Racism

[hyzmarca]

Vnonymous, you idiot.

You, you said that "racism is about power" was wrong because different races of people have power in different places. That's stupid and I corrected you on it. Racism in Brazil is totally about how the Portuguese "Whites" there treat people who aren't Portuguese enough.

Racism isn't about power because motives and justifications matter. It isn't about achieving power so much as genuinely believing that your race is better than the other, or at least different in ways that materially matter such that discrimination is justified.

You ever read Kippling's White Man's Burden? That's not about power, that's about twisted altruism, the true belief that you were helping the poor misguided savages by conquering and civilizing them against their will.
A lot of racists are like that. They don't want to dominate anyone, they're genuinely compassionate and genuinely want to help people, but they're driven by ideas and prejudices that are just absolutely wrong.

[tussock]

Anyone who thinks that black people in the US aren't imprisoned because of massive structural racism; because they'd rather imagine it's about education and employment and family poverty and where they live and all that other shit: that's bullshit. All of that is racism. The school funding systems, the employment opportunities, which laws end up with huge automatic punishments and how you can avoid those if you are a white guy.

Yes, it's got layers. It's mostly a bunch of little shit that adds up across people's lives in the same way slightly loaded dice will see you win or lose a lot of money in the long run depending which side of them you're on, even though each game still looks pretty well fair. Every step of every process in your life ends up with a loaded chance that you will be worse off at the end of it. It's happening to millions of people, all the time.

--

Dude, my personal definition of racism is "Treating someone differently, usually in a negative way, due to their race." That's the sensical definition that I support.

It's useless. It's a gigantic deflection away from the ordinary, everyday, grinding effect of small probability shifts on long-run trials. Like how you keep linking shit where a brown person hit a white person in a country full of white people: that's you being racist, not them.

Hell, man, you're even at the wrong end of the dictionary.

[*] 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
[*] 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
[*] 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The tumblr thing is where it doesn't matter if people believe in racism, or if they intend to create a racist state, it only matters what it actually is. If you live in a state that accepts worse cultural and individual achievement by minorities as no big deal, not worth making a fuss over, where the laws fail to prevent that sort of thing, #3 just doesn't matter.

So when black people are eight times more likely to end up in prison, and everyone shrugs and says "but I don't see any (#3) racism", that's still racism. That's people assuming that blacks must somehow naturally end up there, even though they're "totally not a (#1) racist" about it. It might not have the force of law any more, it might be taboo to promote it, people may not believe in it at all, but it's empirically still there, in the real world, and still the same real problem for real people.

That thing where various state Republicans took enormous numbers of black people off the electoral rolls before the 2012 elections, but said they were just taking people with the same name as a felon off, that's totally racism. The gerrymandering, school district lines, where the state budgets actually get spent, that's all racism too, even if the laws very carefully never say they're targeting a particular race, and neither do any politicians. It can't matter that they never say it any more.


EDIT

Racism isn't about power because motives and justifications matter.

By the classic dictionary definition that's true. This is an argument about changing that meaning, as the old one has become impractically weak as the nature of racism has changed in the west. It used to be politicians would rant about the superiority of white people, and now they don't, and the laws are now blind, but the real effect on people's live is pretty much the same. In a lot of ways it's worse now than it was a generation ago in the US, that whole white-flight thing was real and the funding for everything in black communities got fucked up, as did many job opportunities with changing demographics and mass changes in regional wealth distribution along racial lines. The whole war on drugs thing, the three strikes bullshit, it's hurting.
/EDIT

--

The really devious shit, the nasty stuff, that ruins lives, that's where everyone accepts black people in the US get screwed, but you can't let anyone try to fix that, because fixing it would be racism. That is some deeply Orwellian double-think creep, and I see a huge amount of it from commentators all over the show. That's the shit the US supreme court puts out, and it's devastating.

[Vnonymous]

Like how you keep linking shit where a brown person hit a white person in a country full of white people

Hey moron - I've linked that "shit" a grand total of once. Spoiler alert: South Africa isn't run by white people anymore. Apartheid is over and has been for a while. In Israel, "brown" people are treated like shit all the fucking time even if you completely ignore Palestine.

bullshit about prison rates and republicans

I'll go with the dictionary definition, but those all still qualify under number 3! If you're removing huge numbers of specifically black people from the electoral roll then you're still being racist, regardless of what you say about it. And as for "we can't fix that because it would be racist"... well, I actually have an example for that. Right now, asian students actually do face racist discrimination when it comes to college admissions. Would it be racist to remove the penalty asians face on college admissions just for being asian if that meant fewer black people went to college?

[tussock]

If you're removing huge numbers of specifically black people from the electoral roll then you're still being racist, regardless of what you say about it.

But they didn't. They removed felons from the rolls, and anyone who shared a name with them, from some districts. That's how it all works now. All of it. They'll have never even looked at race, they just counted how many votes it would gain them, most of the people involved won't even be racist, but the structure of the system means all that shit ends up hurting more black people than you'd see at random.

Quotas are good, and prep schools don't make people smarter. They should really allocate entry by school populations (modified for dropout rates), but they're not allowed to do that, or use quotas, or all sorts, so they do what they can. Stupid people do indeed call that racist.

[nockermensch]

Pretty sure Kaelik is laughing at how fucking stupid you are. It's of course true that the rape of men is not taken seriously, but guess what? It's not taken seriously for women either!

The crime is equally serious regardless of the victim. The "I bet it didn't really happen" (and variants thereof) is serious, and is a problem that applies regardless of the victim.

The default /pol/tard answer to this is to quote an anecdote of how a man was totally screwed in a rape / divorce / child custody case. Because anecdotes trump objective truth and statistics all the time, you see.

EDIT:

I freely admit to being a misogynist shitbag - I don't hate women or anything, but I do enjoy playing the Bayonetta games, urinate standing up and spread my legs when sitting down on the train. I also don't believe that E=mc2 is a sexist equation because it privileges the speed of light above other variables.

The bar for "misogynist shitlord" just seems to be set incredibly low these days.

This post here shows why the SJW strawman is useful to a place like 4chan's /pol/. People who are racists / sexists can just point to a "check your privileges" meme or greentext to >imply that the world is so crazy right now that everybody is a racist / mysoginist anyway, so you may as well go all the way on being a bigot.

EDIT2:

Racism in Brazil is totally about how the Portuguese "Whites" there treat people who aren't Portuguese enough.

Eh, no. Racism in Brazil is about skin tone. It makes absolutely no difference if you're from Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch or Russian ancestry here when it's about to reap the privileges of racism: If you're light skinned, nobody will look you sideways if you're a doctor and police won't randomly stop and frisk you.

Things will get progressively shittier for you the darker your skin is. This is institutionalized in that light skinned people of obviously African descent will not identify as black. It's a different system from the racism you see on period movies about America (where people would worry about somebody being 1/8 black, or whatever) but is still completely fucked-up.

[violence in the media]

This thread needs Racism Insurance.

[Occluded Sun]

Out of curiosity, do you think this shit actually works in this format? That you can just ignore everything everyone says and throw out soundbites that don't really have anything to do with the conversation that's happening but subtly call people who disagree with you a [bad thing]?

Yes, he does. And he's right - that strategy works beautifully. Not just here, but all across the Internet and beyond.

[Vnonymous]

This post here shows why the SJW strawman is useful to a place like 4chan's /pol/. People who are racists / sexists can just point to a "check your privileges" meme or greentext to >imply that the world is so crazy right now that everybody is a racist / mysoginist anyway, so you may as well go all the way on being a bigot.

None of what I said was a strawman in any way. A reference for sexist maths and physics was already provided, so here's the rest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

An entire advertising campaign devoted to manspreading. Do I need to produce the blogs populated entirely by photos of random men sitting with their legs spread? No, I don't, because you can google that shit yourself.

http://www.thelocal.se/20120611/41358

Sweden moving to put a stop to men urinating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4

Here's Anita Sarkeesian talking about how horrible Bayonetta is.

For reference, here's the evil misogynist who produced Bayonetta 2:

And as a bonus, here's the evil patriarch responsible for her character design:

[Starmaker]

An entire advertising campaign devoted to manspreading. Do I need to produce the blogs populated entirely by photos of random men sitting with their legs spread? No, I don't, because you can google that shit yourself.

Remember this?

Here's Anita Sarkeesian talking about how horrible Bayonetta is.

So what? 41% of US women are anti-choice. FGM is performed by women. Female != feminist. Made by a woman != certified egalitarian.

For reference, here's the evil misogynist who produced Bayonetta 2:

Did you check the name of the horrible misandrist who wants to ban men from urinating forever and ever?

http://www.thelocal.se/20120611/41358
Sweden moving to put a stop to men urinating

[DSMatticus]

An entire advertising campaign devoted to manspreading. Do I need to produce the blogs populated entirely by photos of random men sitting with their legs spread? No, I don't, because you can google that shit yourself.

Remember this?

That is a tame choice. You could find entire blogs dedicated to taking photos of unaware women's boobs and butts on subways.

Vnonymous, do you want to know why everyone thinks you are a misogynist? It is because you get your information about what "feminism" is up to from the latest misogynist outrage. Take men pissing, for example. That has fuck all to do with feminism. Getting men to piss sitting down is not a major (or minor) feminist cause. It's a thing parts of Europe (and parts of the world) have been doing for-fucking-ever, and the only argument ever seriously proposed for why it should be that way is "because you get less piss everywhere." But misogynsts have latched onto it as a symbolic attempt to "crush masculinity," because everyone knows whether or not you piss dick in hand or ass on porcelain is a critical part of one's gender identity. It's a social conservative panic about how changing cultural norms scare them so let's blame feminism for ruining everything.

Yes, you are a sockpuppet for bigoted assholes. Whether you know it or not, everytime you open your mouth their diarrhea comes out. Instead of letting /pol/ or some other misogynist shithole tell you when feminists have crossed the line, grow a fucking brain and use it.

[Vnonymous]

So what? 41% of US women are anti-choice. FGM is performed by women. Female != feminist. Made by a woman != certified egalitarian.

Because you quoted the part where I spoke about Anita Sarkeesian rather than Bayonetta, I'm going to assume that what you're trying to say is "Just because Anita Sarkeesian is a woman, she isn't necessarily a feminist." Ok, let's go check wikipedia.

Anita Sarkeesian (/sɑrˈkiːziən/; born 1983) is a Canadian American feminist public speaker, media critic and blogger. She is the founder of Feminist Frequency, a registered charity, and with Jonathan McIntosh is responsible for the production of the video series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.

The situation was covered extensively in the media, placing Sarkeesian at the center of discussions about misogyny in video game culture and online harassment.

Her master's thesis is titled I'll Make a Man Out of You: Strong Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television.

If you're trying to say that she isn't a feminist, you could defend national fucking socialism the exact same way. When someone calls themselves a feminist, founds an organisation called Feminist Frequency, writes about feminism and is praised as an important feminist speaker, I tend to assume they're a fucking feminist.

And so when this particular feminist says that Bayonetta is misogynstic and patriachal, I assume that she knows what she's talking about. And I fucking love Bayonetta - the games are fantastic, with excellent soundtracks, bizarre/incomprehensible plots and incredibly tight action. They're fantastic games with a massive amount of content, and I seriously recommend 2 if you have a Wii U (especially seeing as how it removed the QTEs). As you can probably tell, I'm a pretty big fan of the games - so when a prominent feminist who runs a feminist charity and is widely praised for being an influential feminist voice tells me that I'm a misogynist for liking the games, then I take her at her word. I didn't get a fucking degree in cultural studies, so I'm deferring to someone who is quite literally more qualified than I am (and probably you, to boot). If you give me a choice between enjoying Bayonetta or not being a misogynist I won't even think twice.

So no, DSMatticus. The person full of shit here is actually you, because I really fucking doubt that Anita Sarkeesian spoke to me personally, heard /pol/ coming out and said "You don't like Bayonetta, you're actually just mouthing off neo-nazi talking points." I'm not actually curious as to why everyone thinks I'm a misogynist because I freely fucking admitted to being one (sort of like how I'm not curious as to why everyone keeps calling me Vnonymous). I, like 62% of women, do not consider myself to be a feminist. I just don't see why that's a particularly big fucking deal.

[Chamomile]

Vnonymous' logical failings are so basic that I'm having trouble articulating them. My vocabulary has blue screen'd because the idea of having to explain to someone that there is no level of qualification that allows you to redefine words in common usage is one that I had previously considered to be the realm of parody.

[Omegonthesane]

Vnonymous - I'm just going to quote Frank at you, in part because really I should already have got off my arse and gone to work.

[Completely] aside from the fact that [Anita Sarkeesian] doesn't seem to know diddly about video games and has no business offering a critique on them from a feminist or any other perspective - there's the other problem where the perspective she has is one of "sex negative feminism." That's the branch of feminism that thinks it is somehow empowering to women to insult "sluts." So yeah, she's basically the Canadian Taliban.

Basically, Anita Sarkeesian deserves to have incoherent rage thrown in her direction, because she is a hack and also her viewpoints are abhorrent. Unfortunately, the incoherent rage of many of the internet's creepier denizens are also really offensive, and Anita Sarkeesian is able to collect and post those as part of her own fund raising channels, giving her money to spew more bullshit. Unless and until X-Box Live trolls stop using rape threats as go-to invectives, concern trolls like Sarkeesian will continue to be able to enrich themselves with faux outrage against them. It's sad really.

-Username17

...Anita Sarkeesian is a scam artist.

The nitpicking is actually super important. It indicates that she's getting her information about the things she's condemning off of wikipedia and guess work rather than by actual observation of the titles themselves. And remember, some of these universal statements are made without even doing so much as checking wikipedia beforehand. It's not like wikipedia doesn't have a female video game character list for you to scroll through. It's not complete or anything, but it sure as fuck has Samus on it.

She makes sensationalist claims based on shoddy research and willful ignorance in support of a particular brand of feminism that isn't amazingly less restrictive on women than what the most hard core misogynists are offering. And she whips up funding by posting anonymous rape threats that she probably really got.

She follows the exact script of the "Moral Majority" fucktards. Right down to the soliciting money to fight a never ending battle against moral reprobates. Basically, she's these guys. The only difference is that she's nominally protecting women from lechers and the wearing of short skirts instead of protecting... women... from lechers and the wearing of short skirts.

-Username17

[Vnonymous]

Vnonymous' logical failings are so basic that I'm having trouble articulating them. My vocabulary has blue screen'd because the idea of having to explain to someone that there is no level of qualification that allows you to redefine words in common usage is one that I had previously considered to be the realm of parody.

It isn't quite "Anita Sarkeesian has a level of qualifications that lets her decide what feminism is."

To go back to the poll that I referenced, 82% of men and women support the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. There's a pretty decent overlap between that 82% and the 62% who aren't feminists, which really would not happen if most people accepted that feminism was the theory of social, political and economic equality of the sexes.

And I agree entirely with everything Frank said in those quotes. Of course, you might want to have a look yourself because he also says that her perspective is a "branch of feminism". I think that sex negative feminism is bullshit too - but I don't think that it isn't feminism. I'm a misogynist under that definition of feminism (and, I'm sure, a million other flavors of feminism as well), but I really don't see how you can claim that the entire field of women's studies, a significant portion of academic feminism and a large majority of feminist activists are not feminists but a bunch of dudes on a gaming forum are with a straight face.

[DSMatticus]

If you're trying to say that she isn't a feminist, you could defend national fucking socialism the exact same way. When someone calls themselves a feminist, founds an organisation called Feminist Frequency, writes about feminism and is praised as an important feminist speaker, I tend to assume they're a fucking feminist.

Camille Paglia is a self-described feminist. She is also a rape apologist. Women Against Pornography was a self-described feminist organization. They allied with social conservatives to try and make sure neither men nor women had the freedom of sexual expression. Feminists for Life is a self-described anti-choice feminist organization. They want feminists to stop making such a big deal out of abortion and let society tell them what to do with their vaginas.

What is your actual fucking thought process here? "Anita Sarkeesian pissed in the punch bowl and now we can't have feminism anymore?" People have been doing anti-egalitarian things in the name of egalitarianism since before you were born. Fuck, that's been going on since before we had universal suffrage. So... what, you want to go on the record declaring that the 1800's could have used less feminism and more reactionary misogyny?

I, like 62% of women, do not consider myself to be a feminist. I just don't see why that's a particularly big fucking deal.

Zero people are impressed by your argumentum ad populum. Let's play a fun game! How far back do you think you have to go before 62% of Americans didn't believe black people should be able to vote?

I also want to point out that not calling yourself a feminist does not actually make you not a feminist. In the exact same way saying you're not a misogynist while questioning whether or not women should be allowed to vote does not actually make you not a misogynist. Words describe things. You can play with the language all you fucking want, the things give zero fucks and will not change for you.

but I really don't see how you can claim that the entire field of women's studies, a significant portion of academic feminism and a large majority of feminist activists are not feminists but a bunch of dudes on a gaming forum are with a straight face.

You are not the least bit qualified to talk about what is and isn't mainstream feminist thought. Remember when you bought into all that anti-feminist hype about how getting men to piss sitting down was a feminist plot to undermine masculinity? What was that, yesterday? It would do you some good to sift through your sources of information and prune the ones that are actual bigoted bullshit.

But I don't really give a fuck if you don't want to call yourself a feminist. I mean, yes, that makes you fucking stupid. By definition, feminism is the ideology of equality between the sexes, and declaring that because someone somewhere did something stupid in the name of feminism you aren't going to wear the label anymore makes you the stupidest kind of reactionary fuckhead. Quick, go kick puppies. Hitler hated animal cruelty. What are you, a nazi?

The actual problem is that you are not an egalitarian avoiding the feminist label. You are a dumbass who is incapable of telling the difference between:
1) valid feminist causes,
2) overreach by elements of the feminist community, and
3) strawmen crafted by misogynist assholes.
and as such, you end up getting angry about 2 and repeating 3 everywhere and are a useful grunt to bigoted assholes in the war against 1. Or are just an actual bigoted asshole yourself. Or a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. Who knows?

[Vnonymous]

What is your actual fucking thought process here? "Anita Sarkeesian pissed in the punch bowl and now we can't have feminism anymore?"

First of all:

She is a critic of American feminism

If you are a critic and self-described dissident of a movement, that is a pretty good indicator that you do not fucking represent that movement. Karl Marx was a critic of capitalist, and this does not mean that he is a capitalist.

The other two, on the other hand, are in fact organisations that call themselves feminists. And this is where we get to my point -

Zero people are impressed by your argumentum ad populum.

I wasn't making an argumentum ad populum. My argument was that the definition of feminism, as it is understood by the majority of the population, is exactly what I'm describing as feminism. When I use the word, I'm referring to what the majority of people understand as feminism. I have no idea what definition of feminism you use that allows you to just ignore the entirety of sex negative and radical feminism, but it sure as shit isn't the meaning of the word as it is commonly used.

You are not the least bit qualified to talk about what is and isn't mainstream feminist thought. Remember when you bought into all that anti-feminist hype about how getting men to piss sitting down was a feminist plot to undermine masculinity? What was that, yesterday? It would do you some good to sift through your sources of information and prune the ones that are actual bigoted bullshit.

I don't actually remember that, because that sequence of events took place entirely in your imagination. What I actually said was that I am a misogynist because I urinate without sitting down. I didn't say that there was a fucking feminist conspiracy dedicated to destroying masculinity. I said that I was a misogynist (going by the common understanding that if you are not a feminist you are a misogynist) in part because I disagreed with feminists who suggested that urinating while standing up reinforces the patriarchy. That a feminist organization made this suggestion is a real event that happened, and it made it into a variety of mainstream media sources.

By definition, feminism is the ideology of equality between the sexes,

And that's a definition so loose that it covers all the shit you just said wasn't feminism. I'm fairly certain that's not actually the definition you fucking use either, unless you believe that more women need to work incredibly dangerous jobs to get those workplace death numbers equal. You've been going off about how I don't know what feminism is and expected me to read your mind and discover your specific definition of feminism, which I obviously can't do. Radical feminists, sex negative and sex positive feminists all claim to believe that they believe in the doctrine of sexual equality (save for the nutcase radicals who believe in female supremacy but I don't associate them with feminism either) and all you have done to differentiate your stance from theirs is to say that they're not true scotsmen feminists.

The actual problem is that you are not an egalitarian avoiding the feminist label. You are a dumbass who is incapable of telling the difference between:
1) valid feminist causes,
2) overreach by elements of the feminist community, and
3) strawmen crafted by misogynist assholes.

"Overreach by elements of the feminist community" is, in fact, fucking feminism. When the NSA keeps a copy of all personal communications in the USA, that sure as shit is overreach by elements of the intelligence community - but it doesn't magically stop that from being something the NSA did. And as for strawmen... I haven't pointed to a single one. The evil legion of misogynists did not invent Anita Sarkeesian and set her loose on the world for the sole purpose of making feminists lose arguments.

[DSMatticus]

If you are a critic and self-described dissident of a movement, that is a pretty good indicator that you do not fucking represent that movement. Karl Marx was a critic of capitalist, and this does not mean that he is a capitalist.

Add to the list of things Vnonymous does not understand: adjectives. A dissident capitalist is a capitalist, because that is what words fucking mean. Specifically, a dissident capitalist is a capitalist who opposes the current capitalist establishment. Similarly, a dissident feminist is a feminist; specifically, a feminist who opposes the current feminist establishment. Karl Marx was not a dissident capitalist, he was just a "dissident." Or even a "dissident communist," with the completely different implied meaning that he is separately a dissident of the existing establishment (which happens to be capitalist) and also a communist. Or a "communist dissident," which is the same thing but much less ambiguous. Now stop wasting my time by sucking at English.

Add to the list of things Vnonymous is not above doing: reading one sentence on wikipedia and thinking he is for some reason qualified to correct people who know what the fuck they are talking about. Finding examples of Camille Paglia describing herself as a feminist in a dozen different ways (frequently without those pesky adjectives that confuse you so much) is as simple as google it you fucking moron. Seriously, you are on the fucking internet, and you could not be assed to google something as simple, I don't fucking know [camille paglia "i'm a feminist"]?

Can you wipe your own ass? If not, should I tell you how to google that, too?

I have no idea what definition of feminism you use that allows you to just ignore the entirety of sex negative and radical feminism, but it sure as shit isn't the meaning of the word as it is commonly used.

I have no idea why set-subset relationships confuse you. Most people old enough to know what feminism is have seen concentric circles and had someone patiently explain to them that things can be in one without being in the other.

You are the idiot who has decided that you aren't a feminist because you aren't a sex-negative feminist (or etcetera, etcetera). I am not bringing up controversial feminists because "they aren't real feminists" (though you can make a compelling argument that many aren't; Camille Paglia is a rape apologist, and it's difficult to explain how the fuck you're supposed to reconcile that with anything approaching egalitarianism), I am bringing them up because there are obviously things in the set of feminism which are not those things.

I don't actually remember that, because that sequence of events took place entirely in your imagination. What I actually said was that I am a misogynist because I urinate without sitting down. I didn't say that there was a fucking feminist conspiracy dedicated to destroying masculinity. I said that I was a misogynist (going by the common understanding that if you are not a feminist you are a misogynist) in part because I disagreed with feminists who suggested that urinating while standing up reinforces the patriarchy. That a feminist organization made this suggestion is a real event that happened, and it made it into a variety of mainstream media sources.

Men who work for the Sörmland County Council in central Sweden should sit down rather than stand up when urinating in office toilets, according to a motion put forward by the local Left Party chapter.

The Left Party in Sörmland is taking a stand to ensure men take a seat when emptying their bladders in the county council's own toilets.

According to the party, there are two very important reasons for the proposal encouraging men to sit instead of stand when they urinate.

One reason has to do with hygiene and a desire to ensure that no one who uses the toilets at the county council's offices will be required to walk through puddles or residue left by stray urine which happens to splash out of the bowl and onto the floor when male employees pee standing up.

The Left Party also cites medical research it claims shows that men empty their bladders more efficiently when they are seated.

The improved bladder evacuation not only reduces the risk for prostate problems, according to the party, but also helps men who sit rather than stand achieve a longer and healthier sex life, the local Folket newspaper reported.

As a first step in its quest to get men to take a seat, the Left Party proposes labeling toilets which are designated for men who absolutely want to remain standing when they pee.

The Left Party's Viggo Hansen, a substitute member of the county council and the man responsible for the proposal, wants the office toilets to be genderless and as a result, is pushing for the "sit-down only" requirement.

He insisted, however, that the move doesn't represent political meddling in people's bathroom habits.

"That's not what we're doing. We want to give men the option of going into a clean toilet," he told Sveriges Television (SVT).

The rest of your post above is just a retread of "Vnonymous does not get set-subset relationships."

[Chamomile]

It isn't quite "Anita Sarkeesian has a level of qualifications that lets her decide what feminism is."

No, not feminism, misogyny. Misogyny is the word you're letting Anita Sarkeesian define for you because apparently all you need to exercise absolute control over the English language is a Master's degree. Does Anita actually have a Master's? Or is she only a Bachelor's? Whatever.

Feminists don't control that word, because for starters "feminists" are not a unified bloc and can't really control anything. But even if feminists were like a political party or something and had unified leadership, they still couldn't control the definitions of words. If common use has decided, according to your own data, that feminism is really unpopular, then why on Earth would you then assume that feminists get to define misogyny as meaning anti-feminist rather than anti-woman?

[Shiritai]

The rest of your post above is just a retread of "Vnonymous does not get set-subset relationships."

It's almost as if people who don't get set-subset relationships are more likely to judge a set based on a subset.

[Vnonymous]

Speaking of "doing some basic fucking googling"

The Left Party (Swedish: Vänsterpartiet, V) is a socialist[3] and feminist[3] political party in Sweden

Ideology: Socialism, Feminism

So when I said "This is an example of feminists doing something stupid", I was in fact talking about feminists (which makes your neat little quote 'burn' just make you look like an idiot rather than me, unfortunately).

Add to the list of things Vnonymous does not understand: adjectives. A dissident capitalist is a capitalist, because that is what words fucking mean. Specifically, a dissident capitalist is a capitalist who opposes the current capitalist establishment. Similarly, a dissident feminist is a feminist; specifically, a feminist who opposes the current feminist establishment. Karl Marx was not a dissident capitalist, he was just a "dissident." Or even a "dissident communist," with the completely different implied meaning that he is separately a dissident of the existing establishment (which happens to be capitalist) and also a communist. Or a "communist dissident," which is the same thing but much less ambiguous. Now stop wasting my time by sucking at English.

And when it comes to strawmen, you seem to be in fucking love with them. Reread the sentence you quoted - not once did I say that Camille Paglia was not a feminist. I said that as a dissident (implying that she's opposed to mainstream feminist thought) feminist, that she wasn't a good representative of the feminist movement. This is entirely true, and seeing as how Paglia is apparently a rape apologist, I highly fucking doubt that you think people are talking about her views when they say feminism.

My actual point, which you have consistently ignored in favor of a weaker argument that exists entirely in your own head, is that the word "feminist" has been thoroughly associated with people like Anita Sarkeesian. When I say "I am not a feminist and disagree with feminist principles" I'm not actually wrong when I'm referring to the principles of sex negative feminism. To the vast majority of people, the word feminism does not refer exclusively to your specific, infallible version of feminism but does in fact include the vast majority of people who call themselves feminists, and that vast majority includes people like Anita Sarkeesian and the Left Party.

I'm sure that your own beliefs are utterly perfect and anyone who doesn't hold them is a complete moron, but when you just say that you're a feminist you don't actually give me that information. As such, without a qualifier, I'll assume that when you say feminism you mean the same sort of feminism that most people mean when they say "feminism". Furthermore, to get angry at me for not using your super special version of feminism in particular when I say "feminism" is just moronic. If someone says "I'm a national socialist", they don't actually get to be pissed off when people assume they don't like jews and love Hitler as opposed to being a socialist who strongly believes in national sovereignty. You can go off about me not understanding subsets of sets all you want, but your particular beliefs are in fact a subset of feminism - and so when I say I disagree with feminism I don't in fact have to be talking about your own beliefs!

[Kaelik]

You can go off about me not understanding subsets of sets all you want, but your particular beliefs are in fact a subset of feminism - and so when I say I disagree with feminism I don't in fact have to be talking about your own beliefs!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[DSMatticus]

So when I said "This is an example of feminists doing something stupid", I was in fact talking about feminists (which makes your neat little quote 'burn' just make you look like an idiot rather than me, unfortunately).

When I read this, I could not help but picture a fox chewing off its own leg to escape a beartrap. The leg, if you're wondering, is a metaphor for your dignity.

Your defense is "whoa whoa whoa! I was never talking about feminism! I just meant that there are people who are feminists, and separately from being feminists, they did something I thought was stupid totally unrelated to feminism. See? Feminists doing stupid things. This is all one big misunderstanding, hahaha."

I said that as a dissident (implying that she's opposed to mainstream feminist thought) feminist, that she wasn't a good representative of the feminist movement.

Paglia, a self-described dissident feminist

If you are a critic and self-described dissident of a movement, that is a pretty good indicator that you do not fucking represent that movement. Karl Marx was a critic of capitalist, and this does not mean that he is a capitalist.

Look, you are not a good enough liar to pull this bullshit off with me. I know you think that if you string together a bunch of very tiny deliberate mistakes you can get from A to B and no one will notice that you're taking liberties you should not be taking, but I will and I have. I was honestly tempted to cut you off from this exact line of thought in the original post, because it is not a particularly inspired act of deception.

You are the one who chose to make the connection between Camille Paglia, dissident feminist (who is a feminist), and Karl Marx, dissident of capitalism (who is not a capitalist). That's something you did, on your own, of your own volition. That's your analogy. And you tried to do it by rephrasing "dissident feminist" as "dissident of a movement [feminism]," and then drawing a parallel between that and Karl Marx being a "dissident of capitalism." A parallel you are now admitting was inaccurate in order to accuse me of strawmanning you for criticizing that parallel as inaccurate because you never really meant to make that parallel anyway (except you obviously did, because you're the one who made the connection to Karl Marx not being a capitalist!).

I'm not actually wrong when I'm referring to the principles of sex negative feminism. To the vast majority of people, the word feminism does not refer exclusively to your specific, infallible version of feminism

SET-SUBSET RELATIONSHIPS, MOTHERFUCKER. LEARN SOME GOD DAMN MATH. IT WILL MAKE YOU A BETTER PERSON.

FEMINISM IS NOT A SINGLE-ELEMENT SET. IF YOU MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT FEMINISM BASED ON PROPERTIES OF ONE OR MORE BUT NOT ALL ELEMENTS IN THAT SET, YOU FAIL AT MATH.

IF PEOPLE TELL YOU YOU ARE A STUPID ASSHOLE WHO CANNOT MATH FOR YOUR FALLACIOUS OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE SET, IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE SECRETLY TALKING ABOUT ONE OR MORE BUT NOT ALL ELEMENTS THAT HAPPEN TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE ELEMENTS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MATH, MOTHERFUCKER. YOU CAN'T. YOU TRIED AND YOU FAILED AND NOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO STOP BEING SUCH A SHITTASTIC FAILURE AND GO TO WIKIPEDIA TO LEARN THOSE THINGS.

OH WAIT, YOU FUCKING SUCK AT WIKIPEDIA

AND GOOGLE

YOU'RE SCREWED

YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO NOT BE THIS SHITTY

THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY SAD BUT I'M STILL GOING TO LAUGH AT YOU

and that vast majority includes people like Anita Sarkeesian and the Left Party.

The Left Party is the sixth largest party in Sweden. It is the third largest feminist party in Sweden. And considering your example of how 'terrible' the feminists of the Left Party is boils down to "some local council members think the council building's restrooms would be more hygienic if men pissed sitting down," the only thing I really get from you freaking out about it is that you are an alarmist fuckhead who reads blogs dedicated to discrediting feminist movements as much by fiction as by fact.

[Orion]

DSM,

I'm not a fan of Anita Sarkeesian at all, but if you are really trying to kick her out of feminism a la Paglia and WAP (you didn't say so explicitly but I think that was implied), I'm pretty surprised. I'd say that if you want to overrule someone's feminist ID, you should really be able to show that they're at odds with a major feminist organization, that they're active in conservative politics (or at the very least have conservative fans and supporters), are on the wrong side of a legal battle, or are provably disingenuous. If any of those applies to Sarkeesian, I'm not aware of it.

It's funny she came up, incidentally. The internet feminists have turned on me because I criticized two things that she said.

[Occluded Sun]

Having this sort of argument is pointless without first establishing what you mean by 'feminist'.

Ursula K. Le Guin famously said that a feminist was a person who believes that women are people first and 'women' second; personally, I favor that definition.

[Kaelik]

DSM,

I'm not a fan of Anita Sarkeesian at all, but if you are really trying to kick her out of feminism a la Paglia and WAP (you didn't say so explicitly but I think that was implied), I'm pretty surprised. I'd say that if you want to overrule someone's feminist ID, you should really be able to show that they're at odds with a major feminist organization, that they're active in conservative politics (or at the very least have conservative fans and supporters), are on the wrong side of a legal battle, or are provably disingenuous. If any of those applies to Sarkeesian, I'm not aware of it.

It's funny she came up, incidentally. The internet feminists have turned on me because I criticized two things that she said.

You should figure out how set-subset relations work.

Saying "I am not a feminist because I disagree with Anita Sarkeesian" is exactly like saying "I do not believe the sky is blue, because I disagree with killing all the jews."