Just a social issues rant

[Nique]

It's awful convenient for group A to argue/ enforce the "proper rules of debate" against group B when group A has been entirely fucking over group B for hundreds of year.

Like, maybe certain "unreasonable" arguments from feminism or racial dialogue or whatever will resolve themselves if you can just 1)accept the basic premise without ignoring the forest for the trees and 2) fuckin deal with it if something isn't some peerless dissertation of godly logic.

[Bum Bill Bee]

And what do you think is unfarily being called "unreasonable"?

I once got into this big poo flinging fest of an argument with a black guy over Gamer Gate, though we bounced around on some other subjects. Some of the highlights on his side include:

- men are a minortiy because theyre 49%

- having "Social Autismfuckard" made him disabled on the same level as the blind and torso people

- The war on drugs is just an excuse to but black youth into prison butt rape land

- Women have it good just because they have voting rights and can buy stuff and inheret stuff from men

- Gamer Gate is a flawless saint of an organization just because they donated to charity

- Social Justice Warriors are "Jihadists"

- Femmnists are somehow ignorant hicks

- Femmnists never complain about fifty shades of Grey

- General George Patton is somehow a Beta male

- I'm not a Gamer just because all the games I play are from Goodwill or yard sales

- Blacks are inherently more oppressed than whites regardless of what they make, so according to his logic, Tyler Perry and his whatever-million dollar fortune is somehow more oppressed than me and my $9.10 per hour wages.


......soooooooooo, am I really off my rocker in thinking that his views are in any way odd or irrational just because he has the skin color thats historically and recently oppressed? Is that what youre trying to say Nique?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Not to mention how even the most minor of concessions or admissions on the part of the oppressing group are portrayed as great, unbelievable sacrifices. (Affirmative Action or removing police bias comes to mind.)

There's no horrible, evil attack on those that benefit most from society through social justice, just advocacy for doing less shit that harms other people in that society, from marginalized groups based on race, gender, sex or disability. But people talk about even the idea of admitting that there are problems as if the whole movement was dedicated to punching their mothers in the face.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

- having "Social Autismfuckard" made him disabled on the same level as the blind and torso people


As doubtful as it is I really hope those quotes mean that's how he referred to it and not you, because damn. That's a pretty shitty way to say things that insults people with a disorder for no reason.


- Blacks are inherently more oppressed than whites regardless of what they make, so according to his logic, Tyler Perry and his whatever-million dollar fortune is somehow more oppressed than me and my $9.10 per hour wages.

Yeah.
Privilege or oppression isn't an instantaneous one moment concept. It's an aggregate of social and economic factors. Measured in lifetimes, on a national scale. Not a 1:1 comparison between you and one guy on one issue. Even then, Tyler Perry might be rich now, but given equal education and criminal or non-criminal status, you'd be more likely to be hired than him by a significant margin. And, in spite of his wealth and fame, he'd still probably be more likely to be under police suspicion than you just for being black.


......soooooooooo, am I really off my rocker in thinking that his views are in any way odd or irrational just because he has the skin color thats historically and recently oppressed? Is that what youre trying to say Nique?

At the risk of speaking for someone else, no. That's probably not what Nique was trying to say.
You know that's not what he was trying to say.

[Marc v4.0]

http://i.imgur.com/s0MnocZ.gif

[Kim]

- The war on drugs is just an excuse to but black youth into prison butt rape land

1. Referring to prison as "butt rape land" is kinda tasteless and I hope that's what he did and you were simply quoting cuz yeah don't do that.

2. As loathe as I am to agree with a GamerGater the war on drugs pretty much is just an excuse to put black youth in prison.

[shiney]

From my perspective it seems that BBB is reflecting the views of some idiot he was speaking to, not his own personal feelings. That said, BBB you could work on your phrasing. This isn't the YouTube comments section.

[Marc v4.0]

I could fill in the blanks on lots of words and phrases just knowing the guy was a Gamergator.

[Red Mage Black]

Don't start with that kettle of fish, Marc. This is not News and Current Events, so it is also not the place to bring it up.

Here's a huge phrase some people can't wrap their heads around: You can't satisfy everyone.

There are people near that want more, people who think something is too excessive and people who will never have enough. You will always have push back. This is not up for debate because it is truth.

So, how do you go about it? In fact, you appeal to the largest demographic you can. That's how politics work(in a democratic system at least), that's how economics and business work. Except, you still don't satisfy everybody. You can never win this game. No matter how many laws you pass or how much advocacy you do. You simply aim for the biggest audience possible and drown out all dissenting voices.

This is why rational debate is quickly becoming extinct, because supporters and dissenters cause such a rift that it's hard to hear the two actually reasonable people on opposite sides of the issue trying to talk to one another.

The ardent supporters and dissenters are so loud, you can't hear over the heckles and roars of the crowd.

Again, you can appeal to the demographic that pleases you, just don't expect to never hear from the opposition. It's a fight you won't win.

[Bum Bill Bee]

Yeah he was probably just calling me a fuckard. Though thats still scuzzy looking, using terminology such as fuckard while claiming to care about disabled people's rights.

2. As loathe as I am to agree with a GamerGater the war on drugs pretty much is just an excuse to put black youth in prison.

War on Marjuana drug users sure, but war on hard drug users? Yeah, I'd still war on them, especially after reading about an Opium addict wasting his life away in The Good Earth or another Opium addict screwing over his business and abusing half his family in The Bonesetter's Daughter. Or watching the Wolf of Wallstreet. Or the bajillions of successful celebrities who die from drug overdoeses. Or....

[Kim]

The war on drugs doesn't help those who lose their lives to drugs. The war on drugs doesn't go after the rich, white celebs who abuse drugs, and when it does they get a slap on the wrist. The war on drugs is to go after poor, predominantly black, people and put the into the prison system.

You would save money and actually help people by taking all that money poured into criminalizing drug use and putting it into rehabilitation centers. As long as these drugs are criminalized, people will be less likely to seek help for those addictions, because they will be so desperate to keep them secret and afraid of going to prison.

[shiney]

Never mind the disparity between crack cocaine sentencing guidelines and white powder cocaine sentencing guidelines.

[RickZarber]

Regarding the OP (and ignoring everything after):

36FbHXsEuzM

[Terex4]

From what I've seen social justice discussions degrade so quickly due to three major factors:

1) When people hear about the injustices of the world, they like to take it as a direct, personal accusation.

2) Gross misunderstanding of what is being stated and what is being asked for.

3) Advocates dying a little (or a lot) inside when they read responses reflecting points one and two.

Of course there are always the personal anecdotes or examples using what are perceived to be "exceptions to the rule". We aren't discussing your best friend who totally never runs into problems or who you helped that one time. We're discussing the broad-reaching, ingrained issues that affect large numbers of people based on shared characteristics.

There is a huge difference between immune to social issues and being fortunate enough to have not experienced them. Not even celebrity status can grant total immunity (it certainly has strong potential as a mitigating factor but not immunity).

There are gross misconceptions regarding the necessity of how we address things as well. "Political correctness" is a wonderful example of this. On a local level, creating safe spaces goes a long way to helping people feel comfortable but, on a broader level, it's about changing the perceptions people have regarding minority groups. Using trans* issues as an example, we avoid jokes because our lives are treated as a punchline. There are definitely elements to the transgender experience that are absurd and worth joking about, but we're a bit busy working on being taken seriously in the first place and that means getting everyone else to realize that we ourselves are not jokes.

These issues are emotionally charged and, entirely too often, evidence is ignored, brushed to the side, or taken in a completely wrong direction by the people it's presented to.

[Red Mage Black]

All other stuff above stuff:

Marijuana laws are pretty ridiculous in themselves as well, but I think keeping it medicinal is fine with me. I would never trust the government to tax it fairly.

Adventure Time video:

Even if it is true, I still think it's a rather naive way to portray it. I have no idea if it's portraying modern or history all together, but at other times in the past, it was a survival scramble for food and resources and people who didn't get along with the dominant people at the time were chased off. It was basically xenophobia. People trust other people who look the same or think like them. Hell, xenophobia is still rampant in the world. Natives don't like or trust foreigners or even if some are natives, don't like how they look or what dialect they have.

All in all, based on thousands of years of human cultures, humans are still stupid in that regard and you can't simply shrug it all off in what little time we've been trying so far. Thinking we can do it in only a few generations is idealism. The best you can hope for is the singularity to happen before everyone destroys each other. Keep up the fight if you must, if only to hold back the rising tide a little longer.

I'm really hoping for something akin to Eclipse Phase, only without the murderous death machines that make Earth a quarantine zone. That's my own idealism talking though. Morphological freedom all the way. (Transhuman Space is another possibility, but comes with its own problems similar to what we have now.)


Terex: (I'm only doing this because multi-quote is near impossible on tablet.)

Your side certainly isn't immune to the same criticisms you just stated. From your first 3 points to anecdotes and evidence being ignored. This is exactly what I was saying in my first post though. You can't hear the rationale of the speakers for the roaring of the crowd. These issues are double edged weapons people use to bash other people while simultaneously, the crowd uses that same weapon to hurt the speakers.

[shiney]

I think ethnocentrism would be a better term than xenophobia. There's a difference between reliance on the local culture and family/society aspect while having a healthy mistrust of outsiders, and an outright fear or hatred of foreigners such that xenophobia purports.

e: nope, the deleted parts of this message came across super wrong from how I feel and I don't like it. No sir, I don't like it at all.

[Nique]

Don't start with that kettle of fish, Marc. This is not News and Current Events, so it is also not the place to bring it up.

I don't think that the way you are talking to specific people in these kinds of discussions is very polite. It would be cool if you would stop telling people what to do and just let the mods take care of stuff.

As to your overall point - I disagree with the premise that our goal must be to maxmize the amount of people who are maximally happy with society rather than developing an environment that is demonstrably fair to everyone. It's a whole 'horse before the cart' thing.

And yeah, ultimately, if everyone debated from a position of pure logic that would be great. But on the other hand, I'm not going to hypocritically ignore hundreds of years of illogical abuse and then unduly focus my critisism on someone who says 'white people are the devil'.

I think it's more important to hold myself and peers of any particular issue accountable to be rational and logical rather than to hold a vicitimized group accountable for errors in logic presented on their behalf.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------



There is a huge difference between immune to social issues and being fortunate enough to have not experienced them. Not even celebrity status can grant total immunity (it certainly has strong potential as a mitigating factor but not immunity).

This is a really great and succinct way to make a point that I have struggled to explain to people when these sort of 'exception' arguments are made.

PS - BBB; Your friend's opinions are all over the place. Some of them are factual, others are crazy. My quotes around the word "unreasonable" was meant to emphasize that some of the arguments coming from a social justice perspective are seen as unreasonable when they often aren't or at least aren't AS unreasonable as they are made out to be.

[Terex4]

When we are subject to the same criticisms it is often from a perspective that entirely misses the point. We don't expect to win over all of humanity, we expect to change what is considered normal in social and legislative contexts and yes, many, many people will be dragged kicking and screaming into a more inclusive society as we go.

Hell I don't expect to see a properly inclusive society in our lifetimes but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for anything less either.

When it comes to these issues logic stands hand in hand with empathy. In a social justice context, personal stories are used to generate empathy and to illustrate the humanity of disenfranchised groups. Arguably speaking, empathy is the more effective approach. People have to care enough to support you and statistics and other data are typically used to supplement emotional arguments.

Logic cannot be sustained as a primary method of argument when fear and other programmed responses are sustaining the systems we have to fight.

I'm not trying to sell us as perfect either but it's obvious that there are deep misunderstandings in how and why social justice movements operate the way that they do.

[Red Mage Black]

I think ethnocentrism would be a better term than xenophobia. There's a difference between reliance on the local culture and family/society aspect while having a healthy mistrust of outsiders, and an outright fear or hatred of foreigners such that xenophobia purports.

e: nope, the deleted parts of this message came across super wrong from how I feel and I don't like it. No sir, I don't like it at all.

Unfortunately, xenophobia is still alive and well.

I was going to relate a story about my own xenophobia for black men in pairs or groups, but this thread is not about me and sharing an anecdote is ultimately a waste of time and bandwidth.

I don't think that the way you are talking to specific people in these kinds of discussions is very polite. It would be cool if you would stop telling people what to do and just let the mods take care of stuff.

Practice what you preach then? None have had to jump in yet and I thought I had a nice dialogue going so far. It was an attempt to make sure this whole train didn't crash headfirst into an argument.


As to your overall point - I disagree with the premise that our goal must be to maxmize the amount of people who are maximally happy with society rather than developing an environment that is demonstrably fair to everyone. It's a whole 'horse before the cart' thing.

Unfortunately, as I stated in my first post, it's a fight you cannot win. You either make the move that makes the most people happy and try to mitigate the backlash from dissenters as much as you can. You cannot make everybody happy and it becomes propaganda and thought control when you try to tell people "These people are evil and you can't think this way." Which is ultimately the message "Social Justice" has been appearing to spread for a while now.

And the word fair is subjective. As I had stated, above and in my first post, some people want more, others think it's excessive and some will never be satisfied. Society anywhere can never be fair for everyone. The best you can do is try to mitigate the bad stuff.

Note what said. I'm not saying 'it is' sensing that message, but a lot of people subscribe to that notion.


And yeah, ultimately, if everyone debated from a position of pure logic that would be great. But on the other hand, I'm not going to hypocritically ignore hundreds of years of illogical abuse and then unduly focus my critisism on someone who says 'white people are the devil'.

I think it's more important to hold myself and peers of any particular issue accountable to be rational and logical rather than to hold a vicitimized group accountable for errors in logic presented on their behalf.

Nobody is immune to criticism. Not even victimised groups. What is undue is purely subjective like the word fair. A million people screaming something is undue does not in fact, make it undue. It's also not hypocritical or ignorant to point out someone else's flawed stance on something. Victimised or not. Equality also means that everyone is accountable for their words and actions, regardless of background.


When we are subject to the same criticisms it is often from a perspective that entirely misses the point. We don't expect to win over all of humanity, we expect to change what is considered normal in social and legislative contexts and yes, many, many people will be dragged kicking and screaming into a more inclusive society as we go.


I really hope that first sentence is being stated as an opinion rather than fact. You can't say your criticisms are more valid while everyone else is just ignorant. There are genuine folks on your side of that chasm who make it just as difficult to get any messages across. It sounds like the only people you hear are the ones that scream the loudest. Which is quite often the case when people are trying to be civil with each other even on a subject they disagree on. Both sides will butt heads and discredit the betters with examples of the bad. You can do a hundred good things and be seen as great, but screw up once and nobody forgets it.

Equality is also reached when nobody needs special protection in law form, special scholarships simply because of who or what they are or job quotas for them specifically. Notice, I'm not saying "get rid of them all now", because that only encourages the shitslingers. Equality won't be reach until leg-up programs are no longer needed. It's a topic a lot of folks see and shake their heads. Some think it's unfair and others think it's demeaning to those groups because it "undermines individuals of that race/sex/etc."

It's just as you say. There will be backlash and continued fighting from opposition, regardless of whatever future you mould.


Hell I don't expect to see a properly inclusive society in our lifetimes but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for anything less either.

Well, as I said, you can continue to fight if only to hold back the tide.


When it comes to these issues logic stands hand in hand with empathy. In a social justice context, personal stories are used to generate empathy and to illustrate the humanity of disenfranchised groups. Arguably speaking, empathy is the more effective approach. People have to care enough to support you and statistics and other data are typically used to supplement emotional arguments.

Logic cannot be sustained as a primary method of argument when fear and other programmed responses are sustaining the systems we have to fight.

I'm not trying to sell us as perfect either but it's obvious that there are deep misunderstandings in how and why social justice movements operate the way that they do.

Before I continue, I'd like to point this out. Social justice is a contradiction unto itself. When anything falls into the hands of social context, justice is out of the picture. Justice is suppose to be blind, but laws don't always make justice and I think we can all agree on that one. Social justice itself has had a bad history behind it though. From Inquisitions to Witch Hunts and lynching. I don't think you can reclaim a phrase that has always had negative connotations behind it. Not to mention, it's a derogatory to be called Social Justice Warriors and you get laughed at more than lauded for using the exact same title people don't already like.

So why not something less contradictory and more respectable sounding? What about Social Equality Advocates? Even the acronym looks better and would cause less people to click away at the mere sight of the previous acronym. Only a suggestion. It doesn't really have any ways I can think of to discredit it just by name.

Anyway, back on subject. The opposite side isn't just a flock of annoying pigeons. It's used to the same effect on the other side whereas they're told it's not as important. That isn't drawing anymore empathy if you're trying to convince other people to do so with you. It's a two way street and both sides need to respect the boundaries. You can use all the facts and statistics you want, but immediately disregarding the same from the other side and calling them irrational, irrelevant or ignorant and not saying why is a good way to lose support.

On one side, too much emotion and you risk looking hysterical or unstable. On the other, too much logic and you look robotic or possibly like you don't even care about it. It's a delicate balance and if you screw up on either, the opposition will capitalize on it, regardless of how right your point was. In other words, you can't screw into a bullhorn the whole time and still look sane.

[shiney]

I was going to relate a story about my own xenophobia for black men in pairs or groups, but this thread is not about me and sharing an anecdote is ultimately a waste of time and bandwidth.

Just get the fuck out of here. You're not welcome. This isn't even like "NPF is safe place // no fun zone" bullshit or whatever, just fucking go. I'm not even going to report you. If I were still an admin I'd have banned you on the spot. This shit is reprehensible. I won't even go into the rest of your shitty fucking post. Like you're the goddamn victim somehow? Because your life is made so hard by people protesting their daily living conditions?

Holy shit, I can't believe you're even serious about this. Please tell me more about how the oogy boogy black men and feminazis make your life a living hell. You asked to be banned from the discussion forum, rather than exercising a modicum of restraint. The other mods decided instead to leave you enough rope to hang yourself.

Or perhaps I should use terminology you're evidently more comfortable with?

Consider yourself lynched.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

Actually I did report you because it's the fastest way to get your poison out. My comment: "Ban this mother fucker now."

I can't even.

[POS Industries]

Oh, are we finally telling RMB to go fuck himself with wasp's nest?

Because hey RMB go fuck yourself, wasp's nest, etc.

[McTahr]

I'm sorry, but no, we're not dog piling.

This is under review.

In the mean time. Go play a video game. Watch a movie. Do a little dance. Whatever makes you happy. Whatever finds your zen.

Because jesus.

---------- Post added 03-10-2015 at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was 03-09-2015 at 08:29 PM ----------

The moderation team has reviewed the situation.
Per discussion re: member history, infractions, etc.

Warnings all around.
Shiney, POS, this is pretty much your first and last time to ever treat another forum member like that, regardless of any differences you may have.
RMB, "I was going to relate a story about my own xenophobia for black men in pairs or groups" reads as racism, whether intentional, subconscious, overt, covert, whatever. Hate-speech is also not acceptable in any form.

[MSperoni]

RMB: Your views are extremely unfortunate but I believe you have the right to express them in the political section of this forum, but understand that doing so puts you in a very antagonistic position and I would strongly advise you to think VERY HARD about whether you want to enter in a discussion like this in the future. It might be best for you to take a break from NPF for awhile.

POS and Shiney: I don't blame you for responding how you did since it was really hard for me not to say similar things. Nobody's perfect...Still, if we wanna have "rules" we ought to try to stick to them...