mcity: (nope.avi)
  • Cliquish structure.
  • Ideas that a "true X" has to hold.
  • Specialized language and terms that are completely opaque to non-initiates.
  • Special terms for dismissing outsiders.
  • Hostility toward outsiders unless they've "proved" themselves.
  • Reluctance to consider criticism, especially external.
  • Responding to criticism by attacking the critic instead of what they're saying.
  • Popular Big Names who few dare contradict.
  • Certain facts "everyone knows".
  • Double standards for people on the "inside" vs those on the "outside".
  • Tendency to put everyone in categories, and evaluate their statements based on the category they're perceived to be in.
  • Reactions to things are usually based on emotion instead of logic.
  • Insistence that people who disagree with one clearly cannot understand the subject.

Now, am I describing Social Justice, or a fandom?

For more, see the Geek Social Fallacies. These facts often apply to Social Justice in general, but Tumblr has a particularly intense form of it, since the mechanisms to spread information are the exact same ones one uses for fandom.

mcity: (Default)

An interesting video about the difference between objectification of men and women, double standards thereof, and the social pressures behind them. Here are the articles she refers to and links in the description.

Am I Sexist? - Common Sense Atheism

Why Shameless Objectification Can Be A Good Thing - Jezebel

Why men can't - and shouldn't - stop staring at women - Ian Brown for The Globe and Mail
mcity: (Default)
Public: No one should hire people based on their race, their color, or their sexual preference!
Hollywood: Okay.
Public: Well?
Hollywood: Well what?
Public: Why aren't you hiring more minorities?
mcity: (Default)
Me: Guess I'll finally get around to reading The Seven Pillars of Wisdom now.
TE Lawrence: The chicks were ugly, so the men banged each other.
Me: Wait, what?
Lawrence: It's weird having two personas.
Me: Back up.
Lawrence: Let's talk about Arabia.
Me: Hang on a second-

The Arab was by nature continent; and the use of universal marriage had nearly abolished irregular courses in his tribes. The public women of the rare settlements we encountered in our months of wandering would have been nothing to our numbers, even had their raddled meat been palatable to a man of healthy parts. In horror of such sordid commerce our youths began indifferently to slake one another's few needs in their own clean bodies — a cold convenience that, by comparison, seemed sexless and even pure. Later, some began to justify this sterile process, and swore that friends quivering together in the yielding sand with intimate hot limbs in supreme embrace, found there hidden in the darkness a sensual co-efficient of the mental passion which was welding our souls and spirits in one flaming effort. Several, thirsting to punish appetites they could not wholly prevent, took a savage pride in degrading the body, and offered themself fiercely in any habit which promised physical pain or filth.
So, yeah. One of the most famous nonfiction books in history offhandedly mentions dudes being prison gay in the first chapter.
mcity: (Default)
[Thread] (Language warning, even with the filter.)

Bouncer says that he put a drunk woman in a chokehold after she bit him, which was after they gave her several chances to go away.

People criticize him for using unnecessary force, and say he got his job just because he likes to get in fights with people, and that he should be able to control a tiny woman since he's such a big guy.

He says his co-worker was wearing gloves when he tried to dump a champagne bucket of ice water on a drunk female patron, and this led to the bucket slipping out of his hands and hitting the woman.

People say that the bouncer likes to throw buckets at women.

He says he has his job because he likes to meet and sleep with women women, and he usually deals with dozens of  of women a night.

People criticize him for using his position to dominate women and repeatedly call him a rapist because he sleeps with drunk women, which he never said he does.

He says that a big fight started up while he was patting people down for a big event, which resulted in him getting stabbed.

One guy says he beat up the kid who was only acting in "self-defense" when he stabbed the bouncer.

Not even the other critics want to back him up.
mcity: (Default)
I just got in an argument with someone on Youtube who said that people who cross the border illegally into the US aren't criminals.

Or course, they also said that crack cocaine only exists because drugs are illegal, and all the problems with drugs and prostitution are caused by them being illegal, so I'm assuming they ain't long on the smarts.
mcity: (Default)
Strangely, this page had more than just "teach philosophy".

Hurlingham Club-Receptionist
The Bull Hotel-Bar Staff
The House of Agnes-Housekeeping Assistant
Thorley Taverns-Bar Staff
Topshop-Sales Assistant
University of Kent-Canteen Assistant
Waitrose-Customer Service
Wheatstone Inn-Waitress
But not much more.
mcity: (Default)
He doesn't know who Himmler is.

This is like claiming to know about American government under Bush and not knowing who Dick Cheney is.
mcity: (Default)
Pirating to protest SOPA is like blowing up an airport to protest the TSA.

The funny thing is that many of the "protestors" will cheerfully claim piracy can't or doesn't really hurt The Studios, while using piracy to try and hurt the studios.
mcity: (omg onoz)
New Scientist comment thread on a study about how Tasers are safer than batons.
What the study fails to illuminate is whether the availability of non-lethal weapons makes it more likely that cops will use force against civilians. Here in Pittsburgh, we have seen police shock a rather heavy un-athletic woman in sensible shoes during a political protest. Indeed, the whole category of non-lethals suggests a move from dealing with violent felons to a notion of the policing of populations, with the concomitant suppression of political speech and assembly.
They tased someone wearing sensible shoes? The monsters!
mcity: (Default)
Social Justice Advocate: I have no real responsibility to educate people about mistakes they may have made or bigotry they may have.
Some guys: Hey, we're holding a men's only LAN party because we don't want women to be insulted.
SJA: Clearly, they're just too lazy to want to go through the effort of policing misogyny.

Incidentally, whenever someone pointed out that the complainer would have no problem with a women's only LAN-party was bought up on various blogs, the goalposts were moved from "making it male-only" to making it male-only for "the wrong reasons". Which makes me want to set up an event for women only and claim it's because they keep making misandrist comments and I don't want to make men uncomfortable, and then see if everyone holds the same positions. I'm betting lots of people who decried the LAN party would be saying men should just nut up and take it. Now all I need is a few hundred thousand dollars.

NOTE: I'm not saying the logic was sound. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in saying only SJAs have the right not to want to deal with dicks any more than they have to.
mcity: (Default)

[link] haniemohd:

“…Though no one would ever think of using the term honor violence (we reserve that descriptor for brown people who live somewhere else, motivated by religious something-or-other or tribal something-or-other), one-third of women murdered every year in the United States are killed by their intimate partners. In 2005 that amounted to 1,181 women, or three women every day. To put that in perspective, the UN estimates there are 5,000 honor killings every year in the entire world. 5,000 in a world of 6 billion versus nearly 1,200 in a single country of 300 million. In other words, a woman in America runs a greater risk of being killed by her husband or boyfriend than a woman in Pakistan. Those are scary numbers.”

- an excerpt from an extremely interesting and insightful article by one of my favourite comic artist and writer, G. Willow Wilson (which you can access by clicking the link above)

The logic is not sound.

Male on female relationship murders can be committed outside of honor killings. Wilson's questionable analysis assumes that those are the only ways women in the developing world are killed by their spouses, which is itself inherently...problematic, to put it nicely. Heck, honor killings are sometimes committed by other relatives. Ironic that Wilson snarks at imaginary people for thinking honor killings are just something done by "brown people" somewhere, and then exposes her own ignorance and faulty logic.

Statistics indicate that both men and women in the US abuse their SOs at about the same rate, and men are much less likely to report it or have it acted upon. In fact, if a man calls the police on his girlfriend or wife, he could end up arrested in some parts of the US. There's an entire TVTropes page about this. Guy kills his wife, he's a vicious killer, a woman kills her husband, he drove her to it; see Lifetime's "Snapped".

I also began to see, with frightening clarity, the malice. It would be too broad to say that men hate women, men are afraid of women, men desire power over women–though there are certainly men of whom all these things are true, there are many more men of whom none of these things are true. Yet there’s the malice. Creeping and ugly and everywhere, as though it has a life of its own.

Should I get a stake, or a silver bullet?

mcity: (amazing)
Bobbie: I'm asking you because you said Afghanistan never attacked us, which means you think someone other than al Qaeda, operating from Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

Can you answer the question?
Alex: Ooooh.
Tell me more of what I must think.

ETA: that was a sarcastic way of pointing out that your syllogism was faulty in case you didn't get that.
Drew: No one's telling you what you MUST think, we're asking you what you DO think.
Bobbie: Why did you say Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11?

Who did Alex?

Why can't you answer simple questions?
Alex: You stop acting like an idiot and I'll answer your questions, maybe even the idiotic ones.
Cody: Uh oh, truther rage alert. I predict total meltdown within 24 hours.
Bobbie: Who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 Alex? Was it al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban?

Is this a hard question?
Alex: You seem to be trying to turn this thread into a truther thread. If you want to discuss this then why not go to the appropriate folder and join any discussion there?
Bobbie: Why did you claim Aghanistan didn't attack us Alex? Don't all your arguments in this thread stem from that claim?

Who attacked us on 9/11 David?
Me: I'll make popcorn.

mcity: (Default)
Of course, like any site that thrives on pseudonymity, Reddit attracts its share of the sick and the deluded. There’s a subreddit, MensRights, “for people who believe that men are currently being disadvantaged by society,” and for years the site admins tolerated subreddits devoted to pictures of underage girls.
Men's Right's advocates are, far too often, misogynists. I'm not denying it. However, there is some gold in the muck, and anyone saying Internet Feminism should be thrown out because of the vast amount of misandry and double standards it has would have the sky come down on them. Ironically, such people are often accused of being MRAs merely for negatively criticizing Internet Feminism. I like how merely saying that men are disadvantaged by society is "sick and deluded" and comparable to distributing kiddie porn. Good job, Wired. Real good job.
mcity: (Default)
Alex: You're so biased you can't even admit the study might be biased!
Me: Sure I can. The war study might be biased. Your turn. Can you say "the study might not be biased?"
Alex: I don't see why I should just to make you feel better. Yes, it might not be biased, but we shouldn't put any weight on that, because it might be biased.

This guy also argues that the Coalition is responsible for the Taliban's suicide bombings in Afghanistan because it was a "reasonable consequence" of the invasion. Personally, I don't think hanging an 8-year old boy as a spy or tricking an 8-year old girl into being a bomb mule is "reasonable".

Also, he kept accused someone of bias in favor of America, and specifically called him an American, and under the individuals profile picture it clearly says "Location: Montreal". He also said there's no evidence 9/11 was an attack on civilians.

He said there's no evidence 9/11 was an attack on civilians.
mcity: (Default)
Feminists hate when women who want an abortion are told, “You should have thought of that when you had unprotected sex”, or “You should have just kept your legs closed!” They think it’s sexist and incredibly unfair. And you know what? I agree. Everyone makes mistakes and though I think everyone needs to be using birth control unless they want a child, they deserve a fallback option.
But then men come into the picture.
A man gets his girlfriend pregnant. He doesn’t want the baby; she does. He has no recourse and is hit up for a hefty child support payment.
What do feminists say when men complain?
“You should have thought of that before you had unprotected sex! You should have kept it in your pants!”
How is that even remotely fair? You can despise an argument when used against women, but you’ll turn around and use it for men? [read more]
I am seriously worried that I'm becoming That Guy Who Complains About Social Justice Stuff All The Time.
mcity: (Default)
In a nutshell, we’ve proven that paying child support is in fact a greater burden in most senses of the word than pregnancy.  As such, from a moral standpoint, we can state that all arguments of rights aside, it is less moral to force a man to pay child support than it is to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.  Let it be clear that this is not advocating forcing women to carry pregnancies to term!  It’s saying it isn't moral to do either.
mcity: (Default)
After a while, I took to wearing baggy jumpers in the hope of diverting wandering eyes. In student bars, cafes and even libraries, meanwhile, I was constantly being propositioned by floppy-haired boys freshly released from boarding school.

Even though I had a boyfriend back home, the fact I had big boobs seemed to send out a message to them that I must be fair game.

Ignoring my far more attractive female friends, they would slip notes into my bag or leave them in my pigeon hole asking me out for a date.
I know I'm expecting a lot of the Daily Mail, considering it's the Daily Mail, but is this woman actually complaining that people find her more attractive than others because she has bigger boobs? I can understand the dislike of the unwanted attention, but to declare your friends "more attractive" as if that's an objective, universal assessment seems...odd.

But he scuppered the relationship when he admitted I ‘reminded him of a secretary’. By that, I assume he meant the clothes I wore were a little too revealing. But like Madeline, I didn’t see why I should dress like a nun just because I happened to be a DD cup.
Wait, wait, you "assume" that's what he meant? When I think 'secretary' or 'receptionist', my first thought isn't 'skimpy clothes'. Actually, I think of Harvey's secretary on "Suits", who dresses nicely but not in a particularly provocative fashion. And why are the only two options nun or secretary? Even assuming it's exaggerated, there's a middle ground.

At work, though, as a reporter starting out on a local newspaper, the only way to be taken seriously was to dress as conservatively as possible.

I invested in a selection of androgynous black suits and I kept the jackets buttoned up at all times.

Even that didn’t deter a room full of firefighters from giving me the once over when I arrived at the local fire station to shadow a night shift.
From the photos supplied with the article, the writer is an attractive woman. Yet she's complaining that men looked at her like she was, well, an attractive woman.

When I was sent off to learn how to Morris dance, I ended up rapping my dancing partner over the knuckles with my bells after catching him gawping down my top.
She considers physical attack an appropriate response? Would she have done the same if the gawker had been another woman? How about if a woman was caught gawking at a man?

I once even caught the local mayor taking a quick peek. I was there to cover a town council meeting, but his eyes were certainly not on my notebook.

Show a little cleavage and you are likely to be gawped at, no matter where — or who — you are.
So even if you wear low-cut tops, men should not even peek at one's boobs, ever, and it's entirely their fault if they do. I think I got it.

There are some disgusting allegations of apparent sexism from her ex-colleagues later on, though I wonder how she caught them "red-handed" lusting at her photos. It seems more likely that it would be some other color than red, if you catch my drift.
mcity: (Default)

Jill probably should've told Jack something like that before they started to fool around. If I had, I dunno, a piercing which may effect the theoretical lovemaking, or a tattoo shaped like the head of Satan emblazoned on my pubic region, I would consider it entirely responsible to inform my partner of such a fact. Hypothetically, I mean.

The funny thing is that the card just says Jack is surprised. It doesn't actually say he actually minds Jill being a transsexual. Maybe he's into that sort of thing and Jill wanted to surprise him. Happy endings all around! In more ways than one.

October 2012

  12 3456
21 2223242526 27


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 08:26 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios