rhetorical shift.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Tell that to the white people employed at wal-mart, and see how they react. So, once again, we should ignore the use of actual proper terms and proven, actual concepts because it would hurt people's feelings. Jesus Christ, for a bunch of people supposedly who want to bring debate and challenge concepts certain people sure are sensitive when that standard is applied to them. The white wal-mart employee is certainly privileged compared to black person who wants to be a wal-mart employee but can't. This is really, really not a difficult concept to grasp. Even if the situation the white employee in is lovely, which I have no doubt it is, it's even more lovely to not actually be able to get a lovely position because that opportunity is denied to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Can you seriously not comprehend how divisive this line of thought is? People struggling to eek out an existence should feel ashamed because they have the privilege to be exploited and abused by a multinational corporation? Again, you're assigning a concept of shame where none exists. Being privileged is not a mark of a shame. It's not a scarlet letter branded on your forehead. What it means is that, relative to other people in your position, you have an innate advantage that others do not have, thanks to circumstances beyond yours and their control. If you happen to feel feelings of shame and discomfort if, when you say something and someone points out that your circumstances are different (which is what privilege points out), then that is entirely on you. Most well-adjusted people wouldn't take it as a personal insult that maybe, just maybe they have a different life experience to someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
There is no judgmental aspect to privilege, no. There is quite an interesting aspect to the kind of person who takes such a milquetoast concept so personally that they're deeply offended by its very existence, though. What exactly is it they have a problem with? I mean, i'm aware that the food chain exists. It's existence, and it being pointed out to me, doesn't cause me to feel deep feelings of shame or anger. If it did, I'd probably want to figure out why that is, because it's not a normal response.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:In what sort of bubble do you live that you actually believe this? Like I get that it's not supposed have those connotations but we can't even get the left to reliably understand that nevermind the actual poor white people who are having it thrown at them. 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. For example, "Climate change is real, you loving cretin" In this particular statement, the person is asserting that climate change is real. It is. It's existence doesn't actually lend any character judgement on anyone, though, that's entirely on the person who is adding such judgement on. Likewise, "You're privileged, you rear end in a top hat" is potentially bringing to light the existence of a lack of introspection on that person's privilege, and is making a judgement. The "You're privileged" doesn't actually say anything about them as a person. The "you rear end in a top hat" is what does that. "You're privileged" on its own would have been just as sufficient, but the initial statement has a greater amount of expression, and we wouldn't want to stifle that, would we? e: I also really, really think that "What message is received" is as much to do with the person receiving the message as the person saying it, perhaps even more so. If I say "I think Israel has overstepped its mark with its treatment of Palestinians" and you hear "Kill all the Jews" then you are mental and no amount of reasoning is going to change your mind if you reject reality and substitute your own. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Today I learned that mere discussion of privilege and associated concepts is in itself offensive, and that the talks I frequently hear on the radio and such are The One Weird Trick Feminists Use to Circumvent Obscenity Laws (radio controllers hate them!) It's also quite a revelation to know that all those shock jocks have been needlessly using offensive rhetoric when the only thing they needed to do was to have a frank, earnest discussion about basic sociological concepts to achieve the same end. Howard Stern is going to be pissed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:38
|
|