First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply The New Feminist Movement
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 5/10/15 , edited 5/11/15

maxgale wrote:

Conversely:



"Authorities have not revealed a motive, and Feminists United members said they had no evidence connecting Mann’s killing to the Yik Yak threats or her activism on campus."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/before-death-of-student-an-altercation-with-her-roommate/2015/05/07/276ea926-f4f1-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html


Alright I contend to the fact I was not aware of this information. I admit I was running on faulty info. Mea Culpa Mea Culpa.

Still I think that rape culture on campuses is still a real goal that feminists are the only ones fighting.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 5/10/15 , edited 5/10/15

_MissTake_ wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

Did you read the article? Its pretty obvious that it was based on her beliefs based on the death threats she was getting because of her beliefs. If it looks like a fish and smells like a fish its probably a fucking fish.


Unless it's not a fish. In which case you probably need to take a shower and get glasses.


Im not talking with you.
Posted 5/10/15

megahobbit wrote:

Im not talking with you.


Didn't say you were. But I have as much rights to quote anyone and express myself, don't I, Mr. Feminist?
Or are you trying to tell me what I can and cannot do?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 5/10/15 , edited 5/10/15

_MissTake_ wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

Im not talking with you.


Didn't say you were. But I have as much rights to quote anyone and express myself, don't I, Mr. Feminist?
Or are you trying to tell me what I can and cannot do?


No im not saying im not directing my comments to you. Of course you have every right to say what you want just like I have every right to ignore you.

Im saying that I refuse to talk to you cause of our past disagreements. I stand by my last statement made to you Fuck You. Nothing fruitful will come out of talking with you.

INB4: HE INSULTED A FEMALE HES NOT A FEMINIST.
7577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 5/10/15

maxgale wrote:



geauxtigers1989 wrote:

@Max

There is nothing wrong with citing their murders, especially since the reasons behind said murders prove the necessity of each movement.


Except that wasn't what you asked. That conclusion can't be reached on the premise you offered.



It is. You stated you believed citing the young woman's murder to be foul play. I brought up the murders of Till, Evers and Byrd to show it is reasonable to do so when the circumstances behind said murders highlight the concerns of the movement. It may not be a perfect comparison as the UMW case isn't as clear-cut as the other three, but you should get the idea.
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 5/10/15
I really don't know how to feel about feminist or non feminist.
Posted 5/10/15

megahobbit wrote:

No im not saying im not directing my comments to you.

Im saying that I refuse to talk to you cause of our past disagreements. I stand by my last statement made to you Fuck You.

INB4: HE INSULTED A FEMALE HES NOT A FEMINIST.


Well, someone's salty.

You could've simply ignored me, you know.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 5/10/15 , edited 5/10/15

_MissTake_ wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

No im not saying im not directing my comments to you.

Im saying that I refuse to talk to you cause of our past disagreements. I stand by my last statement made to you Fuck You.

INB4: HE INSULTED A FEMALE HES NOT A FEMINIST.


Well, someone's salty.

You could've simply ignored me, you know.


I freely admit im salty. Know let me say this. I will respond to you if you bring up a legitemate point like you have done at times in the past but im done with the "above it all" crap you pull while insulting me.
Posted 5/10/15

megahobbit wrote:

I freely admit im salty. Know let me say this. I will respond to you if you bring up a legitemate point like you have done at times in the pass but im done with the "above it all" bullshit.


If you didn't get the point of my response, then I shall leave it at that.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 5/10/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


maxgale wrote:



geauxtigers1989 wrote:

@Max

There is nothing wrong with citing their murders, especially since the reasons behind said murders prove the necessity of each movement.


Except that wasn't what you asked. That conclusion can't be reached on the premise you offered.



It is. You stated you believed citing the young woman's murder to be foul play. I brought up the murders of Till, Evers and Byrd to show it is reasonable to do so when the circumstances behind said murders highlight the concerns of the movement. It may not be a perfect comparison as the UMW case isn't as clear-cut as the other three, but you should get the idea.


Except the examples cited were in the context of agreeing to my original premise. Therefore what you were asking was, "Does the action of using people expressly to deflect valid inquiry have the same result, if in this example these individuals are also being used for such purposes?"

To which I affirmed that such a behavior categorically is so.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 5/10/15
Has anyone noticed OP misspelled feminist as feminst.
7577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 5/10/15

maxgale wrote:


Except the examples cited were in the context of agreeing to my original premise. Therefore what you were asking was, "Does the action of using people expressly to deflect valid inquiry have the same result, if in this example these individuals are also being used for such purposes?"

To which I affirmed that such a behavior categorically is so.


Which was not my intention as I believed hobbit's purpose of citing the UMW case was to highlight the necessity of the feminist movement.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 5/10/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


maxgale wrote:


Except the examples cited were in the context of agreeing to my original premise. Therefore what you were asking was, "Does the action of using people expressly to deflect valid inquiry have the same result, if in this example these individuals are also being used for such purposes?"

To which I affirmed that such a behavior categorically is so.


Which was not my intention as I believed hobbit's purpose of citing the UMW case was to highlight the necessity of the feminist movement.



Which returns to what I originally stated. The usage of persons for such purposes does not reveal the need for such movements, but rather the nature of the movements, actors within them, or both.
7577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 5/10/15

maxgale wrote:



Which returns to what I originally stated. The usage of persons for such purposes does not reveal the need for such movements, but rather the nature of the movements, actors within them, or both.


And this is where we disagree. It makes perfect sense to me to use the racially motivated murders as a reason to continue pushing for black American civil rights as it is indicative that there is still work needed to be done. The same would apply to the UMW case if it is revealed the young woman was murdered because of her activities.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 5/11/15 , edited 5/11/15

AdiRagnarocker wrote:

Feminism is merely another ploy, like all other "isms" (capitalism, fascism, marxism, etc.) to distract the little people from the salvation that is Technocracy and the Singularity. The reason people actually care about political bullsh|t and "social issues" in the first place is because they lack the primordial necessities of the animal known as homo sapiens: food, clothing, shelter, security and pleasure. Humans don't really want "freedom", and they want "equality" even less; what they really want is to eat and bang. Some want to fight too, but mostly eat and bang. Now imagine a system that guarantees the bare necessities for all humans, without having to break your back with 9 to 5 labor to obtain them, such a system would be the post-scarcity economy that moves beyond the price system. Both capitalists and marxists aim to silence discussion as to such a system, as they know their obtuse ideologies would become obsolete. Humans would enjoy a far greater standard of living without being engulfed in the endless man against man system of political debate and enmity, no longer forced to compete over resources and to justify their shortcomings by seeing oppression everywhere. Politics will not save us, religion will not save us, only science can save us. The way I see things, all politics, feminism included, is a monumental waste of time and energy, and you should be pursuing a career in science if you truly want to help the world. In the forthcoming generation, only a handful of dingbats will still care about such concepts as inequality and "social justice", and you can thank a scientist for that. They're doing the work that "social" scientists are only pretending to do.


That's a very good slice of your life, but what of the person (me) who is so troubled that eating and banging are not such important things? Your perspective on science seems to forget that people tie themselves needlessly to certain feelings and yens, and hedonism is gratifying only to certain people. It's not religion that drives me, it's empathy. Guilt, regret, embarassment. Which may be foreign to you, if you're lucky.

As a rationalist, I don't think science will be able to save us without the proper politics, and that's an ideal that I personally can't give up even if it isn't practical. As a person who was born without a heartbeat and has one suicide attempt under his belt, I'm willing to say I'm sincerely baffled as to why people can't disconnect with their own life enough to make the politics and the science work together. I recognize that I'm speaking from personal authority that I'm learning to accept as not authoritative, but why is anybody so sure about their own experience?

Don't you think there's something to the science of attitude? And don't you think attitude is driving politics to hold back science?

You sound like a Sam Harris reader to me, and I think Sam Harris is irrationally lacking in empathy, even if I like some of his ideas. In Harris' world, the world has either asked itself the same questions as him and come to his conclusion, or they have never asked themselves the questions he finds important.

In the real world, people come to the same conclusions as him without asking themselves the questions he asked, come to different conclusions while asking themselves the same questions, and come to the same conclusions while asking the different questions. It's like those drink deals at the fancy McDonald's, you can poke away and make wild decisions about what you're going to drink, and even if it inevitably tastes a little like the last person's pop, you've chosen something unique to you.

Engage me for a minute and forget that everybody drinks different soda.
Let's say it's a soda machine that gives out Cola or Ginger Ale. Most people who visit this machine want Cola, nothing wrong with that. But every once in a while, somebody wants Ginger Ale, and there's so much Cola residue left behind on the spout that the Ginger Ale tastes a little bit like Cola.

Can they complain? I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't ignore a complaint like that, because it's real and my Ginger Ale was a little discolored too.

Harris is no less important to me as an atheist, but he is at the same time detrimental as a racist. It's like this guy I heard about in Colorado who runs a barbeque shop, he's going to have a white appreciation day. Instead of giving everybody a discount, he's going to give white people a discount because he thinks black history month and Latino history month are unfair to white people. He's Latino, I don't know much else beyond that.

But if you're going to offer a discount for a cause like white appreciation, offer it to everybody, right? It's not like white people aren't allowed to listen to Dr. King in February. People are dumb, regardless of their attitude, and politics are supposed to mitigate that empirical fact.

Politics can also be used to abuse it, which is where the anti-feminist movement really gains traction.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.