The Gaming Den

violence in the media wrote:This short history of anti-feminists seems somewhat relevant.

Yeah, honestly feminism today is a fucking joke. It doesn't mean anything close to coherent, and has basically just become a meaningless buzzword for people.

There used to be actual feminist causes to fight for. Shit like women's right to vote and right to work. But all that shit actually happened in the United States, and now people are just fighting for random crap, generally actually discarding the principles of equality and fighting for extra perks for women.

It's the same really as any basic anti-racism movement as well. Originally people like Martin Luther King fought for equality. They didn't want black people sitting at the back of the bus. And that was fine. Now the black civil rights movement is about crap like affirmative action and reparations and bullshit, where lawyers are all over employers who fire a black guy without "adequate cause" even though doing the same to a white, hispanic or asian guy would have totally went buy without anyone even caring at all. But yet, organizations exist that will take a black persons side, even if he happens to be wrong, simply because that's what black civil rights has generally become nowadays. It's no longer about a plea for fairness. It's now "us against them."

What starts as a noble fight for equality eventually turns into a corrupt quest for power. And that's where modern feminism is at right now, and why people who call themselves feminists annoy me to no end. It's no longer about equality anymore and is now about simply about taking the woman's side in any argument, even if she happens to be wrong. But nobody is really considering sides anymore. It's just become "I'm on team vagina! If you don't agree with me, you must be on team penis!"

And seriously, all that bullshit does is create more prejudice, whether it's racial or sexual.

RC, you're really, really not in the clear. In fact, you're parading a line that's so full of bullshit I'm not sure where to start.

Can you find evidence of any of your statements? Do equally educated people over broad categories still get advanced or paid the same? Do they get arrested at the same rates as reported crimes? Do they get the same sentences?

The answer is no, you fuckhead. So no, while we've come a long way and pushed back blatant racism and bigotry, we still have a long way to go until there's equality.

-Crissa

Did you know that more than half of all bachelor's degrees now go to women? And yet, more than half of all jobs that require bachelor's degrees still go to men? And like all hundreds but a number of CEOs I can count on my hands and toes are men?

What's corrupt is reverse-racism apologists like RC who when they see a balance, they see it as an imbalance, still. It's like the asshole argument that Democrats and Republicans are the same, or that the center is really somewhere on the Republican side of the aisle because of some fucked up argument or other about equivalence.

RC don't be retarded. The existence of bad feminists who overreach into crazy bullshit land doesn't mean, "Oh well, I guess if they want superiority, they must already be equal." There really are places for fighting for gender equality. Both in the US, and you know, those other countries that make up 90% of the world population who mostly still oppress women.

Being able to vote doesn't make women or blacks equal automatically.

And yes, the NAACP will totally provide lawyers to all sorts of situations in which the black person was at fault/in the wrong/doesn't deserve whatever, and that's a good damn thing.

Everyone needs capable litigators, even people who are in the wrong. That's why we don't pay lawyers to make decisions, we pay judges to do that.

I'd rather have the NAACP providing Lawyers to every black person all the time, and trusting judges and juries to make correct decisions than to have lots of black people not having capable lawyers, for both civil and criminal matters.

Just because Crissa wants to no true scotsman away feminists she doesn't like doesn't make them stop existing, and likewise, the fact that modern inequalities are not as big a deal as voting doesn't magically make them non existent.

Crissa wrote: Can you find evidence of any of your statements? Do equally educated people over broad categories still get advanced or paid the same? Do they get arrested at the same rates as reported crimes? Do they get the same sentences?

Well no shit. Yeah, people have different economic backgrounds. Is it any surprise that more black people commit crimes because more live in poverty? Not really. But that's not because they're black, that's because they're poor.

And sure, there's still some racism here or there going on. But that happens to both sides, and it's not making the situation any better by having people draw "me vs. them" lines in the sand.

Did you know that more than half of all bachelor's degrees now go to women? And yet, more than half of all jobs that require bachelor's degrees still go to men? And like all hundreds but a number of CEOs I can count on my hands and toes are men?

CEOs are about connections and networking. And guess what, who gets the jobs isn't innately fair. It has less to do with how good you are and more to do with who you know. But that's not sexism. That's just fucking corporate bullshit and it affects you whether you're a man or a woman. How many men are more qualified and lose to the guy with better networking and connections? Seriously... that just happens.

Whining and complaining about it isn't going to get minorities more jobs, it's going to get them less. Because damn, nobody wants to be the fucking pioneer for this bullshit, because it's not being progressive, it's dragging your ass across the coals. Nobody is just glad they got a chance anymore, now you've got whole civil rights groups hoping that they succeed and if you want to fire them, everyone is going to be demanding a really good reason. And no employer wants eyes on them and the constant looming threat of a lawsuit. People are going to hire the white man or the asian guy because quite simply, if they suck and they want to fire them, nobody is going to care.

It's not that nobody wants to hire a woman... nobody wants to hire an ass-ache, and so called feminist women like you Crissa are nothing but ass-aches. You're the kind who throw out unfounded sexual harassment claims, make all kinds of publicity about how the company is unequal and get all your feminist sisters involved everytime you're denied a promotion. A business owner has to worry that you literally never let people forget you're a woman. Nobody likes that bullshit sense of entitlement you have. They can see it as being a problem down the road.

An employer doesn't want to have to worry about someone placing the race card or throwing out some bullshit sexual crap out everytime he makes a decision against you. Fuck that. Because you're literally never happy... every time any man gets promoted and you don't, it will automatically become a sexual discrimination thing, because that's all your fucking mind sees: "me vs. them".

It's people like you that create discrimination. Few people have remaining ideas that women are terrible workers, they just don't want to deal with all the extra baggage from women's rights crusaders, who are all too eager to toss lawsuits at people. I mean if I'm a potential employer, I'm not going to hire any person with a history of raising trouble like that, because you want to avoid trouble employees.

I create discrimination by observing it?

How very Aristotle of you.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:I create discrimination by observing it?

You can observe all you want, but when you actively make a scene about shit like that, especially if you're filing lawsuits, or part of a group that does that shit... that's a huge warning flag for potential employers.

Crissa wrote: ...So, wait, did RC just say that people should tolerate being discriminated against, so that maybe they won't be? Or that by observing institutional racism, we're encouraging it?

In a manner of speaking, yes.

The fact is that people get hired because employers like them. They think that they're going to be a good employee. Part of that stuff is not making you as the employer want to tear your hair out everytime there's a decision that goes against you.

Or for a D&D comparison, it's basically like you're the DM. Do you want the player who just has fun playing in the game and doesn't cause disruptions, or do you want the rules lawyer whose constantly arguing against every decision you make and demanding you justify it?

A workplace really isn't all that different. Getting someone who is going to be disruptive is not a good thing, and it's very disruptive if you've got one of those guys (or girls) who is looking to start a discrimination battle and sees discrimination everywhere. Worse still when you try to fire them, they may file a law suit that you fired them for discriminatory reasons. So really, the best solution is never to hire them at all if you fear there's a risk for that. And that solution is fucking bad if you dont' want discrimination happening, because it's saying "we're gonna be a pain the ass if you hire us, but if you discriminate, then we're never hired and you don't have to deal with us."

Yes, you're creating a benefit for not hiring you.

And the fear of that shit is going to actually lead to discrimination, not because you feel blacks or women are inferior, but because you're saying "They may be one of those civil rights nutjobs whose going to disrupt everything whenever something doesn't go their way"

And seriously, priority #1 is making sure everything runs smoothly. You want team players. And yeah, just like with a D&D group, you totally would rather have the less experienced guy rather than the annoying rules lawyer.

And by assigning characteristics of the group from an atypical individual, you are completely egalitarian, I see.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:And by assigning characteristics of the group from an atypical individual, you are completely egalitarian, I see.

I'm just stating how employers see it. And yeah, it's discrimination, but it's discrimination that's being actively created by people trying to prevent discrimination.

See the bottom cause of discrimination is basically if they like you or understand you. But the modern civil rights crusaders are generally not trying to be liked. They more or less get by with threats and intimidation. "Do what we want or we'll slap you with a lawsuit."

Nobody likes a bully and that's precisely what these groups have become. They wield the law like a hammer, bashing anyone who seems to get in their way.

Equality is something that people can get behind. When you start looking like a tyrant, people actively start to fear you. The moment you go from victim to antagonist, you lose people, because you're making power plays instead of asking for equal rights.

Ahh, because it's worse to work against the establishment, because they don't like it?

"Equality is something that people can get behind." As long as they, ya know, don't have to think about it.

-Crissa

RC wrote:Few people have remaining ideas that women are terrible workers,

I don't have a physical source that you guys can all click on, but a couple of the people in charge of the local re-employment program run by the county told me that employers tend to shy away from mothers-to-be or mothers with only one child because they haven't developed the proper balance between working and home life. Apparently, though, they love to hire mothers of three or more children because they know how to juggle schedules and if they're still in the work-place full time, they place a higher important on going to work.

PR, feminism is the weird idea that women are people, too. While conservatism itself may not have trouble with egalitarianism, conservatives do have such a trouble. Things like Rand Paul's 'the market will solve racism' and 'government should intrude upon your womb' and 'religious freedom means mine, not yours' and lastly, 'my immigrants, not yours' break up the whole equal thing.

So yeah, it's pretty hard to be a feminist if you think that women should lose their right to choose medical intervention and free will with regards to their body.

-Crissa

PR, feminism is the weird idea that women are people, too.

We both know that's just one of those empty statements that people quote when they don't have anything else to say.

it's pretty hard to be a feminist if you think that women should lose their right to choose medical intervention and free will with regards to their body.

Not really. It just takes the idea that there are moral foundations that override an individual's personal liberties.

Psychic Robot wrote:

it's pretty hard to be a feminist if you think that women should lose their right to choose medical intervention and free will with regards to their body.

Not really. It just takes the idea that there are moral foundations that override an individual's personal liberties.

I, for one, think it's reasonable to force every American to give up a kidney to someone in need. By not donating a kidney, you are literally murdering someone who needs it, and murder is a crime of the highest order.

Abortion is the same way, except it's not really a person that you're saving. And only women ever need to have them.

Maj wrote: I don't have a physical source that you guys can all click on, but a couple of the people in charge of the local re-employment program run by the county told me that employers tend to shy away from mothers-to-be or mothers with only one child because they haven't developed the proper balance between working and home life. Apparently, though, they love to hire mothers of three or more children because they know how to juggle schedules and if they're still in the work-place full time, they place a higher important on going to work.

Yeah, that's very believable. Lifestyle is always something that employers are going to consider, because they're looking for the best possible employee.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I, for one, think it's reasonable to force every American to give up a kidney to someone in need. By not donating a kidney, you are literally murdering someone who needs it, and murder is a crime of the highest order.

Abortion is the same way, except it's not really a person that you're saving. And only women ever need to have them.

Oh, goodie, the pro-choice train has arrived. Look, I'm not making an argument for or against abortion, I'm merely stating the rationale behind pro-life feminists.

It's really pretty simple. It's the idea that everyone should have the freedom to do the things I want them to do and not have the freedom to do things I don't want them to do. Most people feel that way. It takes a better class of person to want other people to have the freedom to do things they want to do even if it's something you don't want them to do.

-Username17

Moral foundations are just someone's fanciful way of saying 'because I said so.' They're always invoked when something is going to be different.

Like the laws against 'human animal hybrids' or whatever - because apparently it's horrible to use mouse cells or mice with human genetic tracers as little incubators for examining processes without using, you know, real humans. It's not like a mouse with a human liver is going to take over the world or cause satan to rise or some such nonsense.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Moral foundations are just someone's fanciful way of saying 'because I said so.' They're always invoked when something is going to be different.

Like the laws against 'human animal hybrids' or whatever - because apparently it's horrible to use mouse cells or mice with human genetic tracers as little incubators for examining processes without using, you know, real humans. It's not like a mouse with a human liver is going to take over the world or cause satan to rise or some such nonsense.

-Crissa

The only serious reason to ban human-animal hybrids is the difficulty of defining exactly what counts as human in a legal sense.

But on the flip side, I recall people getting seriously offended when a GFP dog war engineered--as though the first thing that anybody does to a model organism isn't making it glow green (and as though a glowing green dog is an atrocity rather than totally rad).

I doubt a mouse is going to be able to testify in court as a human.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:I doubt a mouse is going to be able to testify in court as a human.

-Crissa

What should have human rights is usually intuitively obvious, but the appropriate (and absolute) definition is not. It's not an issue likely to arise outside of a mad scientist's laboratory, and unfortunately there are very few of those in the real world. However, it's important to realize that your mouse with a human liver isn't the only possible chimera, just as it is important to realize that nobody is likely to engineer humanoid and near-human intelligence canine servants.

CatharzGodfoot wrote: What should have human rights is usually intuitively obvious, but the appropriate (and absolute) definition is not. It's not an issue likely to arise outside of a mad scientist's laboratory, and unfortunately there are very few of those in the real world. However, it's important to realize that your mouse with a human liver isn't the only possible chimera, just as it is important to realize that nobody is likely to engineer humanoid and near-human intelligence canine servants.

What should have human rights is nothing like intuitively obvious. There are people who would give human rights to a hydrocephalic who never had any higher brain functions at all, yet would deny those same rights to an elephant able to paint a picture of an elephant holding a flower.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote: What should have human rights is usually intuitively obvious, but the appropriate (and absolute) definition is not. It's not an issue likely to arise outside of a mad scientist's laboratory, and unfortunately there are very few of those in the real world. However, it's important to realize that your mouse with a human liver isn't the only possible chimera, just as it is important to realize that nobody is likely to engineer humanoid and near-human intelligence canine servants.

What should have human rights is nothing like intuitively obvious. There are people who would give human rights to a hydrocephalic who never had any higher brain functions at all, yet would deny those same rights to an elephant able to paint a picture of an elephant holding a flower.

-Username17

That's why I qualified it with "usually". But you do make a good case for how much easier it is to look at such a scenario intuitively rather than from a purely genetic perspective.

Crissa wrote:Moral foundations are just someone's fanciful way of saying 'because I said so.' They're always invoked when something is going to be different.

They sure are. Like not being able to shoot someone because you don't like him or her? That's a moral foundation. And not being able to beat your spouse? That's a moral foundation right there. And not being able to urinate in public? Well, that's a grey area.

PR: I think that would be a yellow area!