I’m spoiled. I’ve been playing on easy mode all my life, but now I’d like my superpowers. It’s not going to require joining the Republican party, is it?
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I’m spoiled. I’ve been playing on easy mode all my life, but now I’d like my superpowers. It’s not going to require joining the Republican party, is it?
iddqd
I just haven’t figured out where to enter it yet. idspispopd will let you walk through walls. Holler if you find the right keyboard to enter these on, I could use them.
^ is it odd that I remember all the doom cheat codes off the top of my head, despite not having played it in something like 18 years?
I realise it’s harder to be a woman than it is to be a man, but, genuine question, do you think being gay more adversely affects a man or a woman? Or is it about equal? Because most of the hate spewed against homosexuality (that I see anyway) is about ‘faggots’ and people with ‘loose anuses’ and the like, it rarely seems to be so directed at lesbians. But I don’t live in America, so it might just be an incorrect outsider’s perspective from England, wherein homosexuals are treated (almost) equally; where being gay might make some people feel ‘uncomfortable’ or might disappoint your parents a bit, but won’t (generally) get you outcast from society.
and lesbians instead get “if you think your daughter might be a lesbian, just get a friend of your to fuck her straight”
comparing oppressions and trying to figure out which is worse is Oppression Olympics and best avoided.
And if this is a game, then the graphics are fantastic but the writer should be shot.
I’m not; this piece (which I agree with) is, by saying ‘gay minority female’ is the hardest; but I’m just wondering if being a gay female is necessarily harder than being a gay male.
You seem to think it’s not, I have no reason to doubt you, so fair enough.
I like the metaphor. Misses some important things (probably because he only touched on them briefly) but a pretty good explanation of what privilege is.
it doesn’t. “hardcore” != “hardest”. and it’s undeniably true that “gay minority female” is a really fucking hard setting. so is “disabled minority male”, or “trans female” or any number of other sets of oppressions.
redpanda
I would say no, but I’m kind of biased.
you seem to like to jump to conclusions.
Wait, do you have any idea how bad you make straight white male loosers feel with this kind of talk?
This would be one of the failings of the difficulty setting metaphor.
It isn’t a tier or anything like that. It isn’t Easy->Casual->Normal->Expert->Hard->Insane. It’s closer to “begin with X items, Y approval, Z gold” settings, where the character is assigned initial items, npc interaction level and gold. Obviously the nicer the items and the more gold the easier the challenges will be because you can afford options other players can’t and the more responsive (or at least less hostile) npcs are the smoother the play experience will be.
losers, damn
Okay then you don’t think it’s harder, I apologise.
to speak about “necessarily harder” is to even completely miss the point of the article. it’s not “necessarily harder” to be something other than a straight white male, because maybe you lucked out on some other variables; but that doesn’t change the fact that “straight”, “white”, and “male” are variables on which you did luck out. And it says that right there in the article:
@ryanwilkinson
Legally speaking, it would be harder to be a gay man. Most anti-homosexuality laws were worded as anti-sodomy laws while sex between two women was notoriously hard to define.
*facepalm*
I think that I have no means of knowing either way (and neither does anyone else, for lack of a reliable method of measuring oppressions that look completely different from each other), but it very likely is one or the other, because it’s highly unlikely that they are actually really equally oppressive.
also, if “you don’t think it’s harder” is supposed to be the opposite of “You seem to think being a gay female is not necessarily harder than being a gay male”, one of us is having a massive communication failure
I’m sorry, obviously ‘You don’t think it’s harder’ contradicts ‘I think that I have no means of knowing either way’ and means the same thing as ‘You think it’s the same’ or ‘You think the other is harder’.
Thanks, Bribase.
Try exercising it, see how far that gets you.
bribase, surely you realize your argument depends a great deal upon the year. Legally speaking, sodomy laws were struck down in the USA nine years ago, and cases had been relatively rare for a while before that.
PZ following the ways of the Tea Party will indeed unlock all of your powers but once you stop following their rules the powers are gone. I would suggest reading or rereading KJV before attempting to reach the Jedi level or for that matter even before joining the Rebel Alliance.
“Size matters not, … Look at me. Judge me by size, do you?”
Actually, the code is really quite simple:
Step One: Go to Spain
Step Two: Start a pro tennis or soccer or road racing cyclism career
And that’s it: you’ll get your Avengers level Superpowers:
This analogy is stupid. In life, consuming jugs marked “XXX” and whole roasted fowl at a sitting makes your hit points go down faster, grunt generators are unlimited, and there’s no point at which shots don’t hurt other players yet, if my memories of junior high are at all reliable.
@laurentweppe
…What the hell did I just watch?
If the the ways of the Tea Party gets me Jedi powers, who do I talk to about hooking up with the Sith? I just want Force lightning, is that too much to ask?
See? I can’t even find the generator that spawned dano; how can I destroy it?
My one serious question and response to the article is “So what?”.
What is his point? What does he want me to do?
Jadehawk, mostly off-topic, but I have something here that is Weirder Than We Can Suppose. I’m not sure what else to say, but like an unidentified species, I want to show you it.
I think I’m with Brownian @#24. This analogy is stupid.
I don’t game.
But I have daughters.
How do I raise them to play?
thanks! that’s… deeply, awesomely weird.
*off to read paper*
jordanchandler,
I dunno about Scalzi, but I’d like you to call your Senators and Representative, and tell them to support the Paycheck Fairness Act.
@jordanchandler
nothing. He’s explaining the situation to you.
not whine about how mean/racist/sexist affirmative action is
not pull shit like this
not bullshit about politics of victimization
not bullshit about how being “colorblind” or “genderblind” or any of that shit is better than actually talking about race, gender, etc.
support legislation and social movements that seek to give “better armor” (to stick with the metaphor) to those playing at the harder settings so as to make playing at the higher difficulty levels a bit more equal to playing at the easier ones
be actively against any legislation or social movements that seeks to take away of these equalizing measures
etc.
this is not actually difficult, once you’ve understood the concept. really.
or, strictly speaking, what you’re supposed to do is not Scalzi’s point in that particular essay; this essay is merely an explanation.
But assuming fairness and equality are things you give a fuck about, the consequent actions of the situation he’s explaining are pretty obvious, and include but aren’t limited to the things I list in my previous post.
Back in my day, we had pinball and I don’t remember anybody complaining. None of this “difficulty settings” affirmative action crap. It was a level playing field, except for the slight tilt of the table, and the flippers worked the same for everyone.
(Ducks while point flies over head)
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
Of course it is based on it’s history. But I think that history speaks a great deal about the lasting social stigma. I took a look at some statistics here: http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/documents/NCAVPHateViolenceReport2011Finaledjlfinaledits_000.pdf On page 24 there is a chart showing violence perpetrated against gay men in 2010 was almost half and lesbians a quarter. Of course this might be subject to a reporting bias and says nothing about the general social climate for lesbians.
Personally, I see the religious right speaking out much more about gay men than gay women. In a patriachal society, heterosexual men “get” why women are attractive to other women. They are much more fearful of the desire (perhaps their own?) for sex with other men.
Do you live under a motherfucking rock? Are you not familiar with the omnipresent narratives about converting women? It’s because we’re ‘not really’ lesbians. Lesbians aren’t allowed to actually exist. We’re here to put on a show for dudes before getting into a 2 women/1 man threesome with one, by and large. Fuck, if being lesbian is supposed to be so awesome, why do you think that these same idiots try to discredit feminism by calling feminists lesbians?
His point is that you have it easier. What to do about it varies. Broadly, it’s “stop pretending you don’t have it easier”. If you have values on things like equality, then it behooves you to work to help make them reality.
I haven’t seen it. Lesbian sex is relegated to fetish territory where it is only for masturbation. When the women aren’t “attractive” or there’s any threat to the man’s masculinity dyke quickly becomes an insult.
I think as a very simple clue-by-four, Scalzi’s post seems pretty good in explaining privilege.
feralboy:
And those kids better get offa your lawn… yadda yadda… :)
You’ll find a lot of reports that say men are victims of violence by strangers more often than women, regardless of sexual orientation.
From one measure like violence by strangers, you cannot conclude that it is easier to be a man than a woman.
says you
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B AFFS asshole stop playing oppression Olympics.
So many people on this website really need to calm down.
awesome comment
I was waiting for that one…
http://derailingfordummies.com/complete.html#overemotional
Really now, do better, lackwit troll.
still eager to jump to conclusions, I see
@ryanwilkinson
That was the wrong thing to say, man.
Ryanwilkinson: Nice derail. Now will you stop cosmically missing the point with your oppression olympics and complaining that we’re overreacting? You’re obviously being an idiot or troll. Fuck off either way.
And go take a porcupine on the way out.
<Walter> Calmer than you are. </Walter>
I’ll note that it’s much easier to be calm when you’re playing the easiest difficulty setting. So why do others need to calm down? Because that would make you even more comfortable than you already are? What would be the point of that?
Bewareoblivionisathand
All your base pairs are belong to us
Well, I guess this could serve as a starting point to explaining privilege. But as everyone here knows, race, gender, and sexual orientation are not the only forms of privilege. I can personally assure those who doubt that being a Straight White Male™ isn’t so easy when you aren’t neurotypical.
Ryan,
it sounds like your initial question is trying to establish a ranking of oppressions, so that the variables can be ordered and the ‘level of difficulty’ a person experiences can be established by some sort of arithmetic sum… except that the way oppression intersect one another is complicated… some gay women may experience less homophobia than gay men, but that is more than compensated by experiencing more pervasive sexism. So it isn’t a simple case of taking each variable separately and doing some sort of mathematical sum in your head to predict a person’s relative level of disadvantage.
As for Jordan Chandler’s question, does it bother you that there is racist violence? Does it bother you that there is violence against the queer community? Would it surprise you to learn that the subsection of the LGBT community who are most likely to suffer from queer hatred are trans women of colour, who are grossly over-represented in violence (including murder) against queers? If you have to ask your question in the first place, forgive some of us for thinking you’re one of the navel-gazing straight white males Scalzi was writing for.
True. As a popular, socially competent individual adept at communicating, interpreting social cues and using those skills to my advantage, I can only wonder at what life would be like as someone like Ryan.
Easier than being a gay white male who is similarly not neurotypical.
As someone with a fucking clue, I can only wonder what life would be like for someone like Ryan.
Shit, Brownian you’re better than that. Being an asshole =/= to having an neuro-atypical brain.
This is my point, I asked a simple question, read an answer, and accepted it. I wasn’t trying to establish a social hierarchy, I wasn’t drawing a diagram, I was simply asking. The article discusses *exactly* “difficulty settings”, and yet I have taken all the flak for trying to establish a ‘ranking of oppressions.’ I do not recall doing that. I do not recall saying ‘gay men get discriminated against more than gay women therefore ignore women and therefore women don’t have any problems.’
Now I understand that most people on this site are atheists and feminists living in a somewhat backwards nation, and a lot of the time people you encounter who you disagree with are trying to do something ferociously stupid, and that you get angry at them, and that’s fine.
I asked if being a homosexual man, in America, could result in more discrimination than if you were a homosexual woman. Then everyone started swearing and shouting and I resulted in being a socially inept person without a fucking clue who can’t interpret social cues, nor am I popular, nor am I able to communicate.
So I will very happily stand by my original point that people on this website need to calm down; and if you genuinely believe my question was the gateway to me trying to oppress or justify oppression of any sort of person, I am genuinely sorry for giving off that impression, but at the same time, I am sure I didn’t.
and your evidence for people not being calm while taking you to task for your communication failures is… what exactly?
what the fuck are you talking about. people have been pointing out to you that you’re playing Oppression Olympics; no one accused you of you trying to oppress of justify oppression. so, which hole did you pull that one out of?
Jadehawk:
That was not a communications failure. Xe is just asking questions.
As soon as you responded I said ‘I have no reason to doubt you, so fair enough’ and you continued. I apologised for misunderstanding, and yet you continued. I notice you didn’t reply to how I pointed out that ‘You don’t think it’s harder’ means literally that, and that you jumped to conclusions as much as I did, but, that’s irrelevant.
If you think ‘Do you live under a motherfucking rock?’ (Comment not directed at me) is calm or that I am in engaging in ‘oppression Olympics’ is calm, then, what?
There was an episode of Scrubs, I recall, where Turk and Elliot were discussing whether it was harder to be black or a woman in the workplace.
Do you know what didn’t happen? This.
which are prompted by him incorrectly reading “hardcore” as “hardest”, which allowed him to claim that it wasn’t him playing OO, it was Scalzi
Please reply in one post, it’d be a lot easier. And don’t get mad at me for asking that, I swear down, if it’s significantly easier for you to reply in several or more, that’s fine, that’s so fine.
Um, I said ‘if’. I was just trying to cover all the bases. The you was a royal you.
‘People who participate in Oppression Olympics tend to ignore the fact that it’s possible for multiple groups to be oppressed.’
We’ll compare this to my question. ‘I realise it’s harder to be a woman than it is to be a man, but, genuine question, do you think being gay more adversely affects a man or a woman? Or is it about equal?’
because it’s just another example of you suffering from communication failure, since 1)you basically repeated yourself in #6 and #14 (which you still haven’t noticed, have you), and 2)I have at no point said that your generic “you don’t think it’s harder” is incorrect, only that you’re jumping to conclusions, which prompted me to explain in detail, since you were being simplistic
I’m sorry, but what about either of these statements shows a lack of calmness? no one is yelling, and no one is abusing Capslock or exclamation marks, which are the bare minimum indication that someone is losing their cool. because other than that, I could be pissed as fuck and use polite language on the internet, and similarly I can use coarse language while being in a midafternoon stupor. it’s entirely correlation-free.
quote or it didn’t happen.
yeah. amazing. a fictional conversation in a piece of fiction that isn’t part of a social justice space ignores the fact that such comparisons are worthless ignore core concepts of intersectionality.
shocking, I know.
All of the “It’s not easy being a straight white male with <another problem>” misses the point that it’s still harder being an LGBT brown female with the same problem.
I’m not jumping to conclusions, you’d already said that you didn’t think it was harder, so I apologised for implying otherwise. Then you had your mini-essay attempting to rebut my ‘generic’ comment but in no way contradicted it, but go ahead, claim you meant that all along.
I would like to know where I have engaged in Oppression Olympics moreso than the author of the article when he explicitly says some disadvantages are harder than others, and I simply asked if it was harder to be a gay man, or a gay woman.
At no point did I say ignore the oppression of lesbians.
At no point did I say ignore the oppression of women.
At no point did I say ignore any oppression of anyone.
You clearly got so excited during your last sentence you couldn’t construct it.
I asked a question, you answered, I said ‘I have no reason to doubt you. Fair enough.’ What are you doing?
For example the commentor there who thought he was being clever when he said this
“2. The quickest way to fail at this or any other game is to spend all your time complaining about how unfair and difficult it is rather than playing.”
You could apply that bit to straight white males who complain about being oppressed.
@54:
Easier than being a non-neurotypical female, let me assure you. For some reason, when the non-neurotypical SWMs throw a pity party about their lack of a love life, they explicitly leave me out of it.
please reread your comment at #6, slowly. also, revisit the chronology of this conversation. you are confused about something, and I’m not entirely certain what that is, but it may be that you’ve typed something you didn’t mean to type, and are now assuming your comments are saying something else than you meant them to.
your comment was wrong in #6, and #14 just repeated that wrongness. the wrongness was in its imprecision, and in the fact that I had in fact not said or in any way implied that I didn’t think that being gay and female was necessarily harder than being gay and male. you jumped to a conclusion; which would be true regardless of whether you guessed correctly, btw.
quote or it didn’t happen.
since no one said anything of the sort, you’re just pulling more crap outta your ass. what for? we can all read this thread, we can all see that this is bullshit.
yes, that’s the only possible explanation. being dead-tired is of course not a possible explanation, and neither is simple typoing.
you jumped to conclusions that were nowhere in what I posted, and I corrected you on that, and been trying to do so ever since (plus the new stuff you’re being wrong about). what are you doing?
You’re right, FossilFishy, asshole move on my part. I’m sorry for the implication, and for coopting A.R’s otherwise salient point.
Again, I’m sorry.
FIFM. definitely bedtime *sigh*
Either you do think it’s harder, or you do not.
Ah I see my repetition, haha no yeah that was an error on my part, awkward.
I’ll clarify: The first time I meant you don’t seem to think it’s harder being a gay male, the second time I meant you don’t think it’s harder being a gay female.
That was bad on my part, I apologise. Entirely my error. I’m tired too…
By very virtue of having a ranking system he says some are harder than others!
I mean really; where the fuck in comment #4 do I say that I don’t think it’s harder to be female and gay than it is to be male and gay?
all that comment does is point out one example of how female homosexuals are abused, and pointing out that making such comparisons is both futile and playing Opression Olympics.
not a fucking word about how I don’t think homosexual women have it harder than homosexual men
I, too, take all my life lessons on how things should work from Scrubs, so when janitors threaten to kill me, or straight up, abduct me, or create bizarre inventions such as a knife-wrench and declare it to be for kids, I shrug and accept it as part of a normal day for anyone.
well, that’s one part of this ridiculous conversation taken care of.
but he doesn’t have a ranking system for different kinds of oppressions. he has a ranking system for non-oppression vs. oppression.
You said you didn’t know, which means you don’t think it’s harder for either! Surely! Because you don’t know! “I think that I have no means of knowing either way”
yep. after you made a statement about my beliefs, twice, without any evidence either way.
so I explained.
[Extricates himself from Louis’ Groop Sehx pile, brushes the lube out of his beard, goes to stand in the Brownian’s Ghay Sehx queue]
I do so love a man who knows how to apologize.
and considering that at that time I didn’t even know you fucked up comment #6, it seemed to be a conclusion contrary to the evidence even.
‘You don’t think it’s harder’ is correct, whether repeated or not, it is correct.
You do not think it’s harder. I was right all along WHAT IS THIS
(Even if I did jump)
incidentally, are you aware that this is an ambiguous statement? it can mean both that I think they have it equally hard, and that I don’t have any thoughts on who has it harder (i.e. an agnostic position).
Just FYI
I’m aware, but I think definitely given the context of that one you can easily tell I’m talking about an agnostic position.
and that’s the second admission that was necessary.
now if you could admit that Scalzi isn’t grading some oppressions as worse than others, and that no one accused you of supporting the oppression of anyone, we can finish talking (as long as you don’t introduce any new points into this conversation, anyway)
oh, I guess admitting that you had no reason to claim that people here weren’t calm would be nice too… but I suppose I’d settle for the other two.
What I don’t think Ryan gets, is that people who are oppressed are still oppressed no matter what their particular oppression is. That’s not saying that having multiple oppressions isn’t worse than only having one.
Jumping correctly is fiiiiiiiiine.
I like your blog.
The title is ‘Straight White Male.’ Maybe that implies that’s what he thinks are the three most important things (to me, it seems to). Maybe not, which I’m sure is what your opinion is, but I guess we can’t really tell without asking; and being asked, he’d almost certainly say they’re all roughly the same; perhaps putting trans as being more difficult than gay in *some* geographical areas, but I suppose I don’t know.
‘What I don’t think Ryan gets, is that people who are oppressed are still oppressed no matter what their particular oppression is.’
Never said that. I thought I made it clear enough.
O.o
no it isn’t. rational argument requires that you come to your conclusions based on evidence, not jump to them and hope you luck out.
thanks. one of these days i might even get back to writing things on it
Educated guess.
Also, TOLD YOU, I TOLD YOU people thought I would be like reducing the severity of oppression!
you claimed people were already doing that. which wasn’t true. call it a self-fulfilling prophecy if you will, but that doesn’t make your comments correct. unless you’re unglued in time, of course.
still a guess, and completely unwarranted. guessing, even educated guessing, is what causes comments like A.R’s
;) Educated guesses, knockin’ ’em out the park.
If you want something for your blog, there’s a video very relevant to your first statement (about lesbians being ‘fucked straight’) you might wanna look at and be horrified exists.
But it is porn… and some people might get angry for not finding it relevant to the original post.
I’m not posting porn on my blog O.o
You’d definitely find it interesting, it begins with a ‘lesbian’ and ends with the sentence ‘I have been fucked straight’.
Not, real, of course or I would have told some kind of police or something, but acted, quite mainstream.
But this is all entirely irrelevant now.
also, no. accusing people who weren’t accusing you of supporting oppression is no the same as guessing that sooner or later, someone will.
@ 2
omg i feel old now
stop talking about porn to me, it’s weirding me the hell out
I’m surely not the only one that thinks mainstream porn enacting raping lesbians straight is wrong, but anyway fine, sorry.
I knew someone would!
As has all your posts since your first fuckwitted question, followed by your inane trolling (all trolling is inane). The hole is well over your head. Remember the first rule of holes, and cease your fuckwitted trolling. Ideally, apologize to the regulars and fade into the bandwidth.
Fuck, now I remember. ryanwilkinson is the idiot who took a dump all over this thread about profiling Muslims.
Genuine Question™: How long does it take to get a fucking clue?
If I’d realised asking what seemed like an innocuous question would cause all this, I would not have asked. I didn’t ask it to ‘troll’ pharyngula, I asked out of curiosity.
Sorry.
oh, that one. where he tried to explain to Audley what a jew was. good stuff. :-D
I think we have a new candidate for TZT incarceration!
“to engage with Christians, and show them that being godless doesn’t make you a bad person
I think I see where the problem started [engaging with Christians].”
Quote by Brownian. Brackets mine. How many “cultural Christians” got offended? Nooooooooooooone.
“to engage with Jews, and show them that being godless doesn’t make you a bad person
I think I see where the problem started [engaging with Jews].”
Bet that would have seemed anti-Semitic.
cr:
Oh my god, it’s that little shit!
Good lord, RyRy, don’t you ever stop to think about the shit that you spew?
I don’t believe you. Now leave, and only come back on a TZT thread with the rest of the fuckwitted trolls. Earn your way off it.
I’m sick of being attacked by people whose opinions include world war one being caused by masculinity issues.
If you honestly asked, the initial question would have been fine. But when we corrected you on that, you started whining, derailing and saying “I didn’t do X, I did Y”. That is why you are a fuckwit.
It’s not merely the asking, but the obtuse idiocy that followed.
Genuine Questions™: When else have you commented at Pharyngula, except for the other thread I linked above? Do you do anything other than ask stupid questions and engage in apologetics for bigots?
Or the opinion that say, two examples of white on black crime means that “This shit is increasing. This shit is increasing” without citing any statistics or studies of the sort. But then again you know this person is “Cassandra” in her ability to predict the future but never be believed.
I wonder, Audley, how you’d react to two examples of black on white crime being cited in a blog and then that person writing “This shit is increasing!”
reads as
On the ‘Goddamned Racist America’ thread, I said that Call of Duty isn’t that bad compared to a game called ‘Ethnic Cleansing’, in which you go around and kill black people, Latino people, and Jews.
well audley? would you be offended and declare such a quip by Brownian to be antisemitic?
be aware that ryan knows more about jews than you do, so your answer might mean you have to turn in your jew-card and give it to ryan instead.
what relevance can your “dear Muslima…” moment possibly have to this thread…?
“Instead of your trite answers, try this: Instead of insisting that any Muslim is a potential threat to our security*, let’s say that any Jew is a potential threat to our security.”
‘Engaging with Christians is a problem’ however isn’t bigoted because … it’s less hyperbolic? It’s less paranoid? I’m not quite seeing the distinction.
And thanks Jadehawk, for equating one Jew with every Jew ever. That was kind of you.
“Genuine Questions™: When else have you commented at Pharyngula, except for the other thread I linked above?” – Consciousness Razor.
I also said I personally didn’t like Call of Duty and that in most installments you rarely play as one country and never as the other, if that helps you not want to say ‘Dear Muslima…’. I was simply paraphrasing.
I haven’t read the comments in this thread but I already know they’re going to be full of fucking fail. How do I know that? Why, because 122 comments in a short time on a topic like this is bound to bring out fuckers.
evidently. sad too, since your rhetorical questions are actually pretty fucking close, only missing the question of relative power dynamics
you’re adorable when you’re flailing about. But FYI, I haven’t done any such thing. I merely made fun of you for trying to explain to a jewish person what a jew is.
Josh, the cupcake who tried to tell Audley that he knew more about Judaism and Jewish people than she does is back.
Now he’s complaining about privilege.
just one, and the conversation left the original topic a long time ago, to instead focus on the many ways in which ryan is wrong about almost anything he chooses to talk about.
RyRy:
Where the hell is this coming from? Did I miss part of this thread?
Here’s the thing, genius, I’m well read enough to know that racially motivated crime is on the increase. I’ve often linked to the Southern Poverty Law Center because they’re a handy-dandy resource when it comes to hate crimes/hate groups of all stripes. So, because I’m not a complete ignoramus, I know that shit is happening without demanding that stats are given.
But I wouldn’t be offended if someone else asked for stats, if that’s what you’re getting at.
I’d look up numbers or ask for clarification, dumbass.
Really, what was the point of all of this?
Jadehawk:
No, but then again, I know what antisemitic actually means. (Without using Wikipedia, even!)
No cultural Christians got offended at that comment, and I reckon it’s because they don’t identify themselves as Christians.
Jew however has always tended to encompass more than just the religion, sigh, this argument.
Shut your mouth and get the fuck out of here. You’re an obscenity.
Josh,
I ♥ your fucking bluntness.
Very inconsistent.
The only difference is the level of paranoia and hyperbole.
‘I don’t like Christians.’ How do you feel about that sentence?
(In process of looking at the stats)
If you were truly sick of the responses you have received, you would have faded into the bandwidth thirty posts ago oh pointless fuckwit. You don’t tell your betters what to think. Your betters don’t troll.
no cultural christians here have gotten offended, because they got the joke
no secular jews here would likely be offended by such a quip either (as supported by audley’s comment).
you have no point. really, you don’t.
the same way i feel about “I don’t like white people” vs “I don’t like black people”
you suck at understanding the very basics of social justice issues.
Convenient really isn’t it.
When someone here says something that could be seen as bigoted by an outsider, it’s obviously not! Of course it’s not!
But if someone else potentially bigoted is somewhere else, it MUST be!
hell, it’s in fact the same way I feel about the “die cis scum” thing that blew up on the internet while back.
I feel just fine about it. I don’t like you, and I don’t like ‘Christians.’ You’re a cancer on civilized society. Your outlook on life and human interactions is evil and retrograde, and I enjoy watching generations of you die off so you fade into cultural obscurity. The more of you who die off the fewer there are to torment people like me.
Did you expect someone to object to that sentiment?
this is awesome, especially in light of the pushback Brownian just got for making an ableist joke. in this very thread.
Oh, Jadehawk, you give him cheap points too easily. It isn’t at all the same thing. Not in his formulation. “Christians,” for him, are hateful judgmental bigots (though he’d deny it). Don’t bend over backwards to concede ethical territory he hasn’t earned.
I don’t like Jews.
Also Audley, the FBI http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr#cius_hatecrime disagrees with you.
Genuinely have no idea what Josh is going on about.
Ryan,
On a thread about racism you introduce a neo-Nazi, ethnic cleansing video game. And on this thread about privilege you want us all to look at “raping the lesbian straight” porn.
Fuck, you’re a piece of work.
no, he expects it to prove his point that saying things against jews as a whole is more bigoted than saying things against muslims as a whole, because the latter supposedly only includes believers regardless of context, while the former supposedly always includes believers and nonbelievers, also regardless of context.
he’s rehashing an old argument, basically, and he’s trying to do so by claiming that those who identify as cultural christians are lying about it for some reason.
I don’t give a flying fuck who you like shitstain. I hate people like you. I hate people who base their identities on exercising power over others and making their lives miserable in order to claim cultural supremacy. That’s evil. And you’re evil.
I’ve been clear. I loath you and I loath your Christianity. There’s nothing to be confused about.
Yes! I did expect someone to object!
How is ‘I don’t like Christians’ any worse than ‘Don’t engage with Christians’?!
I’m not a Christian, Josh.
OK, so you’re not a Christian. Just what are you, Ryan?
I’m not. the parallel is that I belong both to the cultural Christian group, which is privileged, and the white group, which is also privileged. and in both cases, expression of hatred against this privileged group I’m a member of doesn’t phase me in the slightest. we do tend to be fucking assholes, because of privilege.
I’m an atheist.
Audley, you might want to have a go at Josh, he just said something that if you replaced ‘Christian’ with ‘Jew’ would definitely sound antisemitic. But I doubt you will.
OK, I stand corrected. I apologize.
You’re still a dumbass and an asshole.
OH MY GOD SOMEONE FIGURED OUT HOW TO USE GOOGLE!
So, I was wrong. Hate crimes have remained steady over the past few years. *shrugs* It happens.
Here’s a couple of things to consider:
-All violent crimes has been decreasing steadily in the past decade.
-We don’t have stats for 2011 or the beginning of 2012
-Hate groups and hate group activity is on the rise. It would not be unreasonable to expect hate crimes to increase in the next few years.
Why do you think that you can get under my skin, RyRy? It didn’t work last time, why do you think it’s cute now?
Hardly. If ‘Jews are a threat to national security’ is antisemitic, I don’t see why ‘ Jews are a cancer on society’ and ‘I can’t wait for Jews to die out’ wouldn’t be.
This is so awkward!
And for fuck’s sake, RyRy, you’re still missing my point from the last thread. If it’s that important to you, by all means rehash it over there.
what the fuck are you talking about. the stats for 2011 aren’t even out yet in the FBI reports
Josh, OSG:
nigel circles the frozen body, his eyes like two unpowered lasers. He pokes the specimen with various implements: first, a shovel, then a pipette, and later the feather of a banty rooster. The latter he places in a machine about the size and shape of an 800W microwave. Turning this on, nigel purses his lips and nods.
Yes, Dr. OSG, this is a very interesting specimen, at least on the surface, Under the skin, however, it is nothing more than the common North American common troll. This one simply suffers from mange and poor intellectual diet.
Definitely not Cassandra, are you.
please learn why, for example, “die cis scum” is not bigoted, while “die trans scum” is. then maybe you’ll understand the difference between wanting chistians to die out, wanting jews to die out, and wanting muslims to die out.
thx
That’s because you’re too goddamned willfully stupid to understand the difference between bigoted persecution of a minority group to satisfy the tribalism of the majority, and justified hatred of an oppressive majority group by the people it victimizes.
Did someone scramble your brains with an egg beater when you sloshed out of your mom?
Why am I not surprised that our little RyRy completely misses the point about privilege (you know, the topic of this thread before he decided to get dumbass all over it).
In the US (and Europe, where I assume you’re from) Christians are the privileged group. What you’re doing, RyRy, is arguing that “cracker” has same hateful connotations as “nigger”.
I’m literally repeating Audley’s argument here Josh, I wouldn’t get too vitriolic.
Any chance for euthenasia, Nigel?
RyRy,
Uh, no you’re not. Check my 162.
No such thing as “too” vitriolic with a scum bucket like you.
Right, so saying horrible, murderous, ‘tarnishing them all with the same brush’ things about Christians (despite Christians having the exact same cultural connotations as Jew does) is okay?
liar.
the argument Audley made was to substitute one minority group (Jews) for another minority group (Muslims). Substituting a dominant group for a minority group is not even close to the same argument.
… And the little fucker still can’t read!
Good show, Ry!
See, Audley, the fuck of it is he’s pretending not to understand the difference between insulting an oppressor and kicking down at someone lower than you. He’s pretending not to know the difference between “cracker” and “nigger.” That makes him so much worse—it’s the mark of an actual sociopath.
“I feel just fine about it. I don’t like you, and I don’t like ‘Christians.’ You’re a cancer on civilized society. Your outlook on life and human interactions is evil and retrograde, and I enjoy watching generations of you die off so you fade into cultural obscurity. The more of you who die off the fewer there are to torment people like me.”
This is not okay!
One more time, to drive it home:
And yet he questions us. Apparently, someone didn’t understand the point of Scalzi’s post about privilege.
There’s a shocker.
No, fuck that Christians aren’t a minority! I don’t give a shit! It wouldn’t be considered ‘okay’ if a black person called white people a cancer on society! It wouldn’t be the-fuck-okay if a black person said he wanted white people to fade off into cultural obscurity! If this is the analysis we’re using then no it is not okay!
from a minority group actively being oppressed by Christian culture? of course. expressions of justified rage by a minority group that carry no actual danger to the dominant group aren’t even remotely the same thing as “horrible, murderous” things being said against a minority group that is actively being targeted for “horrible, murderous” things by the dominant group.
seriously; power dynamics. fucking learn them, and STFU until you’ve done so.
Josh, OSG:
nigel disembowels the bandy rooster, running the warm intestines through his fingers until he brails out the gizzard. This, he throws in a frying pan sizzling in hot oil. The gizzard spits and skitters about the pan.
Hm. I’m thinking not. It seems our troll can tell neither the difference between privilege and disadvantage, nor the difference between choice of worldview and genetic heritage. I believe a Magic 8 Ball would say, “Outlook is bad.” (Which, come to think of it, applies to a certain Microsoft product as well.)
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a fried gizzard to spread on toast with some brie.
*analogy
Are you done hoggling yet? Lord, just write your report for the slimepit and be done with it.
I didn’t begin the white-black analogy.
It is not okay to say Christians are a cancer on society!
oh FFS. Christianity is the dominant group, not the minority.
ryanwilkinson:
Is it OK to say that Christianity is a cancer on society?
Josh,
Here I was, hoping that he was just a garden-variety dumbass.
RyRy,
That’s right, keep licking the boots of your masters. Does it feel good to be used as a tool of the oppressors? Or are you actually so ignorant to think that Christians are in any way, shape, or form oppressed in North America or Europe?
(In the voice of the Hamburglar):Hoggle-oggle-oggle-oggle.
why? because blah blah reverse racism blah?
Yes, and I don’t care that they’re not a minority. Them being the majority does not make it okay to call them ALL a CANCER on society! It does not. If I said ‘Muslims are a cancer’ then I would be torn apart for it, it would be pointed out that not all Muslims are like that; BUT it’s not like if Muslims were the dominant group things would be better for gay people or for people wanting abortions or for women.
ryan,
Are you really this dumb? Just trolling? A weird little psychopath?
I think a black person would be perfectly justified in calling a white person a cancer on society, considering the racist, oppressive shit that passes for “civilization” in this country.
Learning about privilege: UR DOIN IT RONG.
Dumb. Also a liar.
That is not the case.
Because I don’t think it’s okay if a black person stood up and called white people a cancer, I’m a psychopath?
Maybe shit’s so bad in America that calling for the day when all white people die is okay, but that’s certainly not the case here.
So now Christian doesn’t have the same cultural connotation as Jew does?!
“but I’m colorblind” by any other name… is still just as fucking stupid. It is clear you did not understand the essay in the OP.
because unlike with christians, this is an actual credible threat when said against Muslims. why are you still here, instead of learning about power dynamics?
“if”
“if” muslims were the dominant group and christians the minority, then nothing about the comments we’ve made would change. it would still be ok to rage at the dominant group (in this hypothetical scenario, muslims), but not punch down the power gradient at the minority group (in this hypothetical scenario, christians).
Yeah, you’re a liar, Ryan.
no one said that they were the same, but that both can and do refer to believers as well as non-believing cultural adherents
It hasn’t for centuries. Which rock have you been hiding under?
Ryan,
1) Goal posts, you’ve shifted them.
2) OPPRESSION OPPRESSION OPPRESSION! Don’t account for the history of oppression or the fact that African Americans are currently being oppressed or anything.
3) No one has claimed in this thread or the last one where you vomited your bullshit that Jews = Christians. All we’ve said is that there is such a thing as “cultural Christians” and that Judaism isn’t the only religion that has culture tied to it.
But I’m not a dominant group, I’m not a Christian, I don’t have the ability to destroy all Muslims. I don’t have the ability to even come close to destroying all Muslims. I don’t have the influence to create a kind of anti-Muslim cult. There is literally nothing I could do to Muslims that Josh couldn’t do to Christians.
So as soon as Christians drop below 30-40% everything said about them must desist?
I don’t live in a majority Christian country.
Is it OK to say that Christianity is a cancer on society?
Look, I just want to know if I can legitimately bad-mouth Christianity.
THANK YOU CONSCIOUSNESS RAZOR
Do recognize the game he’s playing; and it is a game. It’s calculated.
Stupid, but calculated. Don’t waste your time trying to “explain” things to him. He already understands them; he’s feinting in order to provoke responses.
no one said that they were the same, but that both can and do refer to believers as well as non-believing cultural adherents sometimes, and sometimes only to religious adherents, depending on the context
lol
Josh,
You know, I’m torn between going to bed and just shouting HERP A DERP! at our little Ryan. Care to join my herp parade for a few minutes?
I’m willing to be that you do live in a majority culturally christian country, actually. and that you belong to that culturally privileged group, yourself.
So being a straight white male makes me the dominant group?
What’s a straight white male Muslim then?
Jew tends to include more cultural baggage than Christian when you say ‘Christians’ and ‘Jews’. Obviously it’s different when you say ‘Christian country’.
Yes you can say Christianity is bad, though I’m well aware you were asking … condescendingly/sarcastically/some tone of that kind.
you’re one stupid little cupcake. consciousness razor has not disagreed with us on anything
You’re such a clueless fuckwit. I’ve done you no favors.
Ryan,
Really? ‘Cos you certainly don’t live in a majority Muslim country, since you’ve only got one Jewish friend you probably don’t live in Israel, and I’d be shocked to learn that you live anywhere in Asia.
HERP A DERP!
Well, I’m going to bed, hoping that there’s oil under this here blog, because at the rate he’s going, ryanwilkinson will have struck black gold for me by morning.
An idiot.
someone who has straight white male privilege, but not the privilege of being christian, culturally or religiously
Being culturally Christian makes me dominant, got it. Okay.
So if I go to a non-culturally Christian country, what happens then?
ryanwilkinson:
Pretty much, yeah.
Not quite as up there as white male Christian, but as long as you keep your mouth shut, you’re golden. Still better than female or black.
Damned straight I was. Kinda like you were doing.
If I went to Israel, could I be antisemitic then? Would that be okay?
ryanwildinson:
Give it a shot. Let us know how that goes.
Are you a fucking moron?
Look at the Coptic Christians in Egypt. They are violently oppressed. It’s about the rulers &/or the majority, dumbass.
But Josh didn’t specify American Christians, so that violent oppression for him is a good thing? A cure for the cancer?
Ryan:
I… I don’t even know what this is supposed to prove.
If you want to be arrested and jailed, then sure. Do whatever the hell you want in any country that you want.
depends. but possibly you would no longer be part of that one specific dominant group. If for some freakish reason you had to move to Indonesia, for example, and couldn’t move back, your cultural christianity would possibly no longer be dominant. but then you’d be even more powerfully dominant for other reasons, so who knows what that would get you, in balance (which is why playing oppression olympics, even in reverse, makes little sense)
A cure for the cancer at hand would be for you to die an electronic death.
Lord, you’re one of the stupider commenters in recent memory.
ryanwilkinson:
Awwww, how cute. Playing semantic games as if we’ve never seen anything like it!
Sweet Jebus singing on a pogo stick. I was occupied over on Scalzi’s OP and thankfully he closed down comments for the night because there was an amazing amount of obtuseness on that thread, although given what Ryan’s posted here, he’d have fit right in with those getting whacked by the Mallet of Loving Correction over there.
Although I might have to disagree with PZ slightly here – at the rate Ryan’s going, he’s likely to strike black gold well before dawn. And he’ll have to – with all that doubling down, he’s likely broken the bank and taken out loans to keep betting by now.
That I can say whatever shit I like about whoever I like as long as I am not the majority. This is your theory. A black person calling for the deaths of white people here is okay, because, black people couldn’t do it.
it would certainly not be contributing to any danger to and othering of Jews, unlike doing that here. in fact, doing that would likely get your sorry ass handed to you, since Jews are the dominant group in Israel
ryanwilkinson:
Has anyone here called for the death of Christians?
Ryan:
Holy fucking Christ. This entire fucking time, Josh has been talking about striking back at the oppressors. The Copts are not oppressors in Egypt.
Either you’re still failing at reading comprehension or you’re really trying your damnedest to troll us. Either way: HERP A DERP!
Go lay down in a house fire. Really.
So there it’s morally okay to be antisemitic, in America it is not.
In America it is morally okay to call Christians a cancer, but In Israel or Indonesia, it would not be.
DERRRRP EERRRRRR!
HURRR URRRRRRR
PGGHTANA
URP!
Josh, genuinely, what is your opinion on Muslims?
Welcome to the grown-up world of situational and contextual ethics.
You dumb-ass.
no. about the dominant groups oppressing the group you’re a member of.
no. as long as you’re not part of the dominant group. numerical majorities aren’t always the dominant groups (See: south africa)
stop being wrong on the internet, it’s giving me sleep deprivation
ryanwilksinson:
It’s probably morally neutral in all cases.
Socially significant is a completely different matter. Not that I expect it to matter.
RyRy,
You know, it’s amazing. For someone who whined endlessly in the last thread about people misrepresenting his arguments, you’re sure as shit doing a bang up job of misrepresenting ours.
But, go on, keep being deliberately obtuse. It’s totes adorable.
Ryan, genuinely, what is your opinion on DUUURRRRRRP?
Me too and I’ve gotta work in the morning.
Go on Josh, what’s your opinion on Muslims? Go on!
I’ll take missing the point spectacularly for $500, Alex.
You’re either dirt fucking stupid or a psychopathic liar, Ryan. In any case you ain’t worth the effort.
Shorter ryanwilkinson: Herp! Derp! Category error!
thepint:
“This is the style of posting mastered by ryanwilkinson.”
Ryan, are you this tedious and obtuse in real life?
I got to that part of the thread and imagined Jadehawk being stuck behind her table at a SF convention dealing with one of those fans from Hell. Then calling con security.
But Audley,
Seriously, what’s the cure for that, because as well as sleep deprivation, it’s harshing on my Zen, man!
True fact: I just brushed a spider off my chest (inside my shirt) and I bore it less ill will than I feel toward Ryan.
AAAAaaaAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/arachnophobe]
Hahaha you can’t say it! You can’t say it because it would ENTIRELY go against the premise of what you lot have been arguing, that’s great.
All I’ve said has amounted to don’t stereotype, regardless of majority or minority or whatever words you want to use, and you’ve you know, have requested me to die.
And the others of you, if you think Josh’s opinion on Muslims isn’t very similar worded to his opinions on me (when he thought I was a Christian) and other Christians, you know you’re being dishonest.
I hear ya, Jadehawk. Just goes to show you how much I hate Ryan. Cuz he’s white and I hate white people. And stuff.
Rebuttal to Josh’s excellent point at 242:
? ?
Josh, OSG:
And neo-Nazis. Don’t forget them.
Yep. As I suspected, Ryan doesn’t know about category error. (Hint for Ryan: you can’t just swap out a majority group for a minority group in a situation and expect the implications to be the same.)
you wish, honeycakes. you wish.
seriously, it’s not my fucking fault you’re ethically and rationally challenged and cannot grasp the basic arguments about privilege made in this thread as well as in the OP.
Josh and Audley are right to not dignify your rambling with responses. I’m a fucking idiot with SIWOTI Syndrome for bothering to respond at all.
Shorter Ryan: !
ryanwilkinson #226:
Er, no.
In Israel, if you’re openly anti-Semitic you’re going to be either arrested or murdered.
In the United States, on the other hand, it’s perfectly okay. You might get a lot of people regarding you with disgust if you’re openly anti-Semitic in an urban/liberal area, but you’ll be able to find people who agree with you regardless. In rural areas, especially in the South and Midwest? Chances are fairly high that no one’s even going to give a damn.
Hell, it’s the same thing in Canada. It is not very hard for me to delve into the history of the Reform Party, now the Conservative Party, and pull out direct links to members of the KKK and Northern Alliance.
Audley, if you liked it then you .
Hahahaha, I’m loving it, sorry if I don’t want to to stereotype all Christians as a cancer!
And I don’t wish. I know. And you know too. Josh also can’t wait until the day Muslims die out, he’s just too afraid to say it.
Morally, not legally, Setar.
Do you have any quotes or explanations?
Oh, right. You had to take the invisible quotes and explanations, because they’re magical.
of course you do. just like my neighbor knows ghosts exist *patpat*
Oh and lest someone should think that RyRy doesn’t come from a Christian family:
So, yeah. Money’s on privileged little asshole.
ryanwilkinson:
I can’t say I can’t wait until the day Muslims die out, but I can say I can’t wait until the day Islam dies out. As well as Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Tlingit ancestor worship, and other forms of religious belief.
Meanwhile, Christians are, in general, specifically a blight on the American political landscape.
Liar, also.
I’m anti-Christian, <- I said this.
Then you are a bigot. Christian is for the group of people. The religion is Christianity. <- Amphiox said this.
GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}
Always works for geeks. gods unholy identifier number
<—-Ryan said this.
poor poor Josh, oppressed by Teh Ebil Pharyngulocracy. The horrible, brutal, bloodcurdling things we’d do to him if he ever went against Teh Roolz and voiced disagreement with any other Pharynguloid
I’m sorry, which group that is having their rights and livelihoods and even their very lives taken away by Christians do you belong to…?
THERE IS NO OTHER PHARYNGULOID. IZ ONLY PHARYNGU-BOT 5000. IZ ONLY AGREES. AGREES AGREESSSSSSS!!32423421111
I genuinely don’t understand your question, Jadehawk.
I’m bisexual, if you want that, but even if I was straight I could be annoyed at Christianity! taking or trying to take away the rights of others, couldn’t I?
It’s my in a box!
My in a box, babe
It’s my in a box!
Oooh, my in a box, girl
Christmas, in a box
Hanukkah, in a box
Kwanzaa, in a box
Every single holiday a in a box
Over at your parent’s house a in a box
Mid day at the grocery store a in a box
Backstage at the CMA’s a in a box
It’s my in a box!
My in a box, babe
It’s my in a box!
Oooh, my in a box, girl
Have you realised you’re staying up to type herp and derp in different forms?
Literally that?
Man, girl, gimme that . Yeah baby, in a box or not.
I’m not in the slightest surprised. I’m surprised that, if you are bisexual and had your livelihood threatened, you don’t understand the difference between justified but ultimately harmless anger, and anger that can harm because it comes with power.
maybe I shouldn’t be. maybe your density goes all the way down.
So, wait, you’re bringing up a commenter who hasn’t even participated in this thread? As proof of what, RyRy?
!
Revolting. Please remind yourself never to show up anywhere I might be drinking.
RyRy,
No shit, Sherlock. I’ve realized that I don’t even have to give you a shovel to dig a hole, you’re doin’ just fine on your own.
Herp!
You’ve all completely reversed what I was saying.
I don’t think it’s okay for me to stand up and say CHRISTIANS ARE A CANCER, RAR RAR RAR.
I don’t think it’s okay for a Christian to stand up and say BISEXUALS ARE A CANCER, RAR RAR RAR.
I’m not saying oppress the minorities, not at all; I’m saying don’t stereotype the majority.
You agreed with him Audley. Meaning you disagree with yourself now.
Oh yeah because none of us EVER go to bat for theists, such as complaining about WIAAA posts that are just one sentence faps that amount to “cause theists r dumb”
Oh fuck you so much.
“All Christians are idiots!
All blondes are idiots!
Only an idiot would study biology!
I am nominally insulted by all three statements, but my response to all three would be laughter. Because all three “insults” are just stupid.”
Esteleth, whom you also agreed with.
I’d rather you wern’t
Meaning you’re looking for some big drama.
Call us back when they cast you Joanne.
incorrect we’re quite aware you’re playing the “I’m better than you because I’m colorblind” game. blindness to power balance and pretending that dominant groups need the same protections from verbal attacks that minorities need is fucking stupid
Well, RyRy, it’s a good goddamn thing that I don’t give a fuck what you think.
You still haven’t answered me: is calling someone a “cracker” as bad as calling someone else a “nigger”? Please show your work.
Agreed with who? About what?
My entire point has been about minority groups and oppressed classes. The fact that you don’t get it shows that you don’t really give a fuck about the OP or Scalzi’s post on privilege. It’s a shame, really. If you could only read and understand, you’d be a much better person for it.
I do not understand why my quote in #280 got such an aggressive response.
Snorfle! I heart you, Ing.
@Jadehawk
Oh christ *rubs temples* I really hope his “I’m bisexual” is not a “I don’t see gender” colorblind thing too.
ryanwilkinson:
Okay. Then don’t.
You do see the difference though, right?
For instance, in many states of the US, Christians have done exactly that, and affected the lives of gays and bisexuals.
There’s a slight difference.
The difference is, stereotyping the majority doesn’t cause nearly as much harm as oppressing the minorities.
Also, too, Christians really are causing a lot of harm in the US. It’s not all of them, no — but the quiet majority of Christians are keeping their cakeholes shut while a very assertive minority of Christians are fucking up education, equal rights, and other minor things.
There’s a difference between the two things you presented, yet you present them as equally bad.
That’s the problem!
and i’m guessing you think Esteleth’s comment somehow disagrees with something we’ve said…?
Because you’re an idiot.
I’ve got to motor if I want to make this funeral.
Oppression, oppression, oppression!
RyRy just doesn’t get it.
Agreed with Amphiox, about how me calling Christians idiots was bigoted.
Agreed with Esteleth, that the statement ‘All Christians are stupid’ is stupid.
I don’t know why it’s okay for minority groups to stand up and wish death upon majority groups. When a Muslim leader in the UK stands up and says he wants to make it an Islamic country, and kill all the Christians and infidels, I don’t think that’s a good thing.
Nor do I think it’s a good thing when the EDL decide that all Islam is evil and must be completely eradicated via any means necessary.
And more importantly, I only have evidence of you yelling at ONE of those groups…which makes your concern for ‘fairness’ ring hollow and self serving.
Yes, because my entire point has been DON’T STEREOTYPE ALL CHRISTIANS which is literally what Esteleth said.
Are you really, honestly, this painfully stupid?
There’s not really been an opportunity on an American blog to discuss my dislike of the English Defence League.
And I’m not saying they’re equally bad, I’m saying they’re both bad.
Saying Christians are a cancer on society is bad, regardless of how bad other things are.
If you’re saying the same stuff Esteleth did, which we agreed with, yet we disagree with you, maybe the problem is that you suck at communicating.
Now you’re just stereotyping stupid people as often being wrong!
RyRy:
This has been another installment of Ryan Doesn’t Get It! Tune in next time, folks, when we tackle such difficult subjects as misogyny and homophobia!
apparently you agreed with amphiox that ryan saying he’s anti-Christians was bigoted…?
well. as a context-free statement, it does tend to be. from someone like me, it also tends to be. from someone like josh, when written in obvious rage? not so much.
this can’t possibly be very hard to understand…?
So what’s your take on the Nazis?
Gosh, Ing, you’re right. How callous of me. Let me rephrase:
[Content note: judgments about functional intelligence]
Are you really, honestly, this painfully stupid you dumb fuck?
I imagine it a sketch segment like Sam the Eagle’s original shtick on the Muppet Show.
RyRy,
How abouts you try addressing us instead of bringing up commenters who haven’t been active in this thread, hmmmmm?
Uh, no it’s not. She literally said:
She said she would be nominally insulted, that’s all.
HERP A DERP! You can’t even understand the shit that you quoted! Ha!
Right, my point has been, don’t call all Christians a cancer, and that being a minority doesn’t make wishing death on another group okay.
I genuinely do not see the problem. There isn’t one.
I’ve not said it’s okay for the majority group to oppress the minority and I’ve not said the minority shouldn’t fight back.
Suffragists vs suffragettes?
MLK vs Malcolm X?
So are you not ‘nominally insulted’ by Josh? If so, why defend it at all?
interesting. did we say such things were good things? or did you jump to conclusions again based on the fact that we didn’t condemn minorities for raging against oppressive dominant groups?
ryanwilksinson:
So, if we can demonstrate empirically that those most responsible for the terrible policies in the US are Christians, it would be incorrect to say that Christians are a cancer on society?
Or (to play your game), in countries where Christians are responsible for massive ethnic cleansing (even against other Christians!), is it incorrect to say that Christians are a cancer on society?
Also, why U avoid my questions?
You don’t want to get into an actual arguement over the effectiveness of MILK vs Malcolm X
For one there’s serious question whether MLK would have been effective at all without Malcolm acting as the stick to his carrot.
AGAIn what is your view on Nazis?
Ryan: It’s a little matter of PRIVILEGE. Saying that christians are a cancer to society is not equivalent to a majority group disparaging a minority group. Learn a few things.
it does make it pretty much harmless though, which was our point. ffs.
You stupid shit. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. You have no idea what real people in civil rights struggles actually said. You honestly think MLK was a pacifist? Have you ever read “Letter from a Birmingham Jail?” No? Then read it you dumb shit.
Do some homework before you come back here and affect to “rebut” what I’m saying.
and justified hatred of an oppressive majority group by the people it victimizes.
expressions of justified rage by a minority group that carry no actual danger to the dominant group aren’t even remotely the same thing
I think a black person would be perfectly justified in calling a white person a cancer on society, considering the racist, oppressive shit that passes for “civilization” in this country
I just figured it out! Ryan is the asshole teacher who makes the kid that got punched in the face apologize to the bully for his part of the fight. He’s the goddamn principle from South Park
How old are you, Ryan? I’m going to guess no more than 20 (DON’T you young’uns jump on me—I know some of you are far more sophisticated).
You fucking hypocrite
Ing:
Oh, for fuck’s sake, Ing, you know you shouldn’t judge all members of a group simply because they believe abhorrent things.
@nigel
well yeah…Shinler and all. I mean should we talk about wanting to wipe out the scourge of Nazis/NeoNazis when there might be good members of those groups? I hear some skinheads like puppies
Sorry, we will anyway. We know Ryan’s an idiot, so there’s no need to disparage young people by comparison. We’re not all like this.
Ing, I was quoting them.
Glad to see though that you realised it wasn’t a great statement.
Not all Christians believe abhorrent things.
RyRy,
For someone that writes particularly Britishly, I’m surprised that you bothered to imply that you didn’t come from a majority Christian country.
I’m gonna break it down into really small words for you, RyRy: You’re telling an oppressed class that their feelings about oppression and their oppressors aren’t valid. And it’s because you’re blinded by your (white, possibly British and Christian upbringing) privilege. Read the fucking link that PZ provided.
ryan honey, what exactly do you think quoting us saying that punching up the power gradient isn’t the same thing as punching down the power gradient is proving?
or… wait. do you think “justified” is synonymous with “good”?
Jadehawk:
Even more to the point: calling an oppressive group a cancer is a fuckload of miles from calling for their deaths.
Just one more dishonesty brought to you by the letters K, and W, and ryanwilkinson.
I’m glad you said that Thunk, but still: stuff it up your ass. I was a precocious and unusually smart teen just like you. That doesn’t negate the fact that it usually takes an extremely young age (and a sheltered life) to produce such profound stupidity as we see in Ryan.
@Ryan
No I was pointing out what I thought was an inconsistency. learn to blockquote.
Communicating poorly and then acting smug when misunderstood isn’t brilliance, jackass
Ing:
That was me.
RyRy:
Why should I be?
you think ing called you a hypocrite because ing thought the statement wasn’t great? care to explain how making non-great statements makes one a hypocrite?
in reality, of course, ing called you a hypocrite because it looked like you were saying the same thing you were arguing against.
you’re one confused cookie.
Glad you hit back at me, though, Thunk. That’s the goddamned spirit right there!:)
de button proves that you don’t need youth.
No, I’m not saying they’re not valid.
But saying every Christian, saying all Christians are a cancer, is wrong. That’s all I’m saying.
Justified isn’t far off good, don’t pretend it is.
ryanwilkinson:
Sure. Just as not all skinheads are really evil fucks.
The problem isn’t what some believe, but what the aggregate effect is on society. And right now, Christians in the US, on aggregate, are fucking things up beyond all recognition.
Just sayin’.
Hypocritical, dumbass. Jesus Christ, Ing called you a hypocrite and didn’t claim that the statement was “bad”.
Audley, I need your help. Why is the statement ‘All Christians are stupid’ nominally insulting and ‘Christians are a cancer’ not so…
@ryan
Maybe you should stop hearing what you want to hear and hear what people say.
Yes because that’s what people are doing. I’m sorry, are you genuinely stupid or just being dishonest.
Have you done your homework yet? Have you read Letter From a Birmingham Jail?
One is false. Christianity on the whole is toxic.
Oh and incidentally, I doubt anyone can hold orthodox Christians views and NOT believe hateful things.
Ryan is like that guy at work who extends meetings by asking stupid questions and endless clarifications on points that anyone else would just be able or willing to just play by ear, and makes them all about his particular situation and keeps bringing up tangential points of interest to no one else until you just want to brain him with your coffee mug.
RyRy:
For fuck’s sake, ask the person that was insulted, no me.
By the way, why should I be insulted by Josh?
wut.
a lot of actions and especially feelings that aren’t good or in any way positive are still justified. personally, i feel queasy but ethically neutral about justified anger expressed in the way Josh did and the way the “die cis scum” motto does. but it’s not my fucking place to tell people who are oppressed how they should be allowed to express their anger at such oppression.
Oh, and Ryan? Stop lying about “not being a Christian.” It’s perfectly obvious that you have a huge emotional attachment to a Christian identity even if you don’t intellectually believe in it. That’s why you’re spinning so hard you’ve lost your mind.
THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT JOSH SAID.
And yes Josh, I read it, it doesn’t exactly call for violence or call white people a cancer or anything close but okay.
This is fruitless. I don’t think calling all Christians a cancer is justified, I don’t think a black person standing up and wanting violent things to be done to white people is justified. You lot obviously do. We won’t get anywhere, I’m clearly a stupid fucking moron who will never get anywhere, I’m also certainly a secret Christian and I in fact go around and oppress people and have never argued with a Christian in any way.
Great okay, bye bye.
ryan, I need your help. why are you asking a jewish person why they aren’t nominally insulted by an insult on christians the way the christian person was?
Thank goodness. Here’s hoping RyRy sticks the flounce* ‘cos I’ve got to go to bed.
‘Night all!
Did we make you cry, RyRy?
And no, I fucking hate Christianity, but I do have many Christian friends, all of whom are good, tolerant people, and whilst I disagree with their faith I would never, ever call them a cancer or paint them with the same brush I paint intolerant, oppressive, progress-halting Christians.
Anyway bye
Well from down here you actually look like you’re dressed like Christ.
I notice you refuse to answer the question about Nazis? Is that because you don’t want to address why you don’t have a problem with the Warsaw riots or don’t want to waggle your finger at people in death camps?
Well, surprise surprise, I do. And I’d punch you in your smug face if we were having this conversation in a pub. Yeah. Be shocked all you want. I’m not afraid of pushing back against violent oppressors with violence (especially privileged fucks). Why this shocks you I can’t imagine.
So why the fuck are you yelling at us for sharing the same view as you?
Goddamn it you’re a crybaby.
ryanwilkinson:
FLOUNCE SCORECARD:
Failing to recognize or address opposing views: 10
Repetition of completely missed points: 9
Content: 1
Style: 3
AVG: 5.75
Hmm. Not looking too promising, Sweet Pea.
Ryan also refused to answer the “cracker” vs “nigger” question. So sad.
Okay, I’m really off to bed this time!
THIS IS WHAT SPOKESGAYATOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!
LOLOLOL! Oh, lord, that was good:)
*PUBLIC NOTICE:*
Please do not throw away your troll after use. Kindly forward to TZT.
because Josh said a bunch of mean things about Christians in comment 139 where he called Christians a cancer and said he’s enjoying them die off
Heh, that article put what I’ve been trying to say about being a straight white guy into understandable terms. I’ve always tried to say something like “I, as a straight white guy, get it really friggin’ easy. In terms of the lottery of birth, I won a 2nd tier jackpot (because I wasn’t born into wealth).”
If only life were made this easy for everybody.
And I meant it. I really do take satisfaction in watching the bigots of a dying generation fade away and die. Good riddance. Women, queers, brown people, and anyone outside the mainstream have suffered enough from their bullshit. Let that stupid, selfish, horrible generation die. And if you’re not stupid and selfish, great—but shut the fuck up about how “we’re not all like that.” I don’t care. Show it with action, not pointless bitching.
Josh, OSG:
The sad thing is, Ryan couldn’t tell the difference between this statement, and actively calling for their deaths. He kept conflating the two, right up ’til the end.
Fuck it. I can’t abide obtuse fools and their inability to comprehend the difference between calling for murder, and the satisfaction of watching a dying ideology.
Based on his attempt at ‘splaining about Jewishness, and interest in the majority, I’d say that you’re missing a capital I on “identity”.
Jadehawk #354:
More of these so-called “skeptics” need to read Clarence Darrow…
Josh, OSG wrote:
Holy fucking shit. I nearly died (laughing) when I read this.
HOLY FUCK. That is some Weapons Grade Stupid right here. My eyes are fucking bleeding, gah! The stupid is making my brain ache.
“I don’t like Christians” is comparable to “I don’t like skinheads”. It is a justifiable statement. Watch as I justify it:
Christianity is a belief system. A stupid, hateful, destructive, bigoted belief system. Belief systems, unlike skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or gender orientation, are chosen.
People who volunteer to subscribe to such a belief system deserve all the scorn and opprobrium we can heap upon them.
Now fuck the fuck off.
Josh, I love you.
@ ryanwilkinson
You do realise they are all drinking the koolaid from the same bowl?
I think Josh’s comparison of xtianity to cancer is all the more apt in your case. Xtianity is a nasty cancerous memeplex that does its host and society no good whatsoever. It does this by disguising itself as “good and tolerant” to get past the hosts defenses. But then flairs up in all its ugly glory to reek as much harm as it can. No good can ever come of it. How is this not similar to cancer?
Little Baby Ryan doesn’t want to face up to the real world. He doesn’t want to believe that the trusted Brand Names™ he grew up with –“Christianity—It’s not Just for Idiots!”—could be fundamentally corrupt. So when he sees his friends, people who seem good and wholesome and non-hateful, who identify as Christian, he has to make “Christian” acceptable in his mind.
theophontes:
It’s not at all similar to cancer, but it’s entirely like hating on blacks, or gays. Because, y’know, disliking someone for their choice of a hateful ideology is exactly like hating on someone because of attributes they can’t choose.
Or something.
Hey Ryan, I know you’re still reading this:
Fuck you, from the bottom of my miserable black heart, for talking that shit about the ‘lesbian raped straight’ porn and that fucking ethnic cleansing game in this thread of all places. Seriously. I don’t give a shit about anything else that you’ve said at this point, you are a serious goddamn creeper.
Yeah, I’m sure you’ve ‘researched’ that fucking video dozens of times, you putrid maggot.
Thank you, Coyote. Though it shouldn’t, it does make a difference when a Normal Straight Dood™ notices the same fucking shit and calls it out. Much appreciated.
no problem, Josh.
I agree with your earlier assessment. None of these questions are really in good faith. He’s not interested in learning anything.
He’s fucking around with us in some stupid-ass way.
@ Josh
Of topic: *hugs* (I have been a bit quiet of late, will snailmail soon.)
@ baby ryan
Things are not always as they seem. Do you not recognise a lot of social chameleons amongst your xtian friends? That they may appear “good” and “tolerant” can hide their true motivations and herd instincts.
Theophontes: That’s actually a lot like what Ryan is doing himself. Except he’s a Stupid Chameleon, the kind that changes itself shit-brown-with-corn-nuggets to hide in a punchbowl.
@ TLC
hehe… that reminds me of a drawing you did a while back! “corn dog”? I forget the context.
@ ryan baby
Warning to trolls: cyberpistol set to disintegrate.
My advice: Get yourself along to TZT (click for instant teleportation), where you will be able to set out your position without the fear of getting blasted by Teh Ebil Oberlawd ™ .
Also, the denizens are more obliging in letting you have your say.
/friendly advice
Theophontes: Ah yes, the hypothetical recreation of the mythical Corn-Mimicking-Anus.
Back when I used to post on bogleech, I developed a bit of a knack for grotesque and ridiculous monsters.
One of my favorites was a gross slobbery thing with no lower jaw or hind limbs and a skeletal dog-face, but that’s way off topic. I could post a pic on TET probably.
@ TZT
Yes, that one. XD
If only there where less non-mythical ones in RL.
Sure, but The Good Ones ™ drink it with a bendy straw, and only a few sips every hour or so. And they put a festive little umbrella in it and everything. But, The Others are so vulgar, they sip straight from the glass, getting their lips on the glass and everything. And they might drink a whole cupful in as little as a half-hour! And they don’t even add a few splashes of water before they start drinking. Clearly, They Are Doing It Wrong.
Fossilfishy, #84,
YOU GET BACK HERE RIGHT NOW!
I am currently reading this thread with my coffee and you have caused me to have premature enjokeulation. I has a displeased. You will receive precisely one less spanking in the official spanking rankings.
Also, as I am currently only up to comment #84, I feel it necessary to make two points at this juncture:
1) I am only asking questions.
2) Calm down.
That is all.
Louis
Josh, #124,
I arrived at the ~#373 mark and am still reading. My initial thought when noting that number in a newish thread was identical to yours.
Louis
There are advantages and disadvantages to being a subject of Her Maj’s Greenwich Meanie Time.
Disadvantage: you miss the live-action beatdown of the naive and the stupid, and it sort of feels like an episode of 24 that you’ve randomly switched over to in the middle of the night; exciting, but events feel somewhat distant.
Advantage: The beatdown on the naive and stupid occurs ALL AT ONCE, with an effect like a head rush after a bag of rapidly-gobbled, hideously multi-coloured sweeties found in your raincoat pocket. This is Pavlovian after a while; the rush can eventually be triggered merely by logging on in the morning and seeing an article that had three comments when you went to bed now has OMGAZILLION comments when you get up.
Pharyngula: Better than crack.
Emrysmyrddin, #376,
You and I are in agreement.
{Puffs on pipe}
{Adjusts his tweeds}
Louis
I know it’s a touch early, Louis old chap, but I’ve got the teapot warming, the cocoa on the stove and the sticky buns arranged quite nicely on the doilies. You can be Mother.
Tea and cocoa both? Are you being a little extravagant, old boy or girl (as the case may be)?
[INCOMING TEAL DEER]
Dear Everybody, but especially Ryanwilkinson,
I am about to do something very naughty. Possibly with humour. I suggest bracing yourselves. There may be Jokes.
Sufficiently girded? I shall break you in gently.
I am about to sort of possibly sound like I am almost maybe disagreeing with what a lot of the most wonderful posters here have said.
I know right? Shocking! DEEP RIFTS. DEEEEEEEEEP RIFTS!*
The statement “I hate (Contextually Dominant Group) X” and the statement “I hate (Contextually Oppressed Group) Y” are perfectly equally, logically incoherent.
Did you get that? Good.
Insert white for X and black for Y, or male for X and female for Y, or straight for X and homosexual for Y, or whatever you like. Both are logically expressions of prejudice, stereotyping, logical error and shoddy thinking.
From a purely logical and isolated perspective, in the absence of any cultural context.
Notice that part? It’s kind of important. Here, I’ll repeat it with the really important bit bolded for ease of comprehension:
“The statement “I hate (Contextually Dominant Group) X” and the statement “I hate (Contextually Oppressed Group) Y” are perfectly equally, logically incoherent. Both are logically expressions of prejudice, stereotyping, logical error and shoddy thinking. From a purely logical and isolated perspective, in the absence of any cultural context.“
But wait! Doesn’t it seem like there’s a problem here? Last time I looked outside my front door I didn’t live in a purely logical environment, isolated from the vicissitudes of human cultures and societies. Oh no! What to do, what to do? Could it be my perfect, logical model does not accord with reality? Could it be that my aspiration to logical perfection is even a harmful and naive distraction? Could it be that there are even more red herrings to observe?
Let us away to the Planet of the Coats! A most useful planet, and an Entirely Original Idea™, totally not ripped off from anywhere. That’s right out, and I will fight you all utterly.
A long, long time ago in a copyrighted story far, far away something happened in a galaxy. Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green copyrighted planet.
Upon this planet was, conveniently, one planet wide civilisation with absolutely no remaining geographical or sociological distinctions, distributions or other complicating factors I might think of later after more coffee.
Within this civilisation were two main groups, AND ONLY TWO MAIN GROUPS, MOTHERFUCKERS. They were the Green Coats and the Purple Coats. I should perhaps explain that “coats” here refers to the glossy, luxuriant, furry coats of hair which these otherwise identical groups grew from their skin.
The Green Coats, at this point in history, were the dominant group. Whilst many of the Green Coats were enlightened and decent thinking organisms, some were less so. Regardless of their comparative numerical minority, most of the wealth, property, means of production, means of political control, and most importantly bacon, remained in the control of the Green Coats. This was due to the most recent bout of global empire building being achieved by a few groups within the Green Coats.
The purple coats, whilst in the numerical majority across the planet, were by and large less likely to be in charge of the wealth, property, means of production, means of political control, and most importantly bacon. This was by no means always the case, but it was sufficiently common on the global scale to be a good rule of thumb.
Various justifications for this were advanced. Many amongst the Green Coats thought their Purple Coated cousins, feckless, work-shy, lazy and inept in some fashion. Inferior in nature as well as less wealthy etc in practise. Sadly, such thoughts and beliefs lead to discrimination against the Purple Coats, and various unpleasant slogans such as “The Purple Coats are a cancer on society” were trotted out.
Research done at the best universities in the land found no great distinctions between the Green and Purple coated groups. There were some variations, but these could readily be accounted for by known genetic, environmental and social factors, and more often than not were of a purely physical, medical nature, and not sociologically significant. What there wasn’t evidence for was some vast difference in intellect, ability or laziness. These, it seemed, were social constructs by the dominant Green Coats about their less dominant Purple Coats.
And yet the Purple Coats, on average, continued to do less well socially than their Green Coat compatriots. Of course no one could predict, or would be able to predict the social fate of one specific Green or Purple coated individual. After all, there were some ferociously wealthy or politically powerful Purple Coats and some egregiously poor and politically disaffected Green Coats. That was a Red Herring. Something despised and reviled on the Planet of the Coats. Red being the colour of stupidity and herrings a particularly odious fish on this planet, with some dubious, bottom feeding habits.
It was only in the recent past that there was a world wide set of laws that segregated Green and Purple Coats. Green could not marry Purple, Purple could not eat, drink, or socialise easily with Green. Why they even had different sections of the public transport system to occupy. In fact, much of this Green Coat Planet Wide Empire that I mentioned had been achieved on the backs of slave labour. The Green Coats had developed a technological advantage or two and used these to conquer, enslave and dominate the Purple Coats.
Although slavery no longer occurred, the Green Coats had gained control of the wealth, property, means of production, means of political control, and most importantly bacon already. The process of redistribution, or more properly put, granting of equal opportunity of and access to these things, was still in progress. And by and large the majority of the Green Coats thought that this was a Good Thing™. The highest praise that could be heaped on an idea.
However, as is often the case, the pace of change ground slow, and there were still Green Coats and Purple Coats that clung to factually incorrect notions of Coatal Superiority. Thus for every two steps forward towards equality of opportunity and access, at least one, if not more, was taken back. It was ever thus.
In this heady cultural broth occasionally, just occasionally, tempers would fray and people would say silly things. Sometimes Green Coats would call Purple Coats “Purpers” (a grave and coatally charged insult, as it was the name used by the Green Coat slavemasters of old for their Purple Coat slaves) and sometimes the Purple Coats would call Green Coats “Greenie” (an equally grave and coatally charged insult, as it was the name used by the Purple Coat slaves for their Green Coat slavemasters).
However, when asked, the Green Coats didn’t really mind being called “Greenies”, by and large. After all, there wasn’t much problem being reminded that one’s ancestors were rich and powerful. Or at least having it insinuated. Whilst it was undoubtedly a coatal slur, Green Coats had not suffered any grave injustice in recent decades at the hands of Purple Coats, by and large. Of course there were individual exceptions, and of course none of this demonstrated any individual Green Coat had an easier life or suffered less discrimination than any individual Purple Coat. It was simply a reflection of the historically contingent balance of power.
The Purple Coats, however, were a mite upset more often than not by being called “Purpers”. Even though a reasonable section of the Purple Coat population had tried to “reclaim” that word for their own use, with varying degrees of success. The reason was that this coatal slur, whilst logically every bit as discriminatory as stereotyping and foolish as “Greenie” has some rather unfortunate cultural baggage. Whilst the ephemeral and isolated logic was equal, the cultural history and context was not.
Purple Coated people had been denied jobs by people saying “Get out of here Purper” for decades. Signs in shops used to say “Purpers not welcome here” or “No Purpers”. A minority group within the Green Coats had even hunted down and killed Purple Coats for sport. Green Coated fathers had beaten Green Coated daughters for even smiling at a Purple Coat. In general the Purple Coats had, until very recently, an extremely bad time of it on average. The slur “Purper” carried with it all that redolent history.
No Green or Purple Coat is born into a vacuum. They all were born, rich or poor, Green or Purple, happy or sad, well formed or not, into an existing cultural context. This wasn’t their fault, they couldn’t be blamed for it. But the more mature and enlightened amongst them became aware of it. They tried to adjust for it as best they could. No one achieved or expected perfection, anyone of any Coat could be in error, but what was expected by the more enlightened was that people didn’t keep repeating the same errors after they’d had them pointed out to them about three hundred times with varying degrees of rudeness.
And when that stopped, everyone realised that it was time for bacon. In sandwiches. With HP sauce.
Louis
* Incidentally I love that when we agree = echo chamber and when we don’t agree = deep rifts. It’s like we’re not arguing with honest opponents who evaluate our arguments on merit or something. I know, right? Shock, horror. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria. And so on and so forth.
Emrysmyrddin, #378,
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Tea? Cocoa? At this hour? Tea I could forgive, but cocoa? Such a thing is prohibited by Debrett and definitely neither U, nor the act of a preux chevalier.
I shall have to, therefore, break all custom, tradition, and semblance of mannerly conduct by offering a nolle prosequi.
Should you decide to avail yourself of the proper ingredients for a Gentleman’s mid-morning refreshment, namely coffee and/or a strong breakfast tea with assorted crumpets,* then I shall be most glad to agree to your invitation. I am also willing to be Mother.**
Your humble servant,
Louis
* Sticky buns? By Her Majesty’s Sainted Dildo Drawer! Do you somehow mistakenly believe I am of the Lower Social Orders? Should you wish to offer me petit fours and a selection of continental pastries and sandwiches at around four pip emma, accompanied by at most a Lapsang Souchon on a delicate Earl Grey at the least, then I shall indulge. I have even been known to partake of what is known by the vulgar as a “cream tea” now and again. But “sticky buns”? That sounds like the stage name of a Colonial strip tease artiste, not something for consumption.
** I understand this phrase to have a different meaning if spending time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. As in “Hello new cell mate. Let’s have a game of Mummys and Daddys. Don’t worry, you can be Daddy. Now be a good boy and suck Mummy’s cock.”.
Louis, it appears the last paragraph is a joke about sexual abuse in jails and prisons.
LILAPWL,
You’re right, it does.
I made the joke as a means to illustrate a humorous contrast, but I can see how I potentially fucked up in using it so. I confess I deliberated about using it. I’m not sure using it in such a way is identical to using it unironically, I’d hope the context provides some sense of irony, but I am relying on people knowing that I guess.
Tricky.
Louis
You’d almost think being locked up is an aphrodisiac for mommy. Love can be so humiliating.
I understand you, but I am uncomfortable with it regardless, much like I am uncomfortable with ironic sexist jokes; their normalization probably does not result only in an increased rate of Enlightened Good People making Enlightened Jokes.
When they’re little, they play house. When they’re big, they play Big House.
Sorry, life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ, I sort of jumped in wrong. I respect your position. Maybe I’ll just go get a coffee, read a bit first!
This is an object lesson, I guess, Louis.
Mike has taken your comment as an invitation to make more jokes about sex abuse in prisons.
I’m not sure what he’s trying to prove, except that I should shut up and laugh because it’s all so funny. I find this unfortunate.
@387, alright, Mike. Thanks.
LILAPWL,
Well since I consider you to be a good “Canary in the Mine” for fucked-upness, I apologise and withdraw the paragraph and joke, unreservedly. My bad.
You’re right, use of such jokes can (probably does) normalise them, and have sundry downstream consequences.
There is a serious discussion about comedy here. I’m not sure that text is the best medium for jokes like that (or if any medium is), so I have still fucked up here and this doesn’t change my apology one bit.
There’s a UK comic called Al Murray who play a character called the Pub Landlord. The character is a sexist, nationalist, homophobic racist. By, say, 1970s standards (Think “Alf Garnett” on TV) the stuff he says is very mild and “suitable for modern audiences and sensibilities”, and is not comparable with the work of modern overtly racist etc comedians. His work as the Pub Landlord is deliberately, winkingly, knowingly ironic. A large part of the humour relies on the audience getting that. However, various reviewers (and other comedians) see an element of his audience not getting the irony, and thus laughing unironically at ostensible expressions of bigotry. So whilst it is fine that Al Murray is smart, ironic and intelligent, as is a large part of his audience, there are sections who miss at least one of the required attributes!
I deliberately run close to the knuckle with a lot of what I say, I rely on many people having prior knowledge of my humour. Of course I cannot rely on everyone getting that, and I don’t. Take the joke I just made, the point of the joke is quite obviously not to “laugh down” at prison rape, far from it. The joke uses that scenario simply because it’s a familiar allusion to the “feminine” nature of the victim (as discussed by others on another thread). That allusion is used to set up a juxtaposition, this time “mummy”, the ostensibly “feminine”, is the abuser not the abused. That juxtaposition is the point of the humour in that joke in an isolated context, not the rape. I was making a further allusion to the “high class” “you can be mother” and the (potentially) “low class” “you can be daddy” disjoint.
The point being to take you in one logical direction then back in another, not to laugh at the misfortune or “undesirable” characteristics of the “feminine” or the “victim”. Granted, I used a very unpleasant subject to do that with, and I can see how that rankles, but I did think that, close to the knuckle though it was, the context made it obvious that the joke was in the juxtaposition, not any victimisation.
Anyway, since I love comedy and discussing it, I’ve indulged myself when I should have left it at an apology and retraction, lest I appear to be notpologising when I’m not.
I was wrong to use the subject I did as I did, I apologise, thank you for your comment and retract my poor joke unreservedly.
Louis
I absolutely support the gist of this, but it annoys me that so often when privilege is discussed it’s not even acknowledged that there are other kinds of privilege than sexual orientation, skin colour, and gender. Sure, I’m a straight, white male. But that’s not the lowest difficulty setting. I’m also a straight, white male, who wasn’t born handicapped in any way mentally or physically. I was also born in a relatively prosperous Western democracy, which makes me even more privileged but still not as privileged as someone born in a more prosperous English-speaking country. I’m also quite privileged in not being an orphan, but not as privileged as someone who’s had two parents instead of just one throughout their upbringing. I’m also quite privileged being born to a mother, who isn’t poor but not as privileged as someone born into a massively wealthy family.
Off the top of my head a difficulty setting setting lower than simply “straight, white male” would be “straight, white non-handicapped, wealthy male born in an English-speaking democracy to two straight and loving parents who are also disgustingly wealthy” and that’s still not the absolute lowest difficulty setting.
LILAPWL, #388,
Yup. Unintended consequences are unintended. As alluded to above. But then what are intentions? I know they’re not magic, they do pave something though don’t they?
;-)
Louis
@ Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe #267
Checks pharyngula manual, gulps
I really am shocked at what would be done to Josh if he expressed his secret opinion about Muslims. Shocked I say.
BTW, how do you get all the chocolate into the USB port again?
Louis and ‘Tis,
I am an equal opportunities elevenses-server catering to a large group of Americans And Other Foreigners. Cocoa is perfectly appropriate for elevenses, it being forty-minutes-to-go when I posted above, along with the aforementioned sticky buns and some slightly dubious marmalade sandwiches. Crusts off, if you really insist.
I had a copy of Debrett’s, once. The parrot enjoyed it immensely. It had a much richer, fluffier texture than The Mail, and lasted ever so slightly longer (243 years, to be precise. I’ve been informed, however, that the Americans in the Americans And Other Foreigners Group may believe this to be of equivalent length to the timespan of the Universe.)
And crumpets?! For mid-morning tea?! What are you, An Other Foreigner? Please return your knotted spotted handkerchief and cancel your subscription immediately.
@ ryry
Unless you count christianity, of course.
Emrysmyrddin,
You cater to foreigners?
My word! Are there no limits to your perversions? Next you’ll be telling me you Speak French and Like Garlic.
My subscription to such things was precancelled in perpetuity. However, I am cancelling my subscription immediately.
Louis
Louis:
Psssst, Louis…
…don’t know whether you’ve cottoned on, but we’re surrounded by them, old boy. Now, don’t panic, because I’ve got a lot of sand trickling down my leg and if you suddenly shoot off in all directions I’ll end up like a flag on top of the castle…
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ said
I know Louis has already responded to this, so I just wanted to say QFT in a general sort of way. (and I think you’re right about print being potentially a particularly tricky medium for this). I have a problem with the Al-Murray-Pub-Landlord schtick too – it’s a very fine line between laughing at the bigot, as he intends, and just hearing the bigotry – and I don’t think he is successful enough/as successful as he thinks he is at staying on the right side of that line. Sometimes ironic sexism just comes across as – or is just – sexism.
Opposablethumbs,
As I (kinda) said to LILAPWL, you’re right. Irony is a tough game to play and relies a lot on the degree of “buy in” the intended audience has. Obviously this is going to vary wildly by culture and individual. Hence why I mentioned the Al Murray thing.
I crossed the line this time, I missed, I’ve done so before and will do again, intentionally or not.
The thing that really grinds my oh-so-privileged gears is that I do get and enjoy irony. No one gets irony more than me, except perhaps my wife and some of her friends. ;-) Wah, wah, I don’t get to make some jokes. Pity me for I R OPRESST.
Louis
Emrysmyrddin,
We’re surrounded by Foreigners? Unacceptable! They’ll have to go.
Louis
@Sketch
I think if you read the the original article, you’ll note that Scalzi does mention that other factors may make your life easier or harder. I think you are getting stuck on the same point that derails conversations on this over and over again. Yes, there are many factors that could make being a straight white male hard. No one is saying otherwise, that doesn’t negate that the straight white male with a physical handicap is likely to have an easier go at things, if all other factors are the same than a gay white male with a physical handicap. That doesn’t mean that being able-bodied isn’t a privilege, it just means that being straight white and male is.
Aside:
I’m not sure this suggestion has any merit, so tear it apart as needed. Perhaps the word “privilege” is part of the hang up. Yes, yes, I know, big whoop. Random Joe or Jane doesn’t feel very “privileged” and is down in the mire with everyone else, thus when “accused” (how it’s taken, not how it is) of having “privilege” hackles rise. I just can’t think of a less cumbersome way of saying “comparatively less discriminated against for various irrational, uncontrollable reasons on average by the bulk of the population”.
Louis
Um, Louis, I loves you man, but that was the entire point of Scalzi’s post. ;)
@Sketch at 391
I understand your point and MissMarnie has already commented on how Scalzi addressed it in the original article, but your comment got me thinking about how to extend Scalzi’s original analogy to make the point.
I’m a gamer (and a straight, white, male as it happens, though I hope that isn’t relevant to this), and I’m currently playing Kingdoms of Amalur. (The following example might not be entirely accurate to the game itself, but it’s provided to make a point, not explain the game.)
Like most games, there’s something of a tutorial sequence where you’re introduced to the game and controls a bit, then you fight a troll, and then you get dumped out into the world to fend for yourself. Right after you exit the tutorial area, there’s a pond, and beside it a cave with some giant rats in it and a couple chests of goodies.
As I’ve noticed, having created a few different characters, the tutorial part of the game has a few variables in it – namely that the equipment you get from chests and slain enemies is somewhat controlled by randomness. This means that when you enter the cave with the giant rats, your character’s equipment might be better or worse than another character’s depending on how much time you spent looting, and the luck of the draw in the tutorial dungeon.
But here’s the thing: if you’re playing the game on the easiest difficulty setting, there’s only one giant rat in that cave. If you’re on intermediate difficulty, there’s three, and on the hardest setting, there are five.
Now, even on the easiest difficulty setting, if you fared badly in the tutorial section, or didn’t pause to loot anybody properly, the equipment and spells you have (and even your familiarity with the controls) could vary widely from someone else in that same cave.
But there’s always going to be only one rat.
THAT’S what I think Scalzi was getting at. As a straight, white, male, you might not have the weapons and armor to fend off the rat’s attacks, your spells might be too weak to dent its health, or you might be too clumsy with the controls to put up a good fight, but there will always, always, always, only ever be one rat.
Oh good. Glad I didn’t read it.
I’m just going to go over here and commit seppuku to assuage the shame I have brought to my ancestors.
Louis
Louis,
Awe, I’m sure that your dishonored ancestors would forgive you if they could. Or something reassuring like that.
Audley,
Oh well that’s all right then. Now about this wakizashi in my abdomen. It appears to be causing mild to moderate discomfort. I may have to let the upper lip quiver.
Louis
*sees thread has gotten lots of activity*
*types “⌘F esteleth” to find last comment for ease of reading*
What.
Okay, so Ryan is a moron. I’m glad that I gave him so much material.
It’s probably late for this, but The Pint isn’t half-kidding when she talks about some of the whiners at Scalzi’s.
This person then goes on to spew MRA talking points, such as “men going their own way” and comments about “hot” and supposedly submissive women in other countries. I could be wrong, but I really don’t think people are considering him a flaming jerk because of his gender, orientation, or race.
Also, the classic
Also, “Scrotum of Privilege” for the win.
Wmdon,
I think you’ve nailed it– what a lot of the douche parade has missed is that being white, straight, cis gendered and male is easiest, but it’s still a difficulty setting. There will still be challenges to be faced.
Anyway, you did a good job of bringing other circumstances into the analogy. And I say this as someone who was bored to tears while playing the KoA demo. :p
Daisy,
I am so naming my punk band “Scrotum of Privilege”!
@Daisy… wow.. I didn’t think anyone but me even noticed my comment about the “Scrotum of Privilege. :D
@Audley congrats on the punk band and be sure to send me a copy of the upcoming album. “Scrotum of Privilege: Hair we are!”
DA,
Hey, it’s your name! You can have first dibs on front man/woman. :)
No no.. I’ll leave that up to you… but at least try Try TRY to get Sharon Den Adell from Within Temptation to do a duo or two… should be kinda wonky :D
Oh my. The Pharyngula Horde is treating poor ryanw more or less the way our new Mormon kitten is treating the ball of tinfoil on a string. Watching both of these things makes me LOL. Together, well, I might just forget to breathe from laughing too hard.
As someone from a family whose members could, charitably, be described as crackers, I will say that the word is astonishingly painful. It comes with a whole lot of poverty, exclusion from education and healthcare, and a long long ancestral line of physical and sexual abuse, addiction, and violent crime. Here’s why it’s still not as bad as the word “nigger:”
It does not come with a threat of lynching. No townie Baptist mob every drove out into the dirt roads to find my ancestors’ pentacostal church and burn it down. They didn’t hang my uncles, burn my grandparents’ home or farm buildings, or (afaik) prevent them from voting because they couldn’t speak Chinese.
So until my relatives start being subject to the same sort of violence that African Americans are and were, the words are not equivalent. This does not mean that the word is not fucking painful for me to hear, it just means it has a lot less bad stuff hitched to it.
Also, duh, slavery, kidnapping, the deliberate destruction of families… I figured these were too freaking obvious to mention, but upon reconsideration, I think I need to mention them for those who are clue-impaired.
PZ, I am shocked and appalled.
What kind of atheist would believe in “God Mode”?
Sigh. The things I miss because I get to be a responsible office monkey who actually had work to do today.
Louis #380 – Can I hug you for that? Because it was all sorts of awesome.
Sketch #391 – As others have pointed out, Scalzi actually did account for the many other factors that play into one’s social capital aside from race, sexual orientation and gender. Since wmdon and MissMarnie addressed your criticism quite well, I’ll just paste the relevant part from the OP because I think Scalzi put it pretty clearly himself – and yet so many people kept missing it, sigh. (especially cogent points bolded for emphasis):
@ Daisy – Boy howdy, there was some amazing stupid in there that I’ve rarely encountered outside of Pharyngula (and apparently PZ’s link contributed to about 3% of the hits the OP got – which is roughly the percentage of the comments that got whacked by Scalzi’s Mallet of Loving Correction – coincidence?!?). The basic Straight White Male privilege denial wasn’t surprising, really, but a few of the (self-identified) male commenters pulled out a whooping amount of MRA/MGTOW weapons-grade stupid.
I got really, REALLY tired of the “quit calling people who don’t want to share selfish, it’s mean” line, really quickly, as well. Don’t want to be called selfish or an asshole? DON’T ACT LIKE ONE!! Apparently just asking people to stop, listen and learn (hopefully) is asking people with privilege to make a “great personal sacrifice.” (not even worth the teeny tiny violin).
Also, apparently I’m playing the game on Mother Theresa levels of sanctimony by being pissed about assholes being selfish. Who knew?
@ Digital Atheist – Oh, Daisy wasn’t the only one who noticed, it was quite brilliant and thread-win worthy. Although you might owe me a new keyboard, it caused a spit-take laugh upon reading.
@MissMarnie
You’ve misread my point. My point wasn’t that there are things that could make being a straight, white male hard. I wasn’t, as you seem to think, disagreeing that considering only sexual orientation privilege, skin-colour privilege, and gender privilege straight, white male is the easiest setting. I was making a point that you could make an even easier setting – i.e. I wasn’t denying privilege. I was pointing out that there is even more privilege being left out. I’m not sure how you could have misunderstood the point I was making so grievously.
@wmdon, Scalzi didn’t really address other kinds of privilege. He gave wealth a courtesy mention but for some reason he included it in the stats rather than as a privilege. Sure, it’s a stat if we’re talking about your own accumulated wealth, but if we’re talking about your parent’s wealth and social status that you’re born with then it’s obviously a privilege. And Scalzi didn’t even mention born-with physical or mental handicaps. Simply being a straight, white male isn’t the easiest setting. Being a straight, white male born without any physical or mental handicaps is easier still. However, even that’s not the easiest setting.
And again, I’m not denying privilege here. I myself am a straight, white male without any handicaps. I’m arguing that my difficulty setting is even easier than difficulty setting Scalzi suggested as the absolute easiest.
@thepint, my point was that I don’t understand it at all if Scalzi counts handicaps and wealth, say, as stats instead of as part of a difficulty setting. I’m fairly privileged that I wasn’t born deaf or blind. That’s not a stat. That’s just as much part of my difficulty setting as is my sexual orientation, skin-colour, and gender.
Again I wasn’t arguing against Scalzi’s point. I wasn’t making the obviously idiotic argument that “durr, life can still be hard a straight, white male.” I was making the point that saying that “straight, white male” is the absolute easiest difficulty setting is just as omissive as saying that “white” is the absolute easiest. If you include “white,” you should also include “male.” If you include “male,” you should also include “straight.” If you include “straight,” you should also include “non-handicapped.” Etc. I was annoyed at the pretense that straightness, whiteness, and maleness are the only privileges. I wasn’t arguing that they weren’t privileges.
@thepint: I’m not sure if I should be appalled or flatered. in either case, I’m sorrry/pleased that my comment caused you such sorry/joy. Blame/credit 1800 Tequila, and the fact that I’ve long grown tired of fellow SWM’s (such as me) being too blind to realize that yes.. they DO have an advantage in most situations… maybe not much of one… but it is there nonetheless. sigh.
Holy Jebus on a stick! This thread exploded since I last checked! The balance of stupid to intelligent isn’t bad though.
@sketch
I completely understood, but the fact that you stand by this point suggests you may not have read the original post or have made some assumption not backed up by the original post. You might want to see @thepint’s post in which some relavant quotes from the original post are pulled out for you.
This is a conversation explaining what privilege means using a description that doesn’t employ the word “privilege”. It’s not meant to negate other types of privilege or define all privilege, it’s simply meant to help reframe a conversation that routinely gets derailed by comments about ways in which people who have privilege in one way, can lack privilege in another.
If I said “being born into a wealthy family is generally easier than being born into abject poverty” you probably wouldn’t argue with that. Saying that being rich and disabled can be hard, doesn’t change the fact that being rich and disabled is still easier than being rich and poor. Talking about disability is a tangental to the original point that wealth comes with certain privilege. The same is true in a discussion about the privilege of being a straight white man. Adding on more types of privilege is simply beside the point.
@ digital atheist – for the record, it was a spit-take due to unexpected hilarious brilliance. So, mostly joy (and just a little sadness that you had to make that point at all). But believe me, I do appreciate it when other SWMs speak up to say that they get it as it keeps me from despairing completely, so thanks for that.
Although reading through Scalzi’s follow up post with his selection of Malleted comments, methinks that the Mallet’s going to be brought out for a clean up round in there, too, once Scalzi gets internet access and a free moment again (see the latest post, apparently he’s had an unfortunate turn of events resulting in a lost bag and laptop – boo). I’m beginning to think a reading comprehension quiz before commenting should be required since he expressly said that he did not want the new thread to rehash what was on the original OP.
[meta]
MissMarnie @Sketch
—
sketch @MissMarnie
Even were MissMarnie to have misread your point, and even were her contention about Scalzi’s claim wrong, your point was (and remains) fatuous: essentially, your claim was that sets S:{A, B, C}∋S are a “higher setting” is incorrect because sets S’:{A, B, C, D, E, F}∋S’ are a “higher setting” than S.
(It’s fractally wrong, actually, so much so that it ain’t hyperbole to call it ‘not even wrong’)
[embarrassed erratum]
Higher, lower… tricky, that!
Oof, I wrote
Which is illogical, I meant:
@MissMarnie & @John Morales, either you two are arguing that being a handicapped, straight, white male is easier or equally as easy as being a non-handicapped, straight, white male. Or you’ve both missed my point.
Unless being a handicapped, straight, white male is easier or equally as easy as being a non-handicapped, straight, white male, then being a straight, white male is not the easiest setting in terms of all the relevant parameters. All non-handicapped and handicapped, straight, white males are straight, white males, but not all straight, white males are non-handicapped. Therefore, if being non-handicapped is easier than being handicapped, then there is a subset of “straight, white male,” which has a lower difficulty setting than simply being a straight, white male simpliciter.
I don’t see how this logic is disputable.
It’s undoubtedly the easiest setting if we consider only sexual orientation, skin-colour, and gender. However, my point was precisely an annoyance that privilege is so often talked about as if those were the only relevant parameters. Since privilege is largely about raising awareness I think it’s a shame that so many privileges are almost consistently omitted even if they might be smaller privileges than straightness, whiteness, and maleness.
sketch:
You fail to exhaust the universe of possibility; it may be that your point is indeed fatuous.
Was it not you who, on another thread, accused others of the straw-dummy* fallacy?
The actual proposition: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.
Your characterisation:
I refer to my #424 for a symbolic pseudo-formalisation in terms of set theory, but in plain English, “being a handicapped, straight, white male” is indeed being an example of “Straight White Male”.
—
* I am being deliberate in my phrasing.
sketch:
To reiterate where you fail: a subset S’ of a set S is definitionally a member of S.
(Specifically, your “logic” is disputable because you’re inferring on the putative basis that the relative complement of S’ with respect to S is not a member of S)
[clarification]
Shortest possible version: handicapped, straight, white males are straight, white males.
Stretch is simply pulling out a fourth privilege from his ass and pretending that the article is therefore technically wrong, even if the author was explicitly only looking at three example privileges for simplicity’s sake. And doing it despite the fact that article also explicitly notes other factors may be. He’s a philosophy enthusiast who loves logic so much that he doesn’t know how to fucking use it.
sketchy is just using the same boring trolling tricks it used to derail the other thread.
*yawn*
Right. I can see now that if a I try to have a debate on any topic whatever I’ll be immediately hounded and shut down with extreme prejudice without consideration of what I have to say but simply for being me. Sorry for existing.
[meta + OT]
sketch:
Are you a straight, white male?
(“You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.”)
@ sketch
Ease up Tiger! That is simply not true. PZ has made allowance for people disagreeing (even vehemently). I posted a linky for you here.
John Morales, if you wish to discuss this you may e-mail me at taotesketch at gmail. I won’t be responding back here due to being hounded by certain trolls.
@ sketch
Dude! Follow the linky. Why should you not make your comments in a public forum?
[OT]
sketch, take a break, maybe change your ‘nym.
You didn’t heed my (unsolicited) advice earlier, you need not heed this either.
(You coulda been a good and valuable commenter, you may yet so be)
Ahhh I see Sketch is fond of the tedious “Spanish Inquisition” approach to privilege:
Nobody expects An Easy Life! Our chief privilege is being white. White and heterosexual.
Our two privileges are being white and able bodied…and male.
Our three privileges are being white and able bodied and male and an almost fanatical devotion to being heterosexual.
Amongst our privileges are being white, able bodied, male…I’ll come in again…
Nobody expects An Easy Life! Amongst our privileges are such diverse elements as being white, able bodied, male, an almost fanatical devotion to being heterosexual and nice red uniforms…oh damn.
And so on and so forth.
Of all the possible ways and means to have privilege the article linked in the OP (Which I have now read thank you very much. Against my will and on pain of Death by Snoo-Snoo) is clearly not intended to be an exhaustive list. No one on this thread with the demonstrable intellectual gifts exceeding those given to a yoghurt claims that whiteness, maleness and heterosexuality are the sine qua non of privilege. Nor is the claim made, here or in the article, that these traits are exhaustive indicators of privilege, or universal, or anything of the kind. The omission of the extra elements of the Spanish Inquisition’s weaponry is not an omission made by error, but for the sake of brevity (not my strong suit) or simplicity.
Why do I smell straw over there?
Louis
Oh shit that was good.
I lol’d.
An announced flounce. If Sketch fails to stick the landing then points will be subtracted.
LILAPWL,
{Tips hat} Glad to be of service.
Although I did screw up the first line. Teach me not to preview and edit.
I had the mental image of those “STRAIGHT men”. You know the kind. They’re very STRAIGHT. The word is almost shouted, certainly emphasised. I’m now trying to remember a bit by a comedian which references the Dan Ackroyd character in the Dragnet film as someone who would have STRAIGHT sex of this type. Bugger…memory…I’ll remember as I wake at 3 am and scream the comedian’s name. Much to my wife’s amusement/annoyance.
Louis
‘Tis,
Oh I don’t know, a graceful re-entry can be entertaining if done right.
Starting with “Didn’t I school you liars enough last time?” would be an excellent opener. If it was combined with a reference to high IQ, “don’t you know who I am?”, a list of high achieving alumni from your high school, perhaps demands for a camera, things like that, it would score highly with me. There is nothing like unwarranted arrogance and lack of self reflection when it comes to a really top notch flounce failure.
Louis
@sketch
Erm, can you please direct me to said “hounding”? I have only seen people respond to claims that you have made in a public forum full of opinionated people discussing a contentious topic. If someone is actually harassing you in private, that would have no impact on the discussion here in the comments and wouldn’t justify a flounce (though I do love a good flounce). If you simply feel that people adamantly disagreeing with you amounts to some sort of harassment then you might want to ask yourself what your goals are in posting here. If you thought you were engaging in open discourse, you are doing it wrong.
Oh and The Pint, #418,
Thanks man, glad someone read it! It was a teal deer of the first water.
Louis
@ Sketch
Please. You’re not being hounded or shut down simply for being you. Your *arguments are being hounded and shut down because they are flimsy and in error. Adamant and strenuous disagreement is not “hounding with extreme prejudice.” I’m seconding MissMarnie’s suggestion that if you’re this surprised by having your arguments picked apart and dissected to this degree, you might want to rethink exactly what it is you wanted out of this discussion. Did you really want to see if you’d misunderstood Scalzi’s point, or did you want to prove that your interpretation was right and he was wrong?
In case you haven’t noticed, the denizens around here don’t take kindly to strawmen or commenters repeatedly, willfully missing the point. MissMarnie and others have quite clearly pointed out where you misinterpreted Scalzi’s point, which frankly shouldn’t have been necessary since Scalzi made it rather clear himself. It’s a rough-and-tumble arena in here, but if you can grow a thicker skin and learn to stop and *THINK* rather than *REACT* it can be a good place to sharpen your argumentation and logic skills by sparing with the people here.
—–
By the by, Scalzi’s put up a follow-up post elaborating on the original concept and addressing several categories of common criticisms/whines about the OP that’s worth reading, I think.
Sketch, if you’re still reading, I’d recommend looking especially hard at points 3-5 on this list.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/17/lowest-difficulty-setting-follow-up/
Apologies if this has been mentioned upthread, (I think I’ve read all of the comments, but you can never be sure) but I believe it would be useful for those here who are debating privilege to consider that it is strongly affected by geography. That is, a Muslim would have the privilege of not having to deal with the discrimination against Christians prevalent in an Islamic nation, while a Christian would have the privilege of not having to deal with the discrimination against Muslims in a Christian-dominated nation. Just something to think about.
Poor, poor sketchy. Persecuted he is, hounded always, by all these “vile demagogues”, all the time.
Why, he cannot scarcely open his mouth and they are all over him like Asian Hornets on a beehive.
Can’t even sleep at night. Has to keep one eye open.
Poor dear.
Bonus points for a link to a .jpg of your MENSA card.
Double bonus if it is expired.
Like this
Rev BDC,
Oooh nice. That’s epic level turdboxery. Has someone actually done that to you?
Do they get triple points if it’s a fake, expired Mensa card belonging to someone else that they have inexpertly Photoshopped their name onto?
Louis
Mensa membership expires??
Audley,
Last time I looked (~20+ years ago) one had to pay to be a member of Mensa. Even at 16 I figured that any group of people I had to pay to tell me I am smart were a lot smarter than me…
Louis
Louis,
But wouldn’t a group of smart people be able to figure out how to get grants and shit? Seems pretty dumb to charge their members, especially considering that Mensa isn’t open to just anyone.
I like the explanation, but there is one oversimplification, and that is the idea of “winning”. The game doesn’t tell you when you have won: its more like Oblivion or Fallout 3 than Final Fantasy 7. You decide if you have won or whether you are winning based your own criteria.
This is probably why lots of people on the easier settings get angry and argue a lot when they are reminded of their difficulty setting. Beyond the fact that its possible to get a low score on an easy difficulty setting, its also possible to “lose” with a high score.
@ Audley
Sadly, people expire. ;)
Well, it’s true I’ve hired a pod of ninja pilot whales to creep up on him while he’s in bed and…
Shit. Looks like there’s a flaw in my evil plan.
Audley,
It’s open to around 1 in 50 people. Pretty much anyone! ;-)
I prefer a more exclusive club. The Sitting Alone On A Friday Night Congratulating Yourself About How A Test Score Makes You Smart Club. We have chapters everywhere.
As for grants, ask them! I don’t know why they do what they do. I imagine getting grants is more work than fleecing someone for an ego boost however…
Louis
P.S. This isn’t sour grapes, I was in Mensa and Triple 9 when I was a kid/young adult, it was something we were encouraged to do at school/early uni. I just figured out when I was a kid/young adult that if I had to pay people to tell me I was smart, I wasn’t very smart. It’s just never really sat comfortably with me since then. I don’t mind if others do it, it’s just not me.
@ Louis
…
My uncle got into an argument with the chairman of the rugby club for behaving like a Phontes (riotous and drunk) on a regular basis. Eventually they had had enough:
Chairman: “Mr Phontes, your behaviour is appalling I shall have to retract your membership!”
Unclephontes: “You cannot do that!”
Chairman {apoplectic}: ” Why can’t I? I am the CHAIRMAN!”
Unclephontes : “Because, I am not even a member…”
Theophontes,
You have it exactly. I do favour the (Groucho) Marxist view of clubs.
On and good work there by the Uncle. I shall reserve it for future use. Hell, I’ll reserve it for past use. I am working on some extremely revisionary memoirs…
Louis
/ignores Sketch
Hi, Digital Atheist! Yeah, that was a great turn of phrase.
Pint, I’m about at the current halfway mark of the thread. I just happened upon this one. Hover over that hyperlink for additional facepalmery.
Though I have to say, the comment immediately below from Matt improved my mood immensely afterward.
Yeah – I had a couple of moments of let me take this line by line cause you aren’t even wrong.
Muse – I can’t believe you engaged with that guy as long as you did. His posts were tripping all sorts of my “do not engage unless you want a stroke!” triggers because he has clearly drunk deeply of the manosphere kool-aid.
I tried with AS but it became apparently fairly quickly that conversation was just going to go in circles.
And the follow up post is shaping up to be another long thread – although I imagine that once Scalzi comes back to take a look at that thread, there’s going to be some serious clean up in aisle 2 because there’s some serious stupid going on there like this one from Dingleberry Johnson: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/17/lowest-difficulty-setting-follow-up/#comment-327711
Damn it. meant *apparent not *apparently. sigh.
@ Daisy – it is going to be a LONG slog through that thread, I hope you have a crash helmet because there’s more where that came from, unfortunately.
Probably late:
Power Overwhelming
although
There is no Cow Level
is useful, too.
screechymonkey notes:
«It’s interesting how some people take posts like this so personally. If Ophelia posts about how some particular argument for God is nonsense, she doesn’t get a bunch of comments about “Geez, I’m already an atheist! What do you want me to do about this?” But any post pointing out privilege is met with exactly those kinds of responses.»
Well not to me but to Pharyngula. Charlie Wagner used to frequent Pharyngula a few years back (check the dungeon). He was a particularly annoying twit who liked to brag about how smart he was despite all evidence to the contrary in his posts. At one point he decided to “prove” to everyone with his credentials. So we got a link to his MENSA card, the one above, which was expired.
Hilarity ensued and he’s now enshrined in my memory so that anytime someone starts bragging about how smart they are and we all better watch out or they’ll unleash their intellect on us I start hoping we’ll get a link to their MENSA card or something equally hilarious as “proof”.
I don’t have the link to the original appearance of the card but I’m sure someone can find it.
Good ol’ Charlie Wagner. Number Seven in the olde dungeon. RIP (I assume).
Yep he’s expired too.
Writers Emma Bull and Will Shetterly are being AMAZINGLY dumb about this over at Steven Brust’s blog. Like, “Let’s pretend racism doesn’t exist, and then everything will be better!” dumb. I don’t even know where to begin there.
Argh, broke the link. Try that.
My exposure to Charlie Wagner was from a different blog, long after he was banned here (aaarrrggghhh! Why? Why did you have to remind me of that fapwit? Why? The nightmares are going start all over again!)
He actually did strike me as fairly intelligent, in the sense of possessing a quick and creative thinking brain.
The thing about intelligence is that it is just hardware, and works like a magnifying glass. In classic GIGO fashion, high intelligence without discipline just magnifies stupid starting premises into ever more elaborate forms of expanding stupidity.
Pointing to one’s own IQ or MENSA membership in an argument is just an admission that you are even more spectacularly wrong than average, and have even less of an excuse to be that wrong.
Sure, but they’d also figure out how much work that is.
Mwahah.
I’m a fucking idiot for reading it all. Gives me work deprivation and meatspace-things-to-urgently-do deprivation. :-/
Even more importantly: without facts to apply it to.
Touché, David.
Josh, Louis, Audley – I just have to announce, in front of our lord FSM, that I love y’all so hard. That’s the most I’ve laughed in months. Kisses and cookies for all!
Found it:
http://www.charliewagner.net/mensacard.jpg
Awe, thanks, Illuminata. *blush*
1) Rev BDC, Ahhhh yes, the Wagner. I remember him well!
2) Amphiox:
QFMFET.
I can just about forgive myself because I was young and bigger boys made me do it (before running away), Miss.
3) Illuminata, Right back atcha!
Louis