They did! And it’s every bit as stupid, clueless, and inane as you might imagine. It’s titled QUESTIONS WHITE MEN HAVE FOR SJWs!
, and it features Sargon of Akkad, Undoomed, Armoured Skeptic, Atheism is Unstoppable, Kraut and Tea, Chris Ray Run, Anthony Fantano, Mr Repzion, Cult of Dusty, and of course, The Amazing Atheist, (nice list of youtubers to ignore forevermore) and they have 27 questions shouted by a group of indignant white men in silly costumes or using pretentious animated avatars, all demonstrating that special combination of oblivious racism and sexism that makes other white male atheists cringe in embarrassment. I’m not going to link to it, but I will post the QUESTIONS!
they ask, because they’re so mundane and goofy. You can see the whole thing over at Martin Hughes’ place, and most importantly, you can see his lengthy replies. I’ll just give flippant replies here.
1. Why do you claim to speak for LGBT people, women, and ethnic minorities but when lgbt people, women, and ethnic minorities disagree with you, you harass them?
Disagreement is not harassment. Persisting in pestering someone when they ask you to stop is harassment. These guys usually don’t comprehend that.
2. Do you realize that your war on language through political correctness has made you bedfellows with true rape culture?
In other words, Islam, the world’s most misogynistic ideology?
I’m too busy waging War on Christmas to have a War on Language, but each are as fictitious as the other.
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all rather disgustingly misogynistic. I oppose most strongly the one that affects me the most, but that doesn’t mean I think the others are hunky-dory.
3. Do you want women to be equal or do you want women to be a protected class?
You can’t have both.
If you expect society to be treat women as equal with men, why don’t women have to take responsibility for their own safety?
They do already! The question should be about why men don’t have to take responsibility for their aggression and violence.
4. What are you afraid will happen when you leave your “safe space”?
The same crap that happens every day. Why do you resent the fact that some people would like a sanctuary where they don’t have to listen to tedious assholes like you?
5. How can you possibly justify the idea that it’s somehow racist to disagree with black lives matter?
And yet it’s not racist when a black person tweets something like, “kill all white people.”
Are you seriously equating the Black Lives Matter movement with violent threats to kill all white people? Because they’re not the same.
6. Are you aware the present is not the past?
Are you familiar with the concept of linear time?
Because you seem incredibly comfortable traveling back through time by talking about how bad things were for women, or black people, or whomever. And then by using some form of SJW magic, you then claim or imply that those problems in the past exist today.
Are you aware that this trick that you’re doing is not working? Why do you think that would work?
Are you aware that condescending stupidity makes you look like an idiot?
These words are spoken by a cartoon kangaroo, by the way.
7. Why do you think that you can spend your entire life in a state of perpetual emotional immaturity?
Do you actually imagine that you’ll be able to stretch out your adolescence for your entire existence?
Someone in a group of pompous, privileged dudebros actually asked that question.
8. Did you know there are 13% more women in college right now than men?
So if the whole goal of feminism is “equality,” shouldn’t we have some men-only scholarships in order to equal everything out?
Uh, there are scholarships just for men.
I assure you, we educators are well aware of the disparities, and are working constantly to correct them. The thing is, they are different problems: women face social pressures that depress economic and educational success, while men face social pressures that declare education to be unmanly, among other things. The men at my university are generally confident that they deserve to be there, while the women are more full of doubt.
These are complex problems that won’t be solved with scholarships. Scholarships are needed to correct economic inequities, but there’s more to this problem than just money.
9. If feminism and egalitarianism are both about equal rights, than why does one start with a gendered prefix while the other one is entirely gender neutral?
If medicine is all about making all people well, why do some doctors specialize in, say, oncology, or even gynecology?
10. What do you hope to gain by bringing back racial segregation?
We don’t.
11. When my grand-uncle was dropping bombs on London, did your grandparents get out of their bunkers in the morning to protest with signs that read, “Not all Nazis”?
Did you know that there were anti-German riots in the UK? Let’s just lash out and burn down the businesses of everyone named “Meier”, even if their family had been living here for generations. Or how about the Japanese internment in the US?
The problem is rarely that citizens are overly zealous in recognizing diversity, but more that we tend to lump people together unfairly. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, where the failure to appreciate that “Not All Japs” were America-hating traitors left deep scars.
12. Why do you think every cis white male is born racist?
Racism is a learned behavior.
And you have learned it well.
No one thinks that, by the way.
13. How can you possibly say that the phrase “All Lives Matter” is somehow racist?
It sounds like someone the Dalai Lama would say.
Saying all lives matter is not racist. Trying to deny the reality of racism against minorities by drowning out their specific concerns with platitudes is.
14. Would you rather be right, or popular?
It seems like your primary objective is to score social points and get public validation.
You speak publicly in the same way that people write their dating profiles.
Stop trying to demonstrate how awesome you are, and get real.
Wait. This one is said by some kind of animal dressed in a burka, in front of a video of a black woman lifting weights. I was distracted by the overwhelming irrelevancy of the whole thing.
But no. Injustice exists. Trying to right it has a greater purpose than “social points”.
15. So if a drunk man sleeps with a drunk woman, the woman is incapable of giving consent.
But the man is?
Nope.
This has been yet another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.
16. Is it really easier trying to spend all your life attempting to pacify the world and subdue all around you, instead of accepting that you are the person that has to change?
OK, you win. So you’re going to give up the atheist thing and just accept Islam now?
17. When I sing along with rap music, is it OK if I say the word “nigga”?
Why do white people so desperately want an excuse to say “nigga”? It’s just weird.
18. How do you reconcile your opinion that gender doesn’t matter or even exist with your need to invent new genders each day?
I don’t even…gender matters a lot to individuals. It’s the basis for a great deal of appalling discrimination and oppression. Who’s denying it? Not anyone on my side.
19. In your version of equality will white men ever have a voice in society or will white men always be too privileged to participate in discussion?
Says the guy in a public video made entirely by white men, complaining about society.
20. What makes you think that the power of censorship that you are so desperately trying to establish now will at no point be used against you?
Saying that I don’t want to listen to you is not censorship. One of your problems is that you demand that everyone must pay attention to you while you shout down everyone else.
21. Why is it that if a woman dresses sexy or even topless in public you support it, but if a female video-game character is dressed sexy, then you want her clothed more modestly?
If a woman chooses to dress however she wants, that is her right. When other people decide that the majority representation of women in media will always be sexy
, that is wrong. You do realize that video game characters aren’t voluntary agents, right?
22. What is your favorite song to sing really loud when you’re confronted with a different point of view?
4’33” by John Cage.
23. Why are you afraid of dissenting opinions?
Your continued attempts to silence all opposition, either by smearing them publicly, or labeling their content as “hate speech” and having it removed, only serves to insulate your bubble even more and maintain your echo chamber.
It also prevents you from taking on new information and hearing different points of view.
Different points of view that are sometimes superior to yours.
Which tends to happen whenever I talk.
Nah, sorry, your point of view is common as mud and not particularly interesting.
By the way, you seem to have confused “afraid” with “excruciatingly bored”.
24. What is reverse racism? Like, what the actual fuck is it?
It’s just racism, right?
Do you even know that reverse racism
is not a concept supported by us SJWs, but rather is an excuse for resentment against policies of affirmative action, promoted by people like you?
25. Do any of you people actually remember all the pronouns?
You know the list, right? The one with 76 fucking genders.
Do you remember all the names people use for each other? There’s millions of ’em: John, Jane, Peter, Elizabeth, Fred, Wilma, etc. How do you keep them straight? It’s gotten to the point where I see some stranger on the street and I don’t know what they’re called, and I have to ask them. It’s horrific.
26. Why do you feel entitled to control what artists and entertainers are allowed to express?
Why do you think your sensibilities should be placed above the sensibilities of actual creators?
Who has control of what artists express? Not me.
Do these privileged assholes feel entitled to control our expression of disgust at the racism and sexism they represent? Yes. Do they think they’re somehow privileged to be “creators”, while others are not? Yes.
27. Have you ever considered that using the terms “racism” and “sexism” as haphazardly as you do to describe everything under the sun that makes you feel uncomfortable devalues the word to the point that it actually hurts the people who actually suffer from real racism and real sexism?
Have you ever fucking thought of that?
This is the culminating question of a video in which a bunch of white men rant about what makes them feel uncomfortable.
There is, however, one final shot of one of the white guys suggesting that SJWs ought to drink bleach.
Again, if you want to read a reply that takes these clowns somewhat more seriously, see Martin Hughes.
28. Have you stopped beating your wife?
29. Can you prove to us you aren’t a Communist lizard man from Dimension X come to steal my fairy eggs?
Why would anyone model his or her behavior on Buzzfeed?
30. None of us can get a date, and we’re still living in our parents’ basements. Can you explain why?
Are they illiterate? Every category within the relevant group characteristics represents a protected class. Discrimination on the basis of (legal) sex is prohibited, so women are a protected class and men are a protected class. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, so gay people are a protected class and bisexual people are a protected class and straight people are a protected class and asexual people are a protected class. Equality.
…because women are actual real people, but female video-game characters are not? This is a very, very important distinction to learn.
It always saddens me when I see people vehemently oppose an idea or idelogy based on a complete lack of comprehension for even the most basic aspects of it.
Like…how low an opinion of the intelligence of other people do they have to have, to think “SJW”s actually believe those things as represented in the video?
I have a hard time believing these are actually atheists. There are 27 questions. 27 is 3 to the power of 3, a clear reference to the holy trinity. They think they’re being clever, but I see right through them.
/s
@4
Can we not punch down at people who have trouble dating, for whatever reason?
Safe space = an inclusive version of the “man cave.”
Everybody (should) has one; everybody needs one. I simply do not get the anger over that is expressed towards them.
I’m asking myself why I just watched all these assholes rather than going to bed.
That is some cringe-worthy shit. On any sane planet, participating in a video like that would get you the resounding ridicule of the whole of humanity. Yet I am willing to be the YouTube comments are full of utter praise for these brave white men who dared to speak out against the oppression they suffer at the hands of the SJW tyrants.
It reaches a whole new level of irony though in the context of TAA’s recent rants. TAA calling black culture a “victim culture”, while joining in a video comprised of members of the most privileged demographic in the country lamenting all the oppression they suffer at the hands of SJWs. I mean after all, black people may get targeted by police simply because of their skin color, but these guys have to deal with being criticized on the internet. Sure women and especially feminist women have to deal with sexual harassment, rape threats, death threats, and all kinds of other abuse, but these guys have to deal with being told that their ideas are bad and that they should feel bad. Who’s the real victim here? Won’t someone please think of the white men?
Re: Your answer to question 9. You forgot the medical specialists these a******s are most familiar with – proctologist.
And all of the questions come down to, essentially, “I’m scared that if all people are treated like me, I won’t be a special recto-cranial snowflake, boohoohoo!!!”
Of course! I put out the fire, therefore your house is perfectly habitable and all of your possessions are intact.
Why do you drive on a parkway but park in a driveway?
Language is full of odd contingencies.
Because incurring the wrath of powerful assholes is such a great way to score social points and get public validation.
And I am also sick and tired of authoritarians who view free speech as, “Your speech is free as long as you agree with me — if you disagree, I will try to drive you into hiding to shut you up.” A group says offensive things. Others object. The group saying something offensive then screams ‘FREE SPEECH’ (possibly while holding up a lit Zippo) and makes the claim that objecting to another’s actions or speech violates the offensive rectal-cranial inverted asshat’s freedom of speech.
And yes, that sounds convoluted, mostly because I really don’t understand . . . .
Piling on:
You know, Charles Lindbergh, the great American hero, did just that. A big fan of Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Springsteen’s Born in America, to emphasize that it is NOT a song of patriotism. or Born to Run emphasizing the first few lines that are especially telling of escaping the shithole behind.
[joining in to the previous replies]: because the video game character did not consciously choose her costume. She is an animated drawing, not a person. She was drawn by a male artist, and drawn with a costume drawn by a male to attract the base interests of other males. Not a person freely choosing an outfit she likes and is comfortable wearing. What part of that do you not understand? Why even ask your misogynistic question? So you like to play video games for eye-candy, and women object to being portrayed as eye-candy. You are not the only customers and sends poor message to younger players you want just high scores, initially.
————-
pffft
pointless to reply to a video I’ll never watch and to the video whose makes will never see these replies.
oops. That was Born in the U S A !!! not Born in Ameria
sorry Boss
It’s nice that YouTube gave the control group for the Dunning-Kruger Effect a voice.
Hahah wow. I had my own flippant answers to most of the questions.
1. Horseshit
2. So you don’t want us to address the sexism that affects us here in the US, but just sexism as a vehicle to flog your-brown-people boogeyman. And then whine that nobodies sees your Deep Concern for the Plight of Women *sniff* =’C
3.1 As Hughes explained protected MEANS that it is made equal when it previously was not
3.2 ,,|,,
4 We can get murdered, arrested, assaulted, harassed, disowned, persecuted, and shunned. When you white dudes leave your “safe space” you sometimes get your feefees hurt and have to make videos like this crying about the meanie poopheads who wouldn’t listen to you. If you walked a yard in our shoes you’d fucking die you pitiful thinskinned whelps.
5 “How is it racist to disagree that black lives matter?” Are you actually that fucking stupid or are you just a smarmy disingenuous prick.
6 Are you aware that “linear time” implies that what comes now is a PRODUCT of what came before? Like, the universe isn’t regenerated from scratch every single week, day, second, but is built upon what happened prior? Also a hella lot of stuff “in the past” was never solved at all, privileged people just told themselves that it was.
7 ,,|,,
8 PZ got that one handled.
9 Hughes has that one handled.
10 What do you hope to gain by beating your wife?
11 Your metaphor is too stupid for me to figure out what context you’re failing to mock. The closest thing I can get is “not all men” but that’s something that’d be in your phrasebook, not ours. If that’s the context though, your metaphor reads as “when our ancestors were raping women, did your grandparents go out every day with ‘not all men’ signs?” I still don’t now wtf you’re trying to get at.
12 fuck off
13 because you only say “all lives matter” when using it to say “shut up about your black lives”. you don’t do a single damned thing to promote that idea, not for black lives, not hispanic or gay or autistic lives, not even white lives (because everybody already comfortably knows white lives matter). you only scream it to drown out people who say their lives matter too. Cracker.
14 ,,|,,
15 *watches as a jackass picks a fight with a strawman, and gets curbstomped*
16 Listen to your own words you sanctimonious prick.
17 seriously dude if you need something to do with your mouth how about you stuff another handful of saltines in it
18 why are you so insecure that you need to dump on people for doing whatever makes them comfortable instead of just, yknow, being minimally polite. you are not a very good person.
19 PZ nailed it
20 don’t chip a tooth on that freeze peach
21 I honestly thought a long time about how to respond to this. Tell, me, where is the disconnect: Are you unable to comprehend that women who exist in digital form, created by some guy at a computer, are literally NOT SENTIENT? Or is your misogynist little reptile brain unable to wrap itself around the idea that actual, real, physical women are MORE SENTIENT than collections of vectors and bits in a picture box? It’s empowering when a woman makes her own decisions for her self and her body. It’s not empowering when a gauche marionette modeled to look like a woman via pareidolia is compelled to do things by a creepy dude for the titillation of creepy dudes. Ffs.
22 what’s yours?
23 #2 on this list http://www.funnyordie.com/slideshows/08b93f0123/gifs-that-jerk-off-motion?_cc=__d___&_ccid=a47d2a86-9cbd-4bbd-92c0-63ab63c7b3b5
24 it’s horseshit that you whined about unironically earlier
25 “Ugh, why do people have to be so DIFFERENT? It’s fucking HARD to treat them like individuals! why can’t they just be the pudgy little clay people in my mind? so rude.”
26 How dare we have opinions and interests. ,,|,,
27 oh sorry, I forgot that only white guys can determine real racism, cis guys can determine real transphobia, straight guys can determine real homophobia, etc. All this time we forgot to ask permission from our masters to be hurt by things. How arrogant of us to think that our own experiences were more legitimate than what our masters said they were! Feh. Go fuck a rake pricklord.
“When my grand-uncle was dropping bombs on London,”
Did this guy just admit his family were Nazis?
drst @20:
Not necessarily. The Luftwaffe had a higher percentage of officers who were members of the NSDAP than the Werhmacht, and much higher than the Kriegsmarine, but it was by no means a majority. Additionally, very few enlisted personnel were party members outside of the political army of the SS. That said, I really do not know what point
is supposed to mean. I guess I could read that as “all of our ancestors did bad things so we can’t complain about people doing bad things now”? Or, maybe, “there’s always people willing to stand up for what is right, not what is popular”? Or “standing up for social justice is what the non-Nazis did”?
er, remove the word “point” and replace it with “this” right before the second quoted area. All hail Substitia, Grammatika, and Tpyos.
What if FtB got together and made a video?
…
Well?
Okay number 6 is hilariously bad. “In the distant past, the Earth rotated around the sun. Therefore it cannot be doing so now.”
LOL.
Dudebros lack thinking skills. They’re up there with the creationists when it comes to being rational and skeptical.
drst: Well, my one granddad was in the SS and driving a tank through Russia at that time, and the other was trying to shoot down Allied bombers.
That doesn’t seem like much of an “admission”, pretty much any male German of a certain age bracket will have fought in the war. (Interestingly, the granddad who wasn’t in the SS seems to have been more taken in by Nazi ideology than the one who was, from what I can tell. Maybe because he’s a bit younger and therefore grew up under the Nazis?)
Teh stoopid – it burns!
There is much to laugh at here, but one that jumped out at me was;
You would think the distinction between an actual human being who happens to be a woman and chooses to dress and present herself in a certain way on the one hand, and a fictional depiction of a woman that is likely to be created by men for a majority male audience (and encodes broader social attitudes towards women and womanhood) on the other, would be clear.
These MRA arsehats are either incapable of recognizing the autonomy and humanity of women, or are cynically prepared to pretend that there is no difference between an actual woman and a sexualized image of a woman in order to maintain their gender privilege and continue treating women as masturbation aids rather than people. Either way, it is a damning indictment on their functionality as decent human beings.
Brother Ogvorbis, Zepplin,
I think that #11 was about terrorism or something? The only way I can make it work logically is that the Nazis are Muslim terrorists and it’s stupid for people being hurt by terrorists to speak up that not all Muslims are terrorists? The implication is that you’d have to be stupid to stand up while being actively hurt and defend the people hurting you.
I think. Because I tried BLM and “Not All Men” and neither of them make any sense in the context of that question. Not that there’s much sense to be had anywhere in this hot mess.
Anton Mates and Gregory Greenwood
Well, that distinction is very clear to folks who actually see “women” as a subset of “people” and who are older than 6 years old, which is, AFAIK, the age at which most children understand the difference between a TV character and a real person.
Those guys clearly don’t believe that women are actual people with agency (but they’Re really responsible for what men do to them).
It may also be because they have vast experience with female video game characters and female TV characters, but very little experience with female people.
got me! Did not know there are 76 genders! good to know. now about that list…
Sounds to me like they’ve internalized the notion that a man will always consent, therefore men can’t be raped.
Hint: It’s not feminists spreading that idea, it’s toxic masculinity spreading the idea that sex is what men should obsess over.
If you get drunk and crash your car and hurt someone, you’ll get arrested and charged. Why do these guys think that’s okay but charging a man who gets drunk and rapes someone isn’t?
#gamergate
Ah. Why didn’t he just come out and say “virtue signalling”? It’s the newest thing on the alt-right, and is pretty much an accusation that we don’t really mean it when we stand up for social justice.
One thing I noticed with the tenor of their asshole questions, is that they appear to believe in egalitarianism. Treat everybody equal and society is equal.
What the assholes don’t comprehend is that there is a difference between equal opportunity, which means getting your foot in the door, and equal results, which means that everybody is treated the same after hiring. They refuse to see the residual institutional bigotry and sexism that exists in society, to hold back women, PoC, LGBT, etc., who aren’t like them. They want their present advantages while pretending they are for equality. What ignorant assholes they are, if they think nobody can see through that facade.
What they don’t like, is that those who are SJWs, look and see the bigotry still in place, and point it out. It makes them uncomfortable, because they RELY upon their privilege to even semi-succeed. They are scared shitless of having to compete on a truly level playing field where they have no advantage.
Whether they like it or not, their egalitarian ideas require a complete look at everything that holds back women, PoC, LGBT, etc., in order to work properly, and anything/anyone who is not behaving properly needs to be reprimanded, and the problems corrected. Only after all the residual institutional bigotry/sexism is removed, will their egalitarianism work properly.
But they don’t want it to work.
@ Brother Ogvorbis #15
It helps to make it understandable if you consider the whole thing in terms of trying to get people to shut up and other goals that have nothing to do with understanding and disagreeing with any of the issues, and everything to do with winning a social fight. Sooooooo much projection among other things.
1) “Fellow white males, stop advocating for non-white males because it’s hard! We don’t have any psychological group advantages with you!”
2) “Stop making us get specific on bad behavior! If we can’t focus on whole groups of people we fear, we can’t ignore our part of rape culture or distract you from it!”
3) “Fellow males, stop protecting women! We can’t treat them differently and maintain our cultural advantage!”
4) “Stop creating places where we can’t shout down people criticizing us for how we treat them!” or “Stop creating places where you figure how people are different and we can’t keep the attention on definitions of normal that advantage us!”
5) “Stop making us think about how the same behavior has different implications in different contexts! We want be able to act the same in every context without criticism!”
6) “Stop pointing out how the past created the present! I don’t want to think about how I’m contributing to the effects of bad things that happened then or now! I want to keep doing what I’m doing without criticism!”
7) “I don’t want to think about the experiences connected to your emotions! I want to act like any emotion in what you say is a reason to ignore you!”
8) “Stop making me think about why outcomes are independently different for people based on sex and/or gender! I want to pretend that everyone has the same experiences as me!”
9) “Stop making me think about history and why groups symbolically emphasize things in their names! I don’t want to think about social power differences!”
10) “Stop making me think about how white people treat people differently based on race!”
11) “Stop making me think about how xenophobic bigots take advantage of conflicts between groups! I don’t want to think about how I’m helping them!”
12) “I don’t want to think about the fact that it’s important to address the biggest source of the effects of racism and bigotry!”
13) See 5.
14) “Stop using language that makes you socially and politically effective!” (also works for 7) or “I’m going to act like you only use rhetoric so people ignore the fact that I’m only using rhetoric!”
15) “I don’t want to think about how rapes actually occur and how society treats men and women differently! I’m going to pretend that it’s the same because it’s easier!”
16) “I don’t like it when people try to change society and how I act in it! I’m going to act like you are being physically coercive rhetorically so I can make it seem like you are being unreasonable!”
17) “I really really want to use that word! I like socially dominating black people and I want to use the word that makes them think about all that stuff that happened and all the unsolved problems that still exist* when I try to socially dominate them!” or “It’s no fair! There are no good insults for white people for me to complain about! It sound pathetic to complain about ‘cracker’!”
*I could easily be wrong since I am white (and want to know), but that is the impression I get from the emotions evoked by the word being used by white people.
18) “I’m too lazy to think about what sex and gender are so I’m going to conflate a bunch of different things and make an ongoing effort look silly!”
19) “Stop pointing out all of the advantages, privileges, and ways that we are creating a racist system! I’m going to pretend that you just want to do what we have been doing when you criticize me!”
20) “Stop criticizing us and taking our social advantages away in social spaces you control! Correcting social power imbalances feels like a power imbalance and I don’t want to think about social changes larger than me!”
21) “I want to pretend that the fake women we use to create social expectations are just like the real women we want to force into those expectations!”
22) (Shifting to my voice)”Open Up” by Korn, but it’s (shifting voice back to hyperbolic version of them) “I want to pretend they hate different points of view and not incorrect points of view used to hurt other people!”
23) “I don’t like the things you are saying so I want to people to feel like you are physically silencing us with rhetoric, attaching lies to our reputations, and we want people to ignore how what we say contributes to xenophobia and bigotry! I want to pretend that you have not heard this 1000 times before so people can ignore that exhausting you is a social conflict strategy! I want to pretend that constantly spewing the same thing that has been answered 1000 times is superior!”
24) “I don’t want to pay attention to what racism really is because I might accidentally see my own racism! So I’m going to act like paying attention to race is always racism! Then I’m going to rhetorically pretend that it’s all your idea!”
25) “I don’t want to act like people are actually different! It’s too hard! I want to pretend that everyone is like me so I keep getting my social benefits that I want to ignore!”
26) “I don’t want to think about how artists and entertainers I like affect society! I want you to stop criticizing things I like that support the society we have now!”
27) “I don’t want to know what racism and sexism really are! I want to act like the times that people called me racist and sexist are silly and unimportant!”
I think I’m going to work on this and turn it into a post.
While playing devil’s advocate is a strategy with questionable validity on these kinds of issues, a thought does occur to me.
With the female costumes in video games thing. It’s obvious that the whiners in the video don’t grasp the differences between real people and fictional characters, but this opens up two possibilities. It seems everyone has jumped for the “they clearly think that real women aren’t sentient individuals with agency, just like video game characters aren’t” interpretation. Which may be valid in many or all cases.
I wonder, though, whether it could be the opposite. Whether they actually see video game characters as real people too. Or, at least, subconsciously categorise them that way. Characters in games (and films and TV programmes and books etc.) are usually presented such that we are invited to pretend they are real within the context of the game world or story. Is it such a stretch to imagine that people who don’t think too deeply about social issues but do play a lot of video games would begin to see characters as examples of real people?
Not that I expect many of these goons treat real people terribly well either. That’s kind of my point.
I haven’t watched the video, but I figure it would be far better if they’d recited the lyrics to 4’33” instead of asking all those questions.
(Then again, I’ve never actually listened to 4’33”, but I believe I’ve heard impromptu renditions of it, usually pretty late at night…)
Just thought about it for a bit and, while I wouldn’t normally sing over an opposing view, I’m willing to make an exception for this video (which, again, I have not actually watched). I figure I would just belt out The Stranglers’s “Shut Up,” perhaps with a few extra rounds of the chorus…
Bronze Dog @30:
Of course men can’t be raped. If a man is raped, that makes hima woman and women always lie.
Brony @34:
Ah. The whole ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ ideal.
But if were only about winning, not making the world a better place, then they would feel comfortable with lying, misrepresenting reality, denying a person’s personal history, engaging in absolutist virtue ethics, and harrassing those who disagree with no limits.
Er, yeah.
the one message I consistently get from these fellows is that they do not believe in equality before the law or in fact that it exists at all. they take learned bias and de facto advantage as natural and reflect demonstrable truths.
the more they complain it just shows how threatened they are.
If they feel threatened they are loosing if they stop complaining that is bad.
uncle frogy
re richard smith @37 wrote:
[pedant alert] You do know that Cage, composed 4’33” to be explicitly silence. IE, literally, “pianist: sit at the piano, close the keyboard lid, wait 4 minutes 33 seconds (let the sounds from the audience be the actual music of this piece), open the lid, finished”
Given that, I assume PZ is saying that when someone is shouting their opinions, the song he would sing would be to sit quietly and let the shouting itself be the song he’d essentially sing.
Dusty is in that mix? What a shame, he used to be reasonable.
Okay, I’ll bite.
1. We don’t. You’re making shit up. Criticizing someone is not the same thing as harassing them. I’d ask why white dudebros like this are so accepting of the harassment that women, lgbt people, black people, and other marginalized groups suffer from white dudebros.
2. Acting as if women are responsible for their own rapes is “true rape culture”. You don’t get to pretend that rape culture in developed countries isn’t a problem because you can find someone else who did something worse. No one here thinks that fundamentalist Islam’s treatment of women is acceptable. For some reason, mouth-breathers like you can’t comprehend that we can condemn female genital mutilation and other misogynistic aspects of Islam while still recognizing that not every Muslim supports such behavior.
3. No one is arguing that women have to be a protected class. If this is about women being blamed for their own rapes, then I don’t think you know what a “protected class” is. The issue with rape culture is that people like you act as if the rapist, the person who actually committed the crime, is somehow not responsible for it. You act as if men are just mindless rape machines who can’t be held accountable for their treatment of women. Any attempt to blame the woman for her own rape is displacing blame away from the actual perpetrator.
4. Safe spaces are there so marginalized people can have somewhere where they aren’t constantly shat on by assholes like you. If they leave, you and your fellow ignorami will subject them to the same tedious bullshit you always do. I can understand how they would occasionally like some respite from that.
5. Black Lives Matter does not argue that all white people should be killed. You’re making shit up again. It’s not racist in principle to disagree with Black Lives Matter, it’s just that most people who do disagree use bullshit racist arguments to explain why they disagree.
6. Hey dipishit, you realize that problems don’t just disappear after a couple of decades, right? This is just the same tired “Racism/Sexism is Over!” horseshit you always use. Even if racism and sexism declined once it became unacceptable in polite conversation, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t still remnants of it still in society today. You act as if once the 70s ended, there was some sort of magical wave that covered the globe and made all of the people who were casually racist/sexist suddenly come to the light. many aspects of how society is structured that perpetuate racism also remain, like redlining policies that ensure that black people remain ghettoized.
7. Say the clueless man children who throw tantrums anytime someone points out that they’re being entitled assholes. Seriously, this one is pure psychological projection.
8. I think PZ covered this far better than I ever could.
9. Feminism concerns itself with societal disparities suffered by women, and seeks to correct them. To use “egalitarianism”, or some other gender-neutral term ignores that women are the ones who disproportionately suffer from these disparities. I don’t get why you’re objecting to a movement that focuses on women’s issues being called feminism.
10. You’re making shit up again. I think I know what you’re trying to do though. It’s that bullshit about not seeing color, right? I suppose the easiest way to ignore injustices suffered by black people is to deny that black people exist as a group. Society as a whole treats black people as a group badly, and then when it’s called out apologists for the status quo claim to be colorblind and act like the people who notice the injustice are somehow the racist ones.
11. Once again, PZ handled this far better than I could. I will say that your comparison would only make sense if there were nazis who weren’t racist totalitarians. There are in fact Muslims who aren’t misogynists, don’t sympathize with terrorists, and object to the brutality of groups like ISIS. Your problem is that you flat out deny this.
12. You’re making shit up again. No one thinks that cisgendered, heterosexual white males are born racist. This is just you guys getting defensive.
13. The meaning of Black Lives Matter is that “Black Lives Also Matter”, not that black lives matter exclusively. Black people are the ones who are routinely shot for no reason by white cops. All Lives Matter is racist because it denies that black people specifically have their lives devalued by society.
14. This is one of those tired, cliched accusations that every idiot throws at people they don’t like. You’re not going to get anywhere by questioning our motives or accusing us of just wanting publicity.
15. If they’re both drunk, then neither of them can give informed consent. What’s morally objectionable is when a sober person gets someone drunk in order to make them more willing to have sex, or to get them to pass out so they don’t even have to ask permission.
16. You could ask that of the people that fought against segregation or for women’s suffrage. Passive acceptance of a shitty society has never worked. It is in fact possible to change society for the better. The main obstacles to that are shitweasels like you.
17. Actually, I think that your obsession with trying to find an acceptable reason to use n*gger says more about you than you realize. Why are you so fixated on that?
18. My position is that all genders should be treated equally, not that genders don’t exist. I think that people’s personal gender identity should be respected. That doesn’t mean that I think that people of different genders should receive unfair treatment.
19. I guess this is that white fragility that I read about. Pointing out that white men are privileged and already disproportionately dominate many discussions makes white men think that you want to oppress them.
20. I don’t support government censorship of media. Your problem is that you think criticism is the same thing as censorship, that you have a right to an audience, and that threats and harassment count as free speech.
21. Real women choose to dress like that because they want to. Video game women dress that way because they’re manufactured sex symbols with no agency in the real world.
22. Why do you feel the need to ask so many loaded questions?
23. I’m not afraid of different points of view. You’re mistaking criticising stupid ideas with being unwilling to consider new ideas. Any group of like-minded people discussing their ideas with each other is an “echo chamber” to people who don’t like them. We’ve already heard your arguments a million times before, judged them to be idiotic, and we’re tired of hearing them regurgitated at us over and over again.
24. Social justice advocates didn’t invent the term “reverse racism”, people like you did.
25. Apparently, a little bit of extra effort to acknowledge someone’s preferred gender is too much for you. Just ask someone what their preferred pronoun is. Does anyone know where the 76 pronoun figure comes from?
26. Criticism and censorship are not the same thing, dipshit. Content creators are free to make their work however they choose, and we’re free to criticize it. The Internet is obsessed with picking apart and tearing into media, criticising people for any number of creative decisions. Suddenly, it becomes censorship when a work’s attitudes about race or gender are criticized.
27. You don’t get to dictate what qualifies as “real” racism or sexism. By ignoring the people who suffer from these types of issues, you’re hurting them. Women are hurt by rape culture. Black people are hurt by trigger-happy cops. This is not devaluing racism and sexism, this is acknowledging the whole problem. You don’t really care about “real” racism and sexism. When it comes to Islam, you’re just using fundamentalist Islam’s misogyny as a blunt instrument to attack another culture. I doubt that you’ve actually given any thought to what you mean by “real” racism.
In short, these guys just come across as entitled man-boys who don’t want to acknowledge just how much society unjustly favors them. They have no right to think that they have any sort of moral high ground. We’re the ones that actually give a shit what women and minorities think. All these guys seem to care about is avoiding any obligation to examine their own place in society.
These are also incompetent dudebros. There are better questions to ask SJWs.
@slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) (#41)
I can’t speak for your neighbourhood but, at least where I live, there’s a serious shortage of musicians (or those who fancy themselves to be such) putting on impromptu performances of any sort, particularly very late at night. So, yeah, I understood what PZ meant, and was just stating that the video would have been much improved if the questioners had essentially followed the same idea.
@ Brother Ogvorbis
>”But if were only about winning, not making the world a better place, then they would feel comfortable with lying, misrepresenting reality, denying a person’s personal history, engaging in absolutist virtue ethics, and harrassing those who disagree with no limits.”
Assuming this was not sarcasm (I can have issues with that sometimes), some of them probably do think they are representing reality properly (despite evidence to the contrary), that they are making the world better (despite the actual results of their positions), recognizing the history of other people (the minimum necessary to respond to them), being sufficiently specific with ethics (as far as they think they need to be), and merely disagreeing in groups (harassment and group criticism probably feel similar).
It can be challenging to apply enough social pressure to pry evidence of ignorance vs. deception from them and get them to spend the energy to showing that they have comprehended it.
@drst,
Because they want to reduce most cases of alcohol-assisted rape to their preferred “two drunk people have happy sex and then the woman regrets it afterwards and cries rape” scenario, and they’ll torture logic as badly as necessary to get there.
I think their explicit reasoning is that if a drunk man is unable to consent to sex, then he can’t be blamed for having sex with a drunk woman who is also unable to consent. They’re equally guilty, therefore neither of them is guilty. Or something. Of course, this makes no sense because you can be legally culpable for an action without being legally capable of consenting to that action. A child cannot consent to have sex, but can still sexually assault another child.
Moreover, the fact that two people in a sexual situation are equally drunk does not imply that they’re equally responsible for getting into that situation. If Drunk Person A is the one physically pushing for sex, while Drunk Person B is blacked out or otherwise unable to fight back, then obviously Drunk Person A is the guilty one.
This one is asked clumsily but there is a real issue lurking underneath. I have been in Title IX discussions were it was acknowledged that drunkeness issue is very difficult and the current common policies may be too biased toward women. People are not worried about current policy visa vis drunk-woman/sober man. Or drunk woman plied-with-alcohol by sober or drunk man. Or drunk woman drunk man where the man uses force. There is concern about the policy being unfair toward men in the case were both the man and the woman get drunk voluntarily. In that case there doesn’t seem to be in-place a policy that is symmetric, even though the situation is symmetric.
ONE QUESTION A WHITE CIS STRAIGHT MALE HAS FOR SJWs:
1. How can I help?
(Note I’m asking this is mostly rhetorically, I have heard it answered many times, here and various other places I lurk. But it seems a far more useful question than any of the drivel in that video.)
Question 23 made my irony meter explode. We are afraid of dissenting opinions?
“If a woman dresses sexy…”
“If a female video-game character is dressed sexy…”
The difference is who’s doing the dressing.
Okay, all of you: this is one of the BEST COMMENT THREADS EVER!!! Damn, there’s so much good shit here! I’m going to appropriate a ton of this stuff and use it without attribution. So thank you in advance.
Two quick points. First, re the censorship canard. Yes, people can get shouted down at FTB, and PZ actually talks about it regularly, asking the commentariat to not gang up on newcomers (unless they’re obvious trolls, or really clueless pricks). But in terms of being banned, PZ, and most of the other bloggers here, give several warnings in advance, and actually engage in constructive dialogue. Whereas on other “atheist” blogs, I’ve been banned after one seemingly innocuous comment (Damion Reinhardt, David Osorio, the conservative anti-SJW, pro white-guy, kill all the Muslims, Dawkins and Harris rock!, feminism is evil, sites)– along the lines of “well, that’s not what the Koran actually says”, or “collective bargaining created the American middle class”. No warning, no dialogue, just a “you don’t belong here, you fucking commie!”, and the hammer comes down. It’s not even close. The Libertarian fanboys of the Thunderfoot/Reinhardt ilk are given sooooo much more leeway here than even the slightly left of center liberal at the anti-SJW sites.
And I never hear liberals complaining “oh maaaan, the racist atheist sites don’t give me freedom of speech!”
So it’s a one-way street. Libertarian racists (sorry for the redundancy) complain that a dozen people in the comment section calling them dicks on FTB is censorship. But no liberal calls it a First Amendment issue when a racist Libertarian website bans them after one comment along the lines of “Mexicans picaros work harder than investment bankers”. We just move along.
And secondly, yeah, why are Libertarians so consumed with their right to say nigger? It’s really weird, agreed, and really common. I suppose it’s why the stupid phrase “politically correct” was invented. As a Libertarian whine against pleasant women in their office turning away in disgust every time they said nigger in the late 80s and early 90s. Twenty-five years later, the term “politically correct” is almost laughable. Since it means the same thing: “why oh why can’t assholes like me say ‘nigger’ in the office???”
Brony @46:
Yeah. That was sarcasm. Sorry.
Oh yeah, the popular thing. Talk about projection! So let me see how this probably works in the MRA/Libertarian mind. I say something really toxic, and everybody jumps on me. Because they’re politically correct, and obsessed with the evils of justice and equal rights. Somebody else expresses a tolerant and inviting opinion, that says they like people who aren’t just like them, or want better conditions for workers, or less warfare and violence, or more funding for education and healthcare, whatever, but a more communitarian and compassionate opinion.
So my vile knuckle-dragging antediluvian opinion is correct, but your pleasant sunny opinion is completely contrived for the sake of being the popular kid. Um…..yeah….that’s how it works……everybody hates me for being an asshole, but you’re just being reasonable so that you can get invited to the prom.
@ Brother Ogvorbis
It’s ok, having to keep both sides of the social equation for non-literal use in mind has been useful.
Sad. Basically the same as:
“If you believe we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
And “If you like science so much, why do you believe in evolution, which violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics?”
I love when cowards take advantage of the nominal anonymity of the internet to challenge why anyone else would want a “safe space”
@Brian Pansky (#55):
Intellectually, it’s closer to “If you like science so much, why don’t you marry it?”
Poor Martin Hughes.
I’m pretty sure he had no idea what a relentless horde of gibbering lunatics he was going to loose upon himself when he kicked the AA nest.
“What if the atheist assweasels of YouTube got together and made a video?”
Short answer:
Something resembling diarrhea.
Which they want everyone else to smell, taste and swallow, as if everyone else should like it as much as they.
@quotetheunquote I second Mike Smith #9.
You really think assholes of any genders don’t get laid?
I don’t want to watch the video. The fact that Anthony Fantano is in on it really depressed me. He’s easily one of the best music reviewers on youtube, and in his reviews he always seemed like really cool guy. I suppose he still is, he just has different opinions then i do on the topic of social justice. Still depressing though.
Hello PZ, I wish you didn’t pretend to not know of the existence of thousands upon thousands of modern Feminists, who believe all of the above. We both exist on the same planet, and we both use the internet. I have yet to meet a person who was not aware of modern Feminism.
@Mathias Lindberg – the only place the hot mess in that video exists is in the fevered imaginations of you and your bros. There aren’t even any actual beliefs stated in that list of nonsense, just gibberish.
Mathias Lindberg
All of the above? What does all mean? Be specific!
Second: You will be easily able to quote, say, three modern feminists for each point of a yet to be defined “all”, right? After all there are thousands and thousands of them!
Matthias Lindberg,
Name ONE. Go ahead. Name, and quote, ONE feminist who believes that bullshit. Because, right now, you’re on a blog with a commentariat consisting largely of self-identified feminists and none of us are particularly impressed by that lame video.
Mathias Lindberg @62:
See, Mathias, there is a slight problem with this. Well, multiple problems. But the biggest one is that, just as for religious experiences (I felt the power of gods) and special powers (I felt the ‘pull’ of the objects ‘aura’), the internal dialogue you have with yourself about what a feminist is, what feminist theory and practice are, cannot actually be shown using evidence.
Don’t get me wrong. If you have evidence — citations from feminist writings — supporting your assertion that
please, by all means, show them to us. Link them. Many of us would be very happy to discuss the possible interpretations of the writings. But, until you have some actual evidence? And, considering your blanket statement claiming large numbers of feminists believing “all”, these better be some good quotes.
The “Amazing” Atheist just snarked at me on Twitter, launching a horde or repetitive racists and misogynists at me, asserting that I’m a nobody who no longer has any influence (did I ever? Do I want to be a leader of their know-nothing gang? They never ask that). I was kind of expecting their vast numbers to inundate the blog, but so far all we’ve got is sad, evidence-free Mathias?
I am disappointed.
Several people have pointed out the similarity to videos of smug creationists asking ignorant questions about evolution.
All I’ll add is: Horseshoe Theory.
I’m baffled that many of you keep spitting out the Marxist talking points of “privilege” and “oppression” as axiomatic, without the slightest clue that these are terms which these guys in the video reject. Neither are they axiomatic, but you seem to think they are. This also goes with statements like “these white men”. You’re making their point for them with comment’s like that. What does their skin color have to do with the validity or lack thereof of their ideas and arguments? Nothing, yet you are all unable to view the world without that lens. Why?
You present no evidence. Try telling what, where, and what third party evidence (not op-ed opinions) that back up their assertions.
We aren’t Marxists, and that is tell that you are an MRA. Try again.
@Dooker (#69):
Pardonnez mon français, but no shit, Sherlock. “Evolution” is a term creationists reject, for similar reasons. I suspect you’ll happily never bother them with that subject ever again, then, right?
So, I’ve seen that this list of questions has less value that using manure to fertilize a concrete field, so I’ve decided to briefly de-lurk to drive by and drop my list of responses to this complete failure of a video. (Also, hi everyone, regulars or not!)
0. Define “SJW”. Because as far as I see it, it’s not a movement – it’s just a term thrown at anyone who speaks about any social issue whatsoever, when you don’t like that someone talks about said social issue, in any way or form.
1.1. Give us some examples of “harassment”. Make sure that you prove that harassing those who disagree is a widespread phenomenon among SJWs.
1.2. Define “harassment”. Because pointing out that someone is wrong and/or an asshole is not harassment. Asking someone to stop throwing slurs and attacking people is not harassment. Refusing to debate with someone is not harassment. Refusing to give my platform for someone else’s to use and speak their words from is not harassment.
2. (What the hell does that mean. I’m assuming that you’re referring to islamophobia)
2.1. Why do you think to be fair to negatively judge all Muslim because of the actions of a relatively low amount of extremists?
2.2. Would do you think to be fair to negatively judge all atheists because of the actions of a relatively low amount of schnauzenbeackles (for example: Thunderf00t, the Amazing Atheist, Sargon)?
3.1. I want women to have equal opportunity. Which means dealing with whatever problem causes them to NOT be equal to men. For example: hiring biases against women lead to disparity in the workplaces > I try to remove the biases, and in the meantime give women something (like affirmative action) to deal with the disparity in the meantime. You’re practically whining that it’s not fair for people who can’t walk to get a wheelchair or a walking cane when people who CAN walk get nothing of the sort.
3.2. The problem is that you’re pushing the responsibility only on the women who receive harassment, while giving nothing to the harassers. This unlike what happens for other crimes (like theft), where while it is common sense to “protect ourselves”, there is no blaming the victim for having been mugged, instead giving the responsibility entirely on the mugger.
4. What PZ Myers said.
5.1. So you’re saying that black lives do NOT matter? That sounds pretty racist to me.
5.2. You aren’t disagreeing with “Black Lives Matter”, you just don’t like the name because you aren’t included. And you aren’t included because you aren’t the racial group who is disproportionately targeted by police brutality (see 3.1)
6. Are you aware that there’s massive amounts of sexism, racism and other form of oppression to this day that they need to be fixed?
7. Being angry at injustice =/= being immature.
8.1. Did you know that there is no widespread beliefs enforced by women that dictate that men aren’t fit for college?
8.2. Are you aware that a man with a bachelor’s degree makes as much money as a woman with a Ph. D., which means that the man can settle with a lower education while the woman has to work a lot more for the same benefits?
9. See 5.2.
10. Nothing good. Which is why we are working to REMOVE racial segregation and PREVENT it from coming back.
11.1. See 2.1.
11.2. Prove that a significant majority of Muslims are equivalent to Nazists.
11.3. Women were forbidden from joining the military, because men decided so. Did you think I wouldn’t have noticed that one?
12.1. If you mean “racist” as in “Has lived all his life in a society with wide-spread racism while benefitting from it, and has internalized racist beliefs (such as feeling tense for no reason when encountering a black man on the street), and therefore should unlearn them”, then yes, we white people all have racist beliefs.
12.2. If, instead, you meant “Kicks black people for the lulz”, what perpendicular dimension you come from again?
13. See 5.2.
14. Wanting to fix an inequality has nothing to do with wanting to be popular. Stop projecting.
15. Depends. Being drunk removes the validity of a verbal “yes” to sex, since it wouldn’t be clear whether you’re actually consenting to the sex in question or not. Someone who’s actively trying to have sex with someone else, however, is probably consenting to trying to have sex with that someone, while someone who’s laying limp is most definitely NOT consenting to any sexual act.
16. Is that an appeal to popularity, since you’re trying to argue that you shouldn’t try to change immoral ideas that are held by the majority, simply because it’s upheld by the majority and therefore “right”?
17.1. Why do you want to use slurs that badly, you insist on coming up with scenario after scenario in an attempt to find the one case where you can use a slur against someone?
17.2. Given the above: no, ever.
18.1. Point to where we “invent new genders every day”.
18.2. “You can’t discriminate someone because of their gender” and “There’s a lot of gender identities” aren’t mutually exclusive.
19.1. White men already “have a voice” in today’s society. In fact, it’s treated as a God-given right for them, while speaking over everyone else.
19.2. Speaking of which: you don’t have a right to speak over the experiences of oppressed people because you believe (wrongly) that your uninformed opinion is more valid that theirs.
20. See 1.1 – I can’t force you to host me in your house for free and listen to whatever I want to say for as much as I want, and you can’t do the same in my house.
21. “Women have the right to dress however they want, and you have no right to try and overly police them, unlike men” =/= “It’s not fair that the vast majority of female characters are portrayed (mostly by men) as a sexual prop, while male characters get to be heroes, villains, and also SOMETIMES as a sexual prop”.
22. Registrazione Da Un Microfono Spento by various authors.
23. Stop projecting, and read again 19.2 and 20.
24. It’s a bullshit term that tries to compare “an oppressed person talking back to a privileged one” or “any kind of benefit given to an oppressed group to help them deal with the oppression they face” with “an institutionalized oppressive system where the privileged group holds the vast majority of positions of power, in contrast to the oppressed”.
25. Why do you find it so hard to actually ask the person you’re talking to how they’d like to be referred to?
26. Criticizing something =/= censoring it. Also, see 1.1, 19.2 and 20.
27. Have you ever considered the fact that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, that you believe your uninformed opinion on oppression to be infinitely more valuable than the experience of the oppressed (again: see 19.2), and that you believe that the oppressed are just whining over nothing because YOU don’t see racism/sexism/etc, what with not having experienced it? And that phenomenon (privileged people being blind to their own privilege or the existence of oppression) has been widely studied, mind.
PS: @trolls: troll harder.
“As an angry internet TAA fan let me say with as much emphasis (and pseudointellectual snarky drivel) as possible that ur rong lol”
I am!
HA! I’m an MRA now. I disagree with you, therefore I’m an MRA? I have nothing to do with any of that bullcrap. I’m a democrat and I’m voting for Hillary. To Richard Smith: For one thing, to equate Evolution with the concepts of oppression and privilege is laughable. Evolution is based in science. Oppression and privilege, micro aggressions, safe spaces, racism is privilege plus power, and on and on, are concepts thought up in academia and the soft sciences. To reject those concepts is in no way the same as someone denying a scientific theory. Those concepts are designed so as to be irrefutable in the face of debate. “You don’t think you have privilege, well, that’s because of your privilege!” Its genius is that it can’t be argued against, its circular.
Second, oppression is absolutely a Marxist concept in the way social justice uses it. It is constantly used, all the time. Read Carl Marx, that’s my source. Heres more. The mizzou protesters were chanting “we have nothing to lose but our chains”, as have other school protests as well as BLM. That’s in the communist manifesto. Why do I have to prove that which you know to exist? To deny the Marxist overtones in social justice is to simply be dishonest. Maybe they aren’t Marxists in the truest sense but they espouse the ideology.
All of this started when I saw the student screaming at one of the deans who was politely trying to debate with her. THAT, is what turns me off to social justice. I see that, and I say to myself, something is wrong with this ideology. What that girl did, is directly spawned from social justice, and it is getting out of hand.
I have no doubt that you all have the best of intentions, not even these YouTubers who you label as racists and misogynists, disagree with that. Also I’m not saying all, not all. Im just saying that what I’m against in social justice are those who are taking it to the extreme and they are often the most vocal, the most heard, and the most likely to sway policy implementation that will actually hurt people not help . I define a social justice warrior in that respect, someone who is willing to trample over others in order impose their ideology. If you don’t do that, than congrats, you’re not an SJW in my opinion. I at least appreciate those of you who don’t go right to ad homs and actually give arguments back, addressing what i say instead of just saying I’m a racist or whatever shaming words you choose. Pardon my spelling, I wrote this on a phone.
If you’re turned off by “social justice”, then yes, I agree, you aren’t a MRA.
MRA’s just disagree about the direction of social justice.
You’ve managed to be worse than them, great job!
How am I worse than them? I disagree with the direction of an ideology, therefore I am an awful person? And how are you unable to not personally attack someone instead of address what I said? Social justice in a classic sense, as defined by miriam webster, “a state or doctrine of egalitarianism” (uh-oh, I know you guys hate the E word) I have no problem with. My problem is with what I see people doing in its name. Why is that so hard to understand. Instead, you just say I’m worse than an MRA, ouch, that burns.
P.S. Funny that Vivec went directly to the stereotype I listed in my second to last sentence.
Just as long as you don’t blame your poor understanding of what privilege is on your phone too.
I wholly reject your idea of privilege. I believe it insinuates that what entire groups have achieved is therefore unearned or unfairly earned. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages in their life. Having two parents is one of the greatest”privileges” you could have in your idea of privilege, yet I would never insist the ridiculous notion that they “check” it. Nor would I suggest that anything they accomplish in life is unearned or stolen at the expense of others. I have no issue with pursuing injustices and equality for all people, I simply disagree with this shaming tactic and that is exactly what it is.
Itt: person with fundamental misunderstanding of a concept decries it as nonsense; goes on to state opposition to “Social justice”
So privilege is never the result on trampling on the rights of others? Good to know.
/snark
I put Dooker through the Douchebro to English translator and this is what it spat out
“I totally reject the idea of your privileges. Implied that I believe it makes the whole group or unfair , and therefore non-labor income . Each has advantages and disadvantages in their lives . Two parents is the greatest “authority “, you can manage your prerogative , but I will not insist on ridiculous idea that they ” check ” it . I would not recommend anything they do in life is something for nothing, or someone ‘s stolen the expense of others . I have no problem of injustice and the pursuit of equality for all, I just do not agree with this humiliation tactic , which in the end is what agree”
Much clearer.
Not in your definition of how it works . In your definition it is almost identical to the original sin. Don’t resort to absolutisms. I disagree with the way and lens through which you view privilege. Privilege is a side effect of classism, which is an established and well respected aspect of social science .In that respect, I believe you have distorted the word . To quote Obi-wan Kenobi, “only the sith deal in absolutes” .
Dooker@80:
The median income of black Americans in 2012 was $33,321, while for whites it was $68,636. Is this because…
a) On the whole, the white race is inherently superior to the black race, and deserves greater economic power, or
b) On the whole, the black race is inherently inferior to the white race, and deserves lesser economic power.
I’d offer you option c), that the difference is due to privilege based on historic discrimination, but you just said you reject my notion of privilege.
Siobhan, my dudebro…..what in Gods name was that? You guys just keep validating everything I think about the nut cases in social Justice. You don’t even address anything I say. It’s a pathology, it just keep repeating itself. No substance , just presumptions, assumptions, accusations and name calling. I don’t agree with all of the things the amazing atheist said, but all of you are just further convincing me that you are unable to address what I’m saying, without knowing a thing about me other than my view on social justice and it’s problems.
Who’s dealing in absolutes? Privilege is relative to whoever has less of it.
The median income of Asians is higher than whites, so what, therefore they have privilege over everyone else? Do you realize that the number you just used has so many more complexities beyond a) it’s all racism and therefore b) whites are privileged?
Whose dealing in absolutes! You just posted a comment with the word “never” in italics! You are, you are dealing in absolutes.
Can you tell the difference between a snarky question and an absolutist statement? Yes or no?
Dooker
Have you been drinking?
It is an unequal fight if you dook yourself.
Anyway, enough of boring trolls, I might go and dook some garden weeds for a while.
Snarky or not, it’s attempting to make me answer a false dichotomy.
And chigua, yet another non answer and failure to address the content of what I said and instead copping out and attacking me instead of my points.
Right, I’m a troll. If I’m a troll , I have no idea how anyone can disagree with you without being one. I haven’t said anything that would be considered trolling by any objectively reasonable person. Pathetic. Go on and run away now.
That feel when you quote a self refuting line from a terrible movie to back up your argument.
Well, it’s either self-refuting, or Obi Wan was a closet Sith.
I find comments like #80 horribly amusing, in a “lolsob, woe is the state of education” sort of way.
“I wholly reject your idea of privilege.”
I wholly reject your idea of evolution via natural selection. I hate how it insinuates my grandparents were monkeys. And look, there are still monkeys!
How in any way has anything I’ve said been self refuting? I like that quote and I pull it out when someone says something that’s absolutist. As in “so you’re saying ‘x’ NEVER happens?” That is an absolutist statement. Please show me how it’s not. Also I like Ben Kenobi and there are many truths to the Buddhist inspiration behind star wars lore. For instance, I like the Yoda quote ” fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering”. Very true, and I don’t think you’d disagree. I dont personally feel I’ve displayed any anger, however you have via your intoleranc to simply address what I’ve said, rather than whose said it. A la, someone who disagrees with you.
Oh John Henry . Poor guy, scroll up, I already addressed why this is a poor equivalency. Actually it’s not equivalent in any way.
Obi Wan isn’t a Sith, but “Only Sith deal in absolutes” is an absolute statement.
Either Obi Wan is wrong or he was secret Sith.
I’m still waiting for a worthy opponent that can sway me. Im totally open to changing my mind, I just haven’t seen anything beyond”well you don’t understand privilege because of youre just ignorant mmmmkay”. Or you’re a bad person and a dummy. At least one guy brought a stat, which doesn’t really prove anything, at least in the context of trying to point out how awful and racist America is.
How is “I reject your idea of X. Here, let me describe a caricature of X made of straw men and glaring misunderstandings,” different from creationists ranting about things the theory of evolution doesn’t actually say?
“Im totally open to changing my mind,…” <— A very difficult statement to believe.
Oh please Vivec . That’s your example of my hypocrisy ?! I shouldn’t even go into obi wans statement to explain to you how wrong you are just out of the embarrassment it will spare us both. But…I will cause I can’t help myself and it’s short. In the star wars imaginary universe (key word imaginary) the sith are objectively evil. That’s it.
Dooker:
<snicker>
It’s not hard to see why you’re baffled.
I specifically mentioned that you used a self-refuting movie quote, which that quote absolutely is.
1. If one deals in absolutes, they are a Sith
2. Obi Wan deals in absolutes (“only sith deal in absolutes” is an absolute statement)
3. Obi Wan claims to not be a Sith
Either 1 or 3 must logically be false.
Spoiler alert: I’m not taking you or your arguments seriously.
@Dooker
Social science involves actual studies of human behavior, and attempts to form theories that explain it. It’s just as much science as any of the “hard” sciences. Questioning the validity of a whole field of study because you don’t like what the results say is pretty much exactly what creationists do.
There’s nothing circular or irrefutable about the concept of privilege. If you’re raised in an environment where you have privileges that others don’t, you’re taught that your privileges are normal, and you have limited contact with people who lack your privileges, then you won’t notice that you have privileges. Not having a point of comparison is what makes people not notice their privileges. You could still refute the idea that you have privileges by citing data showing that you don’t, but I’ve yet to see anything convincing in that regard.
You realize that red-bating is barely one step above reductio ad hitlerum in terms of cheap rhetorical devices, right? It’s not the 50’s anymore. There are tons of different ideologies that talk about oppression and persecution. That communism happens to be among them does nothing to taint the others.
So, you think that a student getting angry at a dean is somehow a sign that social justice is “out of control”. Apparently, the deluge of stalking, death threats, rape threats, slander, and so on that sociopathic edgelords have been throwing at anyone who dares to talk about social justice issues isn’t worth worrying about. Righteous indignation on part of its members is not a sign that there’s anything wrong with social justice.
As for your question why your race matters, it’s because people’s race can impact how society treats them and thus how they perceive society. The guys in the video, and you I imagine, are approaching these issues from the perspective of a white male. It makes you look self-centered and entitled to dismiss the importance of issues that you don’t have to experience yourself. The fact that you don’t have to experience these issues yourself also hints at why you don’t think these issues are important.
Actually, pretty much nothing you’ve said is new or compelling. A post here over a year ago dealt with some guy making all the same arguments you are.
Being a white male myself, I have no problem with reflecting on my place in society. I’m not opposed to examining my own perceptions of women and minorities. I’m not hurt by taking note of my own privileges. I don’t really understand why so many white guys are so opposed to that.
John, Are you serious. I didn’t strawman anything. Refuting the academic notion of privilege and oppression within the framework of social justice, as opposed to the definition of those words, is completely different from refuting the scientific theory of evolution. It doesn’t mean I deny the concept of oppression or privilege, it just means I deny it within the context it is being abused. I dont even know why this equivalency was made and I noted how ridiculous it is previously.
I am open to changing my mind, if you think Im not than you are entitled to your opinion. To the other person who said the social sciences are just as legitimate as the hard sciences, I totally disagree. The social sciences are subject to ideas which sometimes cannot be refuted objectively by the scientific method. They can use data and statistics but those data are open to a realm of interpretation that hard science is generally not vulnerable to. Again, in my opinion.
For example, the notion of white privilege, is not truly open to scrutiny via the scientific method as is fluid dynamics. That is its flaw, and that is why it cant be accepted in the same way that objective scientific truths as we currently know them can be. Why am I having to argue this? You know the social sciences aren’t. You know it. They are best guesses on the top of academic thesis, they are not the realm of the hard sciences. Evolution is axiomatic, among reasonable thinkers it is true via disinterested, repeatedly verified experimentation, with all variables( a very important part) always accounted for
Also. Just noted that you talked about death and rape threats. If you don’t think that those in that video don’t get death and rape threats you just aren’t paying attention. The internet is the entire world speaking at once. Anyone who voices controversial opinions and ideas gets threats! That is such a weak defense for you to point out. Everyone gets them. Everyone gets trolled ( real trolling,not what I’ve already been labeled as twice here). If you inject yourself on to the internet, you’ll get shit for it! Even if you say you love puppies, some dick head will say, I hate puppies and grill them on a skewer for fun , just to see if they get a rise out of you. I just don’t think you understand human nature and the reality of this kind of connectivity. You will never be able to rid yourself or others of trolls and so the best practices methodology is to just ignore them!!!
Excellent advice, and a perfect reason for no one to respond to you in earnest.
So? What’s your point?
“White privilege is not open to scrutiny, therefore it doesn’t exist”? “White privilege is not open to scrutiny, therefore I don’t need to do anything about it”? “White privilege is not open to scrutiny therefore I have no moral imperative to take any particular course of action”?
You’re throwing out the social sciences, but you don’t seem to be suggesting any other methodologies or praxes for investigating and predicting human and societal interactions.
Dooker:
How not so? It’s a notion which accounts for empirical observations and is predictive.
You’re not arguing it, you’re trying to justify your bafflement.
Axiomatic, eh? Since you like fictional characters in imaginary worlds, I refer you to Inigo Montoya.
No. Im say they are very open to interpretation. They are very different from the hard sciences in that aspect. To object to the notion of white privilege has no more validity than to espouse it. In the hard sciences that is rare. And again, I’m called a troll by a person who hasn’t address a single thing I’ve said beyond star wars
Can you give some examples of irrefutable ideas in social science? The example of not thinking you have privilege doesn’t work. As I said, it’s the lack of perspective that makes people not notice their privileges, not the privileges themselves. Also, hard science is not as immune to interpretation as you think it is. Researchers in the hard sciences argue all the time whether the results of an experiment support one interpretation or another. It’s naive to think that the results of scientific experiments commonly support a single, unambiguous conclusion.
The guy who linked to wikipedia for his example of white privilege. Are you serious?
I’m not addressing a single thing you said because you’re a low-tier troll that probably won’t be here to stay, and there’s almost certainly nothing to be gained by doing such.
Dooker:
emergence:
Your questions tacitly concede that social justice issues are within the purview of the category of social science.
(Well done!)
Dooker:
I’m as serious as you are ungrammatical — and it was not an example, it was an entry describing the topic.
(Baffling, I know!)
emergence, I’ve already addressed my feelings on “privilege” . As to the irrefutable ideas to social science, well now your are getting more nuanced, as tends to happen in social science. Even Maslow’s hierarchy can be disputed at certain levels. So no, I can’t give irrefutable ideas in the social sciences and thats exactly my point. To your second point, yes, in the hard sciences ideas can be refuted but the methodology is sounder than the social sciences. How can you deny this? Maybe you’re not but this is absurd. Our civilization is based on it technologically. The social sciences and this now popular notion of privilege doesn’t hold up. I had an acquaintance in highschool, I wouldn’t call him a friend, whose mother died of AIDS and whose father died in prison. He later died of a drug overdose. Where in the hell was his white privilege? The poor guy had a miserable, short life of pain and suffering but somehow he had some mythical privilege that allowed him to benefit from the oppression of others? Nonsense, utter nonsense. Privilege is subjective and the way it is being used is to denote white blame on all of the ills of “people of color” , a term which i believe is terribly divisive and harmful. It puts every single other race of people against whites. How is it helpful to say “there are whites, and then everyone else”, what an awful mindset.
Also, to the guy who seems to think Evolution isn’t axiomatic, what, it isnt? Are you serious? Who on this entire comments section denies it as not being the truth? I used someone’s previous conflation of evolution and the notion of privilege and oppression as irrelevant, which it is.
I am still utterly unimpressed with the rebuttals, but then again, I’m just a troll whose ideas are to be cast aside because I’m an awful, terrible, mean person and therefore everything I say can be discarded.
Finally, some self-awareness!
@Dooker
“I believe it insinuates that what entire groups have achieved is therefore unearned or unfairly earned.”
Your belief is false. You’ve concocted a straw man (or listened to other sociology-denialists concoct one).
“Everyone has advantages and disadvantages in their life.”
This just sounds like denialism. Different people have different advantages and disadvantages, so let’s ignore this field of science studying how many of those advantages and disadvantages come about?
“…the ridiculous notion that they “check” it.”
Clearly some weird straw man idea of what checking one’s privilege is. The “ridiculous” bit sounds like the popular sociology-denialist idea that it’s some sort of attack or insult or something. Bolstered by the later comparison to “original sin”, which is another flaming straw man.
“Nor would I suggest that anything they accomplish in life is unearned or stolen at the expense of others.”
That’s nice. Of course, the implication is that the sociological idea of privilege does, which is another straw man.
“…I simply disagree with this shaming tactic and that is exactly what it is.”
Another big ol’ straw man.
So, yeah, I stand by my prior statement that you’ve just built yourself a giant caricature out of an army of straw men.
Are you seriously denying that orphans have a disadvantage in life? That’s some vintage Dickensian assholery right there.
@126
Foolish orphans, they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work in a factory. Why, the fact that I primarily hire Orphans for my textile mill makes them privileged!
Good one, Im ungrammatical. Boom roasted right. you showed me. Tell me how you can objectively prove to me that white privilege is true, especially with your cohorts here citing economic disparages between white and blacks without mentioning or acknowledging after I put it out there that Asians are the highest paid demographic in the US? Does that mean there’s Asian privilege? Shouldn’t we start with those on top of the economic ladder? Regardless, that would be using your own logic, which I think is just blatantly wrong, against you. This notion of privilege as a shaming tactic is awful. It does nothing but to inculcate people into hating others and believing everything that those others enjoy and do in life is unearned. Yep, if you’re rich, you have an advantage, just like Will Smith’s kids will have more than I’ll ever have in my life. Are there problems we need to fix in the black community, you betchya, but fermenting resentment and contempt for people who had nothing to do with the past helps no one.
Yup. Demon rum.
Dooker:
Leaving aside that science is always provisional (the only ultimate truth is analytic), you didn’t even bother to look at the Wikipedia entry*, did you?
Had you done so, you might have encountered the section on intersectionality, and your bafflement might have been somewhat ameliorated.
As others have tried to tell you, you don’t grasp the concepts to which you imagine you are objecting; your objections only relate to your misapprehensions.
—
* Which currently has 145 citations and a lengthy bibliography. Or, you could search (say) Google Scholar, if you disdain Wikipedia.
Dooker:
See, that’s an exemplar of your misconception.
There is nothing shameful about being privileged*.
Here is another primer I predict you will ignore: http://blog.shrub.com/check-my-what/
—
* For the categories of privilege to which you object; there are others.
chigau, the demon rum is from fermented sugar, not resentment. ;)
I’ve called it (people with privilege), didn’t I?
@Dooker:
Actually “Those with privilege are blind to it” is easily demonstrable. All you have to do is to prove the following two tenets:
1) Group X is privileged. Let’s take for example white people: they hold a disproportionate majority of positions of power – political, economical, religious, mediatic etc. (unlike non-white people). They are not subjected to a disproportionate amount of police brutality (unlike non-white people). They are not subjected to biases in the workplaces because of their race (unlike non-white people). Those three are clear examples of privilege connected to race, and there are countless more.
2) Group X often denies the existance of its own privilege. Which is evident by, for example, how many white people oppose affirmative action that favor non-white people, because, according to them, AA is unfair – a statement that requires the assumption that non-white people don’t face any kind of discrimination. Assumption which is factually wrong.
Therefore: privilege is factually proven to exist, and we can see that privileged people often deny having that privilege, instead assuming it as “normal”.
Also, I see that you haven’t answered to Hj Hornbeck. Wonder why.
John Morales
Fabulous idea, fermented resentment.
I wonder how it would taste.
On another hand, it’s a great name for a band.
BAHAHAHAH! Oh John buddy. you need to chill out with the strawman thing. You must have heard it way too much. You tell me what the use of the term “privilege” as you understand it is meant to do. What is it meant to accomplish? Tell me how “everyone has advantages and disadvantages in life” is Sociology-denialism, What the F*#K, does that even mean? Sociology denialism? Do you guys just make this stuff up to sound smart? Sociology is not an exact science the way physics is! I can just as easily deny privilege as you see it with no evidence because your subjective definition of what it means is well…meaningless. Yes, psychology is a vague science. Sociology, is a vague science, deal with it!
What is wrong with you guys? What, that someone might critique your view on this notion of privilege and that it won’t accomplish jack shit by trying to collectively accuse entire groups of illegitimate or undeserved accomplishments ? You are breeding resentment, on both sides of the issue you’re trying to correct. How do you not see that? People, human beings, won’t go along with it because it just creates another hierarchy. Who is more privileged than another? Who determines it? It’s so flawed but none of you see the pitfalls.
You guys are impossible to reach on any level. You are so indoctrinated into this bulls*#t way of thinking. Not one person has addressed some of the points I’ve made that I think are reasonable, even uncontroversial ones like the girl screaming at her professor that “its not about an intellectual space”. That there is something wrong with that kind of behavior. Do you know what happens when people debate rationally and objectively, they don’t wolf pack someone and not have a single dissenting view point. I’m the only person here debating with a dozen directly, all on the opposing side. Thats ouside of the 100 that just regurgitate what PZ says. I can’t find a single person who simply disagrees with any of you in this whole thread. Not one. Look at the people’s youtube accounts comments sections who you so gleefully accuse of being the worst racists, bigots, and misogynists on the planet. There are TONS of conflicting viewpoints. TONS. It’s all over the spectrum. People telling the creator that they’re an idiot(mostly worse) or that they’re wrong. Telling each other they’re wrong. Agreeing but not on everything. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, feminists, advocates of all causes who disagree. Yep, there is a lot of agreement, but the type of lemming-like talking points in this comments section? You know what I see here?! Conformity, orthodoxy, rigidness to the point of absurdity. This is a fu*#ing echo chamber of conformity. You all spew the same crap! Your ringleader here Mr. Myers, got destroyed on a blog he made about the “C” word. I won’t say it here cause you’ll all probably get triggered. Go watch Thuderf00ts video, if you’re an adult, and watch his video about how language has different taboos and meanings in different cultures. Go watch it. Its not misogynistic, its not racist, its informative and grounding. Not all words are offensive to all people but that is how Myers and you all seem to see the world ; through your own lens and within this echo chamber. If you think its offensive, then so should the entire planet. Again, be a grown up, look in the mirror and watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbG8DvRKoJw
I mean hell, I’m here debating you, but you all just think to yourselves “well they’re horrible people so why bother”. Maybe you do comment on their channels, and if so, I commend you for exposing yourselves to those who don’t believe everything you do. Sadly, I highly doubt any of you have actually watched more than a handful of the videos of those whom you so readily dismiss with the excuse that they’re *insert shaming word here*. Only the videos that PZ here points out.
Nothing good comes from this kind of orthodox thinking, no one here ever comes close to doubting or critically analyzing the tenants of your faith. Cause that’s what you are ALL doing. Here is what you’ve bought into, this is a legitimate and integral part of modern social justice. You take this warped idea of privilege, simply on faith, that it must exist and therefore that all white people are racist because of it. Privilege you see, is an extension of your own white supremacy and hence racism, which you are obviously complicit in, from birth . And don’t you dare say you’re not racist, cause that simply exposes your privilege and your lack of awareness. The more you deny your racism, the more racist you really are. See, Its so obvious! You’re all horrible racists, every single one of you, unless you’re not white, cause you see, racism equals power + prejudice (another tenant of the faith). Those of you who are white though (the awful racists that you are), there is a way out, salvation lies within! Repent and repeat after me: Shame Shame Shame Shame Shame Shame Shame………
@Dooker
So, you think that just because some white people have shitty lives means that white people overall don’t have a cultural advantage over non-white people? White privilege, like many factors in one’s life, is about statistical likelihood. You can’t just ignore disparities in education, employment, and treatment by the legal system because it doesn’t apply to every single white person ever.
Dooker
Put the bottle down.
You can’t handle it.
>Stanning for thunderfart
>Not being an MRA
Pick one.
Dooker @88:
What are those complexities? I’ve checked your comments, and I didn’t see any mention of them.
@111:
Really? Let’s dig into my archive of social science papers…. ah, here we go!
Suarez, E., and T. M. Gadalla. “Stop Blaming the Victim: A Meta-Analysis on Rape Myths.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25, no. 11 (November 1, 2010): 2010–35. doi:10.1177/0886260509354503.
As the name implies, this is a meta-analysis of 37 studies on rape myth acceptance, carried out between 1997 and 2007. 74% of them used Burt (1980)’s Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, while 16% used the newer Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale of Payne et. al. (1999).* Among the findings:
Those are just the critical findings, there’s more if you dig in further. But getting to the point: if what you say is true about the social sciences, then you should have no problems demonstrating it lacks the intellectual rigor that’s found in, say, this one:
The OPERA Collaboration, T. Adam, N. Agafonova, A. Aleksandrov, O. Altinok, P. Alvarez Sanchez, A. Anokhina, et al. Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the OPERA Detector in the CNGS Beam.” Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, no. 10 (October 2012). doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)093.
* If you’d like studies which attempt to validate these two scales, lemmie know and I’ll dig them up.
@Dooker
Your breakdown doesn’t make you look good. Everyone accuses everyone else they disagree with of being an “echo chamber”. As if the couple dozen bozos in the video have any real dissent in their views. We’ve heard all of the same arguments that you’re making from dozens of other idiots. They aren’t convincing. You’re not bringing any new ideas to the table here. Hell, I cited a page from a year ago where some other guy made exactly the same bullshit arguments that you did. If you want evidence of rigid thinking, how about how you guys never seem to ever come up with any new arguments? The people here agree on one core set of ideas when it comes to social justice; that women, minorities, lgbt people, and other groups are unfairly marginalized by society. Saying that we’re an “echo chamber” for agreeing on that is as stupid as a creationist calling us an echo chamber for not considering creationism.
Personally, I’ve seen what the other side of this debate is like, and I want no part of it. A student getting angry and yelling at a dean is nothing compared to the kind of sociopathic bullshit that your side of the divide is associated with. Did it ever occur to you that maybe being in agreement with actual white supremacists and red pill-style misogynists on race and gender issues means that you’re doing something wrong?
What I’m seeing you as is yet another defensive, whiny white guy who wants to pretend that race and gender issues don’t exist. I really don’t understand why you feel so attacked by the notion of white male privilege. I’m a white guy, and I’m perfectly comfortable examining my perceptions of women and non-white people. I’m comfortable taking note of parts of my life where I’ve received benefits that many other people probably don’t have. I don’t feel any shame about either. Having them doesn’t make me a bad person, but acknowledging them can help to make me a better person.
Ultimately, you’re just another in a long line of assholes of various stripes to plague this site. When you eventually for flounce, you won’t be missed and nothing of value will be lost.
Dooker:
Well, yeah — and it’s you doing it.
What any term is meant to accomplish: to avoid a circumlocutory expression denoting a concept. In this context: Privilege is a special right or advantage available only to a particular person or group of people.
Does it bother you that others sound smart? Relax, it’s only relative to you.
FWIW, the meaning of what was said has already been expressed perfectly clearly above — I quote John-Henry Beck:
““Everyone has advantages and disadvantages in their life.”
This just sounds like denialism. Different people have different advantages and disadvantages, so let’s ignore this field of science studying how many of those advantages and disadvantages come about?”
In short, it’s not a claim that disputes the reality of the sociological concept of privilege, much less addresses its dynamics. Specifically, it’s a non sequitur.
How easily terms confuse you; had you any nous, you would understand that the “soft” sciences are much more difficult than the “hard” sciences.
Still, at least you have acknowledged that you are a science denialist.
(And you are baffled why your stance was compared to that of other science denialists!)
What you quaintly imagine is a critique consists of a feeble diatribe against your misconceptions, due to your petulant refractoriness at even trying to attempt to understand actual social justice concepts.
Baffling, isn’t it? ;)
(If only there were a field of study that addressed these issues…)
Well, impossible at any level to which you have access.
As I noted earlier, your stance and “points” have been addressed (though that you consider some screaming girl to be a point against social justice concepts is indicative of your knowledge of the topic), but you don’t perceive that.
(Equine hydration syndrome)
Aww… you poor thing. There, there.
You are a master debater.
We all like chew toys. But, hey, try going to a physics forum and explain to them how their concepts are full of shit and things just happen and there’s nothing to understand.
Ooh, the disguise is slipping! Tsk.
(Hey, if he was destroyed, he’s no longer around, right?)
<snicker>
Nah, I already destroyed the thunderpod when he was blogging here.
Um, weren’t you complaining about being savaged by a wolf pack?
(Gee, what if the wolf pack actually bothered?)
Yeah, about that. It’s good blog etiquette for comments on a post to refer to that post — and this post specifically exposes those who are antipathetical to the ethos of this place.
(But you’re very, very brave coming here and facing the wolf-pack. There, there!)
Well, who wants untenanted faith, eh? Much better when one gets rent for it.
Wow, you really grok the concepts! ← sarcasm
Heh. A couple of comments back, I wrote “There is nothing shameful about being privileged”, and this is what you took from that.
—
Anyway, nice rant. Very chill, and it shows your um, debating skills perfectly.
By the way, Dooker, I explained why your accusation of privilege being circular reasoning was wrong, and you didn’t do anything to address it. I’ll say it again; it’s not your privilege itself that makes you unaware of your privilege, it’s a lack of a point of comparison. You don’t think you have privilege as a white male because you think your privileges are normal, and don’t realize that women and black people aren’t given them.
I pointed out how a bit of righteous indignation on part of one particular advocate for social justice does nothing to invalidate social justice. I also asked how the stalking, harassment, death threats, and outright white supremacism and belief in the inferiority of women on part of opponents of social justice isn’t a huge red flag. I said it before, if you find yourself agreeing with actual nazis on race issues, you’re probably doing something wrong.
I pointed out that you can’t deny the existence of an overall trend of white privilege because it doesn’t apply to every single white person in the entire world. Just because a greater percentage of white people succeed in life due to unfair privileges doesn’t mean that there isn’t a remaining percentage that still fails. You can’t dismiss statistical likelihoods because of a single counter example.
I explained to you why your race and gender matter in these discussions. You’re coming into this discussion from the perspective of someone who, if race and gender discrimination do exist, wouldn’t experience them. This makes it more likely that you won’t notice discrimination. Also, it looks very defensive and condescending to women and non-white people for a white man to jump into the discussion and declare that the issues many of them have experienced firsthand don’t exist.
To give an example from someone else, John Morales explained to you that acknowledging your privilege is not about shame. He linked to an entire primer on what it means to be privileged, and you seem to have ignored it. The problem is not that you have privilege, it’s that you refuse to acknowledge it.
HJ Hornbeck asked you to explain what complexities you were talking about regarding the wage gap between white people and black people. In your original comment, you just insisted that there were. How is he supposed to debate these complexities if you won’t give specific examples?
Pretty much everything you’ve said, from thinking that privilege is something to be ashamed of, to accusing us of thinking that all white people are racist, to thinking that privilege implies that what you achieved was unearned, all just paint you as being highly defensive and petulant. You don’t want to reflect on your own place in society, so you act as if anyone who asks you to is attacking you. I read a paper on this a few days ago, it’s called white fragility. If you’re really open to changing your mind, I suggest you consider this.
I’m sorry I was late to this. It’s fascinating how many times Dooker ends up accusing people of things they themselves are doing.
@Dooker 69
While not strictly an ad hominem argument (as you tried to accuse others of making in #75), smearing the concepts of privilege and oppression as rejectable “cause marxism” is the same logic as an ad hominem. Without demonstrating why the concepts were a problem you attached the concept of marxism as if that was a problem. A problem that you do not show relevance for.
With respect to the whole “axiomatic” thing, we are not treating these concepts (and micro aggressions, safe spaces*, racism is privilege plus power re: #75) as axiomatic. We know that people like you don’t agree that they exist at things so we are not pretending anything. We are talking as if we believe what we believe.
*This was an irrational one to toss in. You can’t disagree with the existence of safe spaces, they exist because people make them. It’s something else that you can’t clearly articulate that you have a problem with.
@75
If you were a remotely honest person you would be able to admit that the concepts that you don’t like are still studied with the scientific method. People form hypotheses and testable questions, design and carry out experiments, and collect data that is used to test the hypotheses. Your problem is at a different level and you can’t admit that.
Re: “marxist concepts”. So fucking what? I’ll provisionally support that it’s a marxist concept for the sake of argument because you have not done a lick of work to show why this is a problem. Why should I give a fuck?
Re: “screaming girl”. Again, so fucking what? What does that have to do with what is happening in this comment thread? I don’t have a damn clue what you are talking about and until you actually link to it I don’t have to respect it in the slightest. What the fuck do you mean by “extreme” and “hurt people” and “trample over”? The only thing in there that can be responded to is “most vocal” and given the fact that being vocal is a justified way of getting attention for problems I’m comfortable in assuming that you just don’t like people choosing to accept a better society and reasonable social norms that you don’t want to be seen in comparison to (what you call “trample over”), and don’t want any more criticism (what you call “hurt people”). If I’m wrong feel free to show how.
@77
Why the fuck would you think anyone here has any problems with egalitarianism?
@80
Who cares what you think about your definition of privilege? How about you tackle a real example that is actually brought up by real people instead of what you are saying it is? Criticizing what people actually say is what is required to actually demonstrate something. For example there is a privilege in having a white sounding name.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
It’s accurate to say that having a white sounding name is a privilege with respect to getting calls for jobs. And what you would or would not consider “checking” is meaningless compared to what people should or should not check broadly.
@84
Are you fucking kidding me? You can’t just say that something looks like “original sin”, you have to actually do the damn comparison. What do you mean by “sin” here? Why is privilege acceptable with respect to classism and not racism? All of the sudden a “soft science” is just fine when agrees with you despite the fact that you don’t say why, and you never outline what you mean by “soft science”.
I’m done for now. Dooker, your reasoning abilities are utter shit. I genuinely feel sorry for anyone that might actually depend on your decision making abilities.
Nice list of questions. They forgot to put in a “sheeple” though.
The best defense I’ve ever heard for the concept of the safe space.
Silly PZ…that’s exactly what that nincomfuck is doing. I hope you’re not expecting much in the way of logic coming from YouTube ::ahem:: “skeptics”.
Ye gods, is Thunderfart now being publicly incompetent about linguistics as well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF2tCY281Rk&index=45&list=PLwRJsuT8VJEqLue4dcl9XC7dY_IUr9O_b
Now what?
Also, you do know that repeating someone’s words in a stupid voice (or font) doesn’t make their words stupid, right?
It’s a way to highlight their stupid words. DUH.
Do i need to repeat myself? Quoting someone verbatim in a dumb font is a deliberate attempt to poison the well and set up basic insults. I wonder if PZ will be so scathing to the black people in the similar video I linked.
Martin Conde, #150
Wrong. If the quoted material is already deemed to be asinine, there is no problem with using a font or funny voice.
Using a silly voice to present new material that hasn’t been evaluated yet would be dishonest.
Please don’t
Also, assuming that people here are too stupid to differentiate between content and form is pretty insulting everyone’s intelligence, so who’s poisoning the well here.
But given the case in point: There’s actually no way to make that drivel look either intelligent or actually any dumber than what the words actually say. Turds don’t become chocolate because you wrap them prettily.
Though I must say, if that’s your best argument you should probably spend your time playing Candy Crush.
Strike that, just play Candy Crush, it’s fun and doesn’t annoy the fuck out of people.
The well has long since been poisoned. Some people are trying to clean it up a bit, with nary thanks nor a contribution from the atheist assweasels of youtube.
No, but it does make stupid words funnier.
Case in point.
Your heros poisoned the well. You don’t grasp the difference between opinion and evidence. Youtube videos are op-ed pieces. They can and will be pointed at and laughed at for their bigotry trying to hide as rational discussion.
@Martin Conde 150
It’s only poisoning the well if it prevents anyone from considering the substance of the material. Otherwise it’s merely insulting like including an insult with an argument and someone calling it an ad hominem. You are just trying to either prevent the use of rhetoric that you don’t like (too bad for you, if PZ thinks it’s warranted it’s happening), or trying to apply social to get PZ to apply some ridiculous equivalence. It’s the former of course given that your wondering about PZ doing the same to the video you linked is itself rhetorical.
Also, why is using Comic Sans to quote those people “poisoning the well” but they themselves posing in animal outfits apparently the fine art of discourse?
If a kangaroo tells me a whale is a mammal should I disregard the words of a kangaroo? Are they asinine because of what was said or because of whom is saying them?
I think PZ is missing the point here.
Fuck is this guy talking about.
If kamgaroos are speaking to you, seek professional help fast.
Saad, looks like Martin Conde only got as far as the first paragraph of the OP, misunderstood it, and on that basis is clumsily now trying to express that PZ committed a genetic fallacy.
(Thus poisoning the well!)
[NM, I see PZ nuked that troll elsethread]
Some kangaroos loose in his top paddock.
Martin seems to be ignoring that we did more than just quote verbatim using comic sans. You can look at the OP and many entries in the comments to find people actually refuting the points made in the video.
this is an interesting article that perfectly showcases what we have been complaining about
12. Why do you think every cis white male is born racist?
Racism is a learned behavior.
And you have learned it well.
No one thinks that, by the way.
yeah pz no one thinks that you just assume we learned how to be racist because of the color of our skin
17. When I sing along with rap music, is it OK if I say the word “nigga”?
Why do white people so desperately want an excuse to say “nigga”? It’s just weird.
because we see black doing it all the time and not getting offended, and then when we do it you get all mad at us
4. What are you afraid will happen when you leave your “safe space”?
The same crap that happens every day. Why do you resent the fact that some people would like a sanctuary where they don’t have to listen to tedious assholes like you?
“OH no you Might have to Hear another persons opinion quick tell them their white and therforecan’t engage in the conversion.” Also we are not the ones who run around telling people what they can and can’t say because it offends us. This is not the worse defense of a “safe space” (“cough cough” an echo chamber “cough cough”), but all it boils down to is I don’t what to here your opinion so make me a space where all i have to hear is my own. so I don’t have to question where i am right or not.
26. Why do you feel entitled to control what artists and entertainers are allowed to express?
Why do you think your sensibilities should be placed above the sensibilities of actual creators?
Who has control of what artists express? Not me.
Do these privileged assholes feel entitled to control our expression of disgust at the racism and sexism they represent? Yes. Do they think they’re somehow privileged to be “creators”, while others are not? Yes.
HAHAHaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. this is coming from the observation of all the complaints you have put at creators and have demanded they change, the funny part it is mostly shit that does not harm them.
20. What makes you think that the power of censorship that you are so desperately trying to establish now will at no point be used against you?
Saying that I don’t want to listen to you is not censorship. One of your problems is that you demand that everyone must pay attention to you while you shout down everyone else.
yeah it is not censorship, but banning people for social media because of their options is, which is a rather common tactic social justice moments use, and then they try to expand this out into the real world.
23. Why are you afraid of dissenting opinions?
Your continued attempts to silence all opposition, either by smearing them publicly, or labeling their content as “hate speech” and having it removed, only serves to insulate your bubble even more and maintain your echo chamber.
It also prevents you from taking on new information and hearing different points of view.
Different points of view that are sometimes superior to yours.
Which tends to happen whenever I talk.
Nah, sorry, your point of view is common as mud and not particularly interesting.
By the way, you seem to have confused “afraid” with “excruciatingly bored”.
HAHAHAHAHAHA i am sorry this is to stupid for me to handle pz, if you are bored by our opinions then why is it you label us asking questions and bringing evidence to the table as “hate speech” but then again actualy debating rather then complaining would take some brain power now would it.
21. Why is it that if a woman dresses sexy or even topless in public you support it, but if a female video-game character is dressed sexy, then you want her clothed more modestly?
If a woman chooses to dress however she wants, that is her right. When other people decide that the majority representation of women in media will always be sexy, that is wrong. You do realize that video game characters aren’t voluntary agents, right?
no they are fictional characters who are not even alive, they represent in ideal not a demand on women as the feminist claim. Fake women can’t hurt real women.
19. In your version of equality will white men ever have a voice in society or will white men always be too privileged to participate in discussion?
Says the guy in a public video made entirely by white men, complaining about society.
says the the mansplainer and whiteplainer. “stop talking your to privileged to talk about this”
Here is another question for you pz, what is it to apart of a hypocritical racist, sexist, and hetrophobic movement?
what is it like to waste your time responding to people whose opinions you claim are idiotic and below you (that you describe as boring and unintelligent)?
I don’t think I have seen such a denialist self-aggrandizing echo-chamber as this
Nor have I seen such a pile of crap in the last month. You forgot to check your privilege before you showed just how badly infected with splainin’ you are.
Oh baby, an unformatted screed with zero capitalization on the original content? Looks like I’m totally going to read that. /s>
It’s like this John Doe assclown constructed his whole rant out of boilerplate anti-social justice talking points. I don’t think there’s anything in there that’s original or required the slightest bit of thought on his part.
12. No one is assuming that all white people are taught to be racist. If a soce
Apparently, we’re a “denialist self-aggrandizing echo chamber”. The guys in the video spend the whole time denying that they have any sort of unfair privileges or that women or non-white people are persecuted, prop themselves up as grand intellectuals, and recite the same tired, long-refuted brain farts that oblivious white men always do. I’m sensing some projection from John Doe here.
Sorry, I hit a button by accident. Anyway…
12. No one is arguing that all white people are taught to be racist. We aren’t assuming that the guys in the video were taught to be racist because they’re white. We’re judging them to be racist because they’re saying racist things.
17. Do I really need to explain n-word privileges to you? Historically, white people have used the word “n*gger” to insult and demean black people. A white person calling a black person n*gger doesn’t have the same meaning as a black person calling another black person that.
4. They’ve already heard the same tired, stale arguments from people like you repeatedly. I can fully understand why women and minorities would want some respite from clueless assholes bleating at them. Every group that you disagree with is an “echo chamber”. It’s a standard accusation that everyone throws at anyone they don’t like.
26. Do you not understand the fucking difference between criticism and censorship? Assholes like you will spend hours criticizing books, movies, and video games on any number of issues, and suddenly when people start to criticize race or gender issues in the media, it becomes censorship.
20. You realize that most of they guys you’re talking about have been banned from social media for harassing people, right? You don’t have a right to send people death threats or barrage them with insults. I’ve yet to see anyone banned from social media simply for expressing views similar to yours. I’ve also yet to see any calls for government censorship or anything that would actually be a violation of freedom of speech.
23. Here’s the thing; you’re not bringing evidence to the table or asking questions. You’re reciting a bunch of trite cliches that we’ve all heard dozens of times before. Look at pretty much any post on this blog that actually discusses these issues. I guarantee the people here have put more thought into their arguments than you’re even capable of.
21. You realize that depictions of women in the media can change how women see themselves and how men see women, right? The media is very capable of influencing societal standards of attractiveness. Even then, female gamers want to be able to play as women that they can actually identify with, instead of shallow cheesecake characters meant to pander to the male audience.
19. No one has ever said that men and white people can’t talk about these issues. The point is not that men and white people aren’t allowed to talk about this, it’s that they should realize that they’re speaking from the perspective of a privileged man/white person. Because of that, they should take that into account when they think about how they perceive race and gender.
As a final note, your perception of social justice advocates hating men, white people, and straight people is just you being defensive. You don’t want to think about your own privilege, so you act like the people who ask you to are attacking you. It makes look petulant and whiny more than anything else.