Not a discussion of theory. Five for AEI masturbation material.
It is a brief discussion of the bullshit that the theory is made out of.
If you object to these criticisms, do better than saying "AEI".
I'll grant you that AEI is also bullshit. Address the statements in the video.
This video at best is swiping at low hanging fruit.
What we have here is a douchebagicus assholius in its native environment, the youtube clip. Note its distinctive plumage, subtle contempt, and piss-poor arguments. This particular species, the basemomium majorus, often exists in the wild in a symbiotic relationship with the mensrightus minorus, more commonly known as the manbaby.
If you object to these criticisms, do better than saying "MRA".
There is nothing remotely like an MRA asshole's dismissal of things in her statements.
All you're doing is preaching to your own choir, here, with a bunch of rhetorical crap.
Forget that, do better than the tired nature documentary parody approach.
Why? So we can have a discussion of this asshole's ideas?
That's alright. When someone posts a clip from someone who makes a subtle or interesting logical mistake, I'll start a rational discussion. As I have in the past.
But when MRA bullshit like this jackass is posted, "tired nature documentary parody" is all that's warranted.
Honestly, if you can't spot the logical flaws in her analysis, there really isn't any helping you.
Sorry, Anax. I thought you were someone I could have a discussion with, not a knee-jerk retard. How about if I tell you that I'm not voting for Trump, and I promise I'm as disgusted with the right as you are? Then will you tell me why and how this video is possibly how you claim it is, while what it's attacking is so great?
5 ghost stars for Anaxagoras, you are most assuredly not wrong.
1 star for this bullshit video and the horse it rode in on.
Bort got opinions. Things I notice:
1) As simon666 said above, the woman doesn't have too much to say about the theory itself, and is mostly going after loud idiots who may or may not understand the theory well, and who may or may not be representative of most people who subscribe to intersectionality.
2) Notice how it's always about college campuses and Tumblr. You know where it's never about? Anywhere that matters. If we were having problems with, say, North Carolina being TOO accommodating to the LGBT community, I would consider that a "good" problem.
3) The lady takes a dismissive tone of the theory when she mentions it, for example how being oppressed grants moral authority. Well that's not really it, it's more a matter of, if you're one of the people society shits on, you're going to have a much richer and deeper understanding of how the shit flows. I'm a straight white guy of Christian background, and I'm not just going to inherently understand what it's like to be black or Hispanic or a woman or LGBT; I might see some issues and read in the NYT about others, but if I want to know the real story, the best thing I can do is listen to those who have been on the receiving end. (I then of course have the option to believe them or not, but the burden remains on me to actually listen, rather than just wait until the other person stops talking so I can tell them they're wrong.)
4) Obligatory swipe at Bernie Sanders and his fan club: if I had a nickel for every time I've heard a Bernie supporter say "I will never understand why blacks support Hillary over Bernie" and I responded with a Let Me Google That For You link, I would be one of the hated 1%. But it illustrates the point nicely: blacks have good reason to see the world differently from whites, almost as if it's another country that looks superficially like (White) America. In which case we would do well to not be Ugly Americans in this other country. Here are some informative places:
5) Wanting victim status is nothing new, and it's certainly not unique to intersectional feminism. The Tea Party is built on relatively well-off white people feeling like victims. The conservative movement since Reagan has been all about that, when you get right down to it. Hell, even the Religious Right formed as a reaction to being oppressed (where "being oppressed" means Bob Jones University losing its Title IX status because it insisted on practicing segregation).
6) I would bet anything that the intention of intersectional theory was never for people to say "hah, I'm a bigger victim than you, I WIN!" Dullards may take it that way, but it's more an attempt to understand a complex system and how it privileges some people in some ways, or rather, penalizes various groups in various ways.
7) I'm not fond of the term "white privilege" because it misses the point: what we straight white vaguely Christian guys get isn't "privilege", it's what EVERYONE should be getting. The problem isn't that cops aren't shooting enough white people, the problem is they're too trigger-happy when it comes to blacks. But I struggle to find a catchy term.
The interesting thing is that if CHM was on Poetv she would welcome Bort's points and respond to them in turn, and you could have a meaningful adult conversation. Which is great. I myself agree with Bort's 3, 4, 5, and 7.
It's the people who want to SILENCE Professor Sommers who bug me. Not because they're a Threat To Free Speech or have any chance of winning, but because they're seriously hindering the Left itself. God, if the Bernie people manage to Nader up this election...
Exactly. At least you could have an adult debate with types like her, even if you don't agree with everything they say (surprise! not all of us agree 100% with "our side").
Trying to have this debate with the 1 stars is like being a guest on Maury.
"Nothing sadder than an offended person trying to sound clever."
That's hilarious, coming as it does from POETV's resident weeaboo paedophile.
They aren't trying to silence her you drama whore dipshit. You don't even have the slightest clue what silencing someone means. The only thing that happened is some students didn't want her spreading her hate speech on their campus, nothing else.
1) and 2) It doesn't make sense to separate the theory from the practitioners on college campus. It rarely makes sense to separate religion, politics or metaphysics from their practitioners (unless you want to talk about the disconnect or forced misreading or what-have-you). Stop saying that the braying jackasses of this movement are a trivial 1%.
I would not allow someone to tell me about all of the charity-till-it-hurts, turn-the-other-cheek Christians we have in this country, as if they're the norm and the religious right is the bad apples.
Come on, Bort.
3) "Well that's not really it" It IS really it. It is the holier-than-thou, definitional, binary-thinking metaphysic that is the problem with it.
If you want to change things for the poor, if you want to push against racism, my ears are wide open and I vote accordingly. I sometimes put my neck or elbow-grease or my money where my mouth is on that.
If you want to define "there are no poor whites" as a 'fact' or attack the first amendment or have a bunch of rhetorical trump cards that prohibit discussion, you can go fuck yourself from now to the end of time.
4) Interesting, thanks.
(this 'universal progressive solutions' vs 'black-tailored progressive solutions' is *hardly* a problem that I'd blame only on politicians and not black voters, though. This is a deep fucking problem with the left.)
6) who knows
7) well one end of that is a big question, and the other end is a tactical question on how to proceed when people have both deliberate and sub-conscious biases
"1) and 2) It doesn't make sense to separate the theory from the practitioners on college campus. It rarely makes sense to separate religion, politics or metaphysics from their practitioners (unless you want to talk about the disconnect or forced misreading or what-have-you). Stop saying that the braying jackasses of this movement are a trivial 1%."
I don't know what percentage they are, but I would say that there is definitely a misreading at work. The theory behind intersecitonal feminism is based on observing social phenomena and developing a vocabulary and system under which they can be discussed and addressed. But unlike religion it starts with the real world and is intended to describe the real world. If people are taking a theory like intersectionalism and ending up in weird territory where one can shout the so-called oppressors into cowed silence, there's a good chance the theory is being misapplied.
Rather than likening the matter to religion, I think it comes a little closer to the Truthers, who start out with a half-understood engineering textbook and end at a point where only controlled demolitions could have brought down the WTC. It doesn't invalidate the textbook.
"But unlike religion it starts with the real world and is intended to describe the real world. If people are taking a theory like intersectionalism and ending up in weird territory where one can shout the so-called oppressors into cowed silence, there's a good chance the theory is being misapplied."
This is right on. A legit criticism here might be akin to what Marx made in the German Ideology when he (and, fine, Engles) criticized the Hegelians for only offering "phrases against phrases", having abstracted away from the the real world.
Spoiler: Bernie Nadered up the election :(
"Problematic" is my new favorite cop-out.
As far as the left goes, it's kind of like Sunni and Shiites hating each other more than Westerners.
"Hate speech" as lost all meaning if we're going to slap that label on this clip, especially the last 40 seconds.
The last 20 seconds is way more open discussion encouraging than anyone who's instantly called skeptics a bigoted MAR shitlord garbage unperson.
I love Christina Hoff Sommers because she calls out SJWs and third-wave feminists on their bullshit so effectively that all they can do is resort to the same ad-hominem attacks that they whine about being victims of constantly. Clear examples of this can be seen here in the comments.
She owns SJWs so hard they turn into hypocrites.
Using SJW un-ironically
This lady is basically right and I don't understand what any of you are even talking about, except That guy, who is probably right that internet culture wars between "otherkin queer idiots who majored in victim studies" and "depressed/enraged white machismo" is getting amplified beyond belief.
The kids are obviously stupid and thats not their fault. Instead of blaming them I would agree that this is largely a failure of postmodern professors and the academic incentive to publish more and more insipid garbage - "fourth wave feminism", "intersectionality", etc falls into that category
|Caminante Nocturno |
The far left has been striving to reach the same levels of ideological extremism that the far right wallows in, at least within their limited sphere of influence. It doesn't surprise me, and it shouldn't surprise anyone, but I'm still a little surprising how it got so bad so quickly.
It's part of why I'm glad Sanders isn't winning.
Mr. MRA getting indignant about imaginary leftist extremism is ironic.
^ same. Sanders would have been, by far, the best of the last 4 bad options, and I'd rather deal with where Sanders is wrong than the other 3.
His bad is is still bullshit, though.
It also would have probably required Sanders picking someone practical as fuck for Secretary of State.
Sanders isn't even close to an extremist, he's a moderate.
We're starting to see more Western countries than ever take steps toward unconditional annual income and we still think free public college and universal health care are some kind of huge left wing victory rather than just best practice (if we accept the conceit that government exists to serve its citizens)? Even Milton Friedman was in favor of unconditional annual income. Milton fucking Friedman. Hell, Nixon almost made it happen:
Bernie Sanders is only remarkable because our political system has been so completely degraded since Reagan took office (not that things weren't already under way, and Carter apparently did his part to get things moving that way too). I didn't vote for him because I think he would be the greatest president ever, I think he'd do better than his critics like to admit but at best he'd still just be a president, with all of the limitations (good and not so good) that implies. I voted for him because it's literally the first time in my life that a moderate liberal I can really feel good about supporting has had any hope of nomination at all, and it's a really encouraging sign that we might finally start to lumber our way back to being a reasonably modern, first world country.
(That last part about becoming a modern first world country was a joke, we're doomed and President Trump will just make it end a little faster).
There are people who get off on non-stop malice, and they all find different ways to do and justify it.
A lack of believing in Jesus is the only thing keeping them from becoming screaming campus preachers.
(if you think anyone saying she might have a point is malicious, you are chasing some major windmills, my friend)
"There are people who get off on non-stop malice"
One of the drawbacks to having ape instincts: our inner ape needs to not only be able to divide the world into Us vs. Them, it needs to ENJOY lashing out at Them to get really good at it. Which finds itself being twisted in weird ways in modern life, such as getting all "Power to the People!" against every oppressor real or imagined, and delighting in holding grudges. I find it's helpful to remember that much of what feels like it makes perfect sense is just buggy brain hardware.
â˜…â˜…â˜…â˜…â˜… self-stars for Bort's post. That's some real wisdom there.
Weren't you jack offs recoiling in sheer horror at my 'Simplifying people into easy to understand groups' just in the other thread?
God damn your circle jerk is so obvious.
eeeee eeehhhh ahhh ahh oooh oho oooohhhh! ahh! AH! EEEE! AHHH OOOOOH OOOH!
Hazelnut - thanks! Do remember that thing about grudges, that epiphany has made a difference in my life. When you're grudging at someone it means your brain has decided they're Enemy Ape Tribe and no good can come of contact with them, which is a hell of an overreaction when all that happened is that Edna forgot to invite you to Applebee's that time. It's the equivalent of an optical illusion, except instead of your eyes being deceived it's your emotional reactions being deceived. Override it because you know it's an illusion.
simon666 - be zortch, daddy-o:
|Oscar Wildcat |
"Well! These young people and their 'intersexual feminisms". Oh my stars! In my day, we got up an hour _before_ we went to bed, then we cleaned the bottom of the lake with our tongues, just to earn breakfast. Onions you say? In my pants? Elephant garlic!"
Huff and puff.
The circular firing squad is nothing new to either party. Nor is identity politics. Neither is conducive to good governance.
....you mean that dirty socialist Regan, right??!?!?!1?
Wow, I didn't expect this to get through the hopper! I'm a Trump-hating Democrat (you have to give this disclaimer now), but I admit I like CHS. She explains her ideas cogently and articulately. She does not resort to ad hominems (describing phenomena and movements is not ad hominem). I get the feeling she wouldn't mind a bit if I disagree with many of her views as long as I address them like an adult. If she focuses a bit heavily on campus issues, well, she is a professor.
Certainly I see no need to shout her down or silence her. I can't see anything she says as hatred or violence. It's just, well, moderate feminism.
One of my favorite Samantha Bee bits from "The Daily Show" is her piece on bullying:
CHS is interviewed, if briefly; she feels that kids aren't being bullied enough. I'm sure if, given enough time, she could construct a scholarly-sounding case for why bullying is good for all parties, but personally I'll pass.
If she were scheduled to speak at my college*, I might be persuaded to sign a petition requesting that her speaking engagement be canceled, and I might even hold a sign at a non-shouting protest (it would likely say something stupid like "We do not support her; the CHS stands alone"). But I would not try to shout her down because that's an attempt to intimidate and bully, which I could have sworn I was opposed to.
*: The only college I care to attend these days: Batman University.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
Didn't watch it. Don't care.
Is she right about some things? Don't care.
Feminism needs critics, but feminist critics need some integrity.
The common trend of proudly announcing how hard one is plugging up their own ears and refusing to listen to or watch anything is part of the appeal of people like her.
Even if you believe she's the grand anti-christ dragon supreme MRAanbaby shitlord gross unperson supreme, you're only doing her work for her when you take that "LA LA LA I'm NOT LISTENING" attitude.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>The common trend of proudly announcing how hard one is plugging up their own ears and refusing to listen to or watch anything is part of the appeal of people like her.
Well, then, this one's on me.
She works for a right wing thing tank. She sucks up to gamergate, She appears at events with Yanii Yanananana. I watched one of her videos once.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Incidentally, I was the one who submitted the sh0eonhead video. I am asserting the right to hold out for better critics, and to use my own judgment. If that somehow makes you like CHS more, that's you using your own judgment, and I support you in that.
The lesson of Trigglypuff is that when they announce that they're trying to trigger you, if you give them attention, it's your own fault when you get triggered.
Inequality, bigotry, violence, and other aspects of politics is now pop-culture. The Spectacle has digested the power structure for the masses. You're going to get things like this. It's so much superior to every form of Western culture that has ever existed that I don't have the words for how much I love it.
That's a good way to look at it. The way I've been looking at it is, if we're seeing all these people yelling about intersectionality, it's only because we're finally taking it seriously, and that's something.
There's an old, and usually accurate, rule of thumb that it takes about 30 years for the utting edge in any given field (I usually see it appliet to physics and the arts) to reach mainstream awareness. At which point it's usually contextless and anachronistic. Intersectionality was a really important voice to bring in to Feminism, which was at the time was an essentially white, upper middle class ovement concerned almost exclusively with the needs of white, upper middle class women. That was about 30 years ago, though, and the context has changed (not as much as it should have in some areas but it's still a very different world than it was in 1986).
A lot of Freud's most questionable ideas were probably a lot more relevant in the context of the emotional disturbances of wealthy Austrian women in the late 19th century, the trouble was when people started to take them as universal (which Freud himself is very explicit about them NOT being in The Interpretation of Dreams). Same thing with intersectionality, and the bulk of postmodern thoguht in general. In the context of the time it was an important step away from the orthodoxy and dogma of Modernism. Today it IS the othrhodoxy and dogma. The fact that certain varieties of academic Feminism have become dogmatic, repressive forces in their domain isn't a good thing in and of itself, but it's a clear sign of how much the Feminsit movements of the past have succeeded in empowerment.
I'm nt a big fan of Christina Hoff Sommers though, she sometimes has valid points but usually it's exactly what you'd expect from someone affiliated with AEI.
"but it's still a very different world than it was in 1986"
It is indeed a different world than where you come from. In 1986 they were probably just starting production on "A Different World" as a Cosby spinoff, starring Marisa Tomei as Denise Huxtable's college buddy. In 2016 Marisa Tomei is Aunt May.
So I'm catching up on a lot of the MLP episodes I've missed. Just saw the Pie family Hearthswarming Eve episode. Hoooolllllyyyy shit!
So awesome! :D
I always knew Pinkie's family would be interesting, but my god, they are more amazing than I could have ever hoped. As you guys know, I'm a huge Maud Pie mark (she's my #1 favorite Secondary Pony, and probably third or fourth favorite pony overall) but Limestone and Marble are awesome, too. Particularly Marble - she's a goth'd out Fluttershy! No wonder Big Mac wants a piece of that!!!
Not sure how I'm going to rearrange my pony lists in light of this new information, but it's going to be a big shake-up. How about you guys? What did you think of the Pie family?!
Oddly I just couldn't get into the series, but I like MLP fan-fiction. I think I've read every Optimalverse story written, certainly all of them at https://www.fimfiction.net/group/1857/the-optimalverse
Really hoping Masterweaver finishes 'Fifteen Galaxies Out' one of these days...
So the general gist is that certain idiots here like her because she can state her disgusting and bigoted ideas in ways that sound polite.
if can you provide a disgusting and bigoted idea she advocates/defends in this video let me know
I do believe some ideas are inherently uncivil, and in calling them out one should feel completely free to throw in some wit and venom as desired.
It does not follow that TrigglyPuff is making anything approaching good points. If she were there in her chair all in motion as she explained what is wrong with CHS, I might be able to respect her outlook. All I get from her in the videos I've seen is "TRIGGLY SMASH!"
This video isn't about that girl, who does actually have a name. It's about this old bat and the horrible opinions she holds.
And it says a lot about your warped mindset that you keep using that insult against the girl.
your basic line of thinking, as well as others, is that 'the girl is fat, ugly and loud, so the person she's angry at is the one that's right'
No, my line of argument is that TrigglyPuff is loud and stupid, and as such she is incapable of being right. That doesn't mean the people she's protesting against are right, only that TrigglyPuff is definitely not right either.
As I noted in another video, I will also happily mock Suey Park, and I think she's quite easy on the eyes. So no, it's not the physical appeal, but oh how easy it would be for you if I were that shallow.
If you go WAYYYYYYYY up to the start of this thread, I talk about things that are wrong with what this woman is saying. Since she's expressing herself in more than six-word chants, I am responding with actual arguments.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|