Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Tanoomba_sl said:

What did I defend this time, Lith? Please enlighten me.

Oh, and that page you linked in no way reflects your ridiculously exaggerated statement... As usual. I do love how you don't even realize your "No, this is how itreally is!" stance is directly contradicted by your dogged insistence on misrepresenting "them". Lith gonna Lith.

But I guess a proper understanding of what you're talking about isn't necessary when you're an ideologue, right? You're just programmed to go full offense the moment you evenperceivea differing point of view in your vicinity (as you have just demonstrated). Cripplingly low self esteem much?

Click to expand...

Why don't you educate us on what he got wrong? You always post stuff like this that's essentially just "what you said isn't how it is, but that's as far as I'm willing to elucidate." I'm not trying to be a dick; it's just an observation

Cad_sl said:

The book obviously juxtaposes objectivity/empathy with the male/female and white/black binary, where objectivity/maleness/whiteness are privileges that are "dirtied" by empathy, femaleness, and blackness.

I mean just read the fucking pages linked. It doesn't say "exactly" what Lithose said but it's close enough.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing. I was just pointing out how unhelpful Tanoomba's "debating" style is and how it only results in him getting shat on. But I guess that's victim blaming or some fucking thing

chthonic-anemos_sl said:

Click to expand...

Similar but superior imho

Cad_sl said:

The book obviously juxtaposes objectivity/empathy with the male/female and white/black binary, where objectivity/maleness/whiteness are privileges that are "dirtied" by empathy, femaleness, and blackness.

I mean just read the fucking pages linked. It doesn't say "exactly" what Lithose said but it's close enough.

Click to expand...

I don't even know what the fuck I read, I couldn't even gauge what was being discussed, was it a class on pastels? Why was objectivity juxtaposed to empathy, and not subjectivity? Why are there colors involved? Wait I don't even care...

Tanoomba_sl said:

There is nothing in the page he linked that says anything about white males being evil. That was hyperbole added by Lithose.

Click to expand...

Why does it need to be confined to the page he linked? If the attitude he was referring to exists, then why does it matter if it's in that exact link? It's all part of the same ridiculous oppression culture (which he demonstrated after your post)

I think his point was less that every feminist thinks that way and more than feminism in general is littered with these outlandish and ridiculous beliefs. While one might not believe objectivity is the tool of evil males, you can pretty much guarantee that belief is just subbed out with something perhaps only slightly less ridiculous. So while it might be easy for you to say "hardly anyone believes that" with one particular point, when we start to stack up all the different crazy beliefs, you get a better sense of the general attitude

Tanoomba_sl said:

Because that "attitude" doesn't exist, or exists exclusively on the fringes. Find me a feminist claiming that objectivity is the tool of evil white males and you will have shown me that that attitude exists, at least within that individual. Claim the attitude exists and show me words thatdon'treflect that attitude (he CHOSE that book because he thought it proved his point), and all you've shown me is that you're exaggerating to suit your narrative. That's exactly what Lithose does all the time: He makes an exaggerated statement that doesn't reflect reflect reality, but when he's called on it he just shifts goalposts and/or claims that what he said is somehow true anyway because... reasons. I actually don't give a shit if people exaggerate, but at least fess up to it when called out on it.

Click to expand...

Tan, you're trolling again. But lets humor you for a second for the spectators (Since that's what you're good for). Now, we know within feminism that the patriarchy is bad right (It is)? The patriarchy is aconstruct of male control; it is extremely masculine. Feminist literature associates objectivity withmaleness, which in an aspect of the patriarchy, and thus evil. The fact that you need this spelled out says a lot about you. Either you are the dumbest person on the planet (Entirely likely). Or you're being obtuse and attempting another semantic argument to try and salvage a hopelessly lost caused.

You believed my statement was exaggerated, I showed you it wasn't. You got embarrassed because once again your ideology proves that I couldn't even make up shit outlandish enough to NOT be true; it is impossible, your ideology is the epitome of poe's law--anything I say could potentially be true because it's so fucking stupid.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Now why don't you hold Lithose to the same standard and ask him what I was supposedly "defending", since he clearly doesn't have the balls to answer me himself? I understand that, as the contrarian, my feet will be held to the fire for literally anything I say that anyone disagrees with, but ONCE IN A WHILE somebody on your "side" should be held accountable for their words, no?

Click to expand...

Was your laugh not coming to the defense of feminism? If you're saying you were genuinely laughing at the feminist ideological view that objectivity is masculine while empathy is feminine then I'll concede and say you weren't defending anything. (Something tells me this isn't likely to happen).

Jive Turkey_sl said:

I think his point was less that every feminist thinks that way and more than feminism in general is littered with these outlandish and ridiculous beliefs. While one might not believe objectivity is the tool of evil males, you can pretty much guarantee that belief is just subbed out with something perhaps only slightly less ridiculous. So while it might be easy for you to say "hardly anyone believes that" with one particular point, when we start to stack up all the different crazy beliefs, you get a better sense of the general attitude

Click to expand...

It's not all feminists, but most feminists who actually have a Gender Studies degree will be 'critical theorist' feminist. And they will absolutelybelieve this shit, in fact many of the modern GS feminists will find other feminists to be sexist, or even 'anti-feminist' now. (Page 41; it references the paper I originally read that was given to me by a feminist while I was still in school.). The 'idea' that you can be objective, and not put your own biases in research is considered an aspect of masculine, and western culture. The opposition of this is a CORE aspect of post modernism and post structuralism contained in the ideology known ascritical theory--the believe that the strive toward enlightenment era values of 'objectivity' is in effect an extension of white male control (Which, yes is seen as evil--so literally objectivity is a tool the white male uses to oppress women and silence their view points). That it was done to diminish the experiences and views of oppressed people, especially women who tend to use their feelings and empathy more. (I'm not joking, I wish I was.) This is effectivelyromanticismbeing painted with intersectionality.

Here is an example that summarizes a work that I KNOW is still required reading in Gender Studies.

(Book reference in the description below, 5 feminist authors in there since Tan was looking for a 'source' that actually says this. Here is a small description that this librarian was kind enough to give of one of the authors line of thinking from the critical theory school of feminism

Concepts considered fundamental in Western conceptions of philosophy, morality, and politics-liketruth, science, objectivity, justice, etc.-were primarily developed by wealthy white guys in the context of a patriarchal society (think of the Enlightenment).Because of their provenance, these Western "values" only reflect the thinking of the dominant male culture and do not address women's (or others') perspectives.So, things we are told are universal (like truth or justice) are really filled with hidden biases, they aren't universal, they don't capture subjective experiences, and they only represent one of many ways of knowing the world.


To the critical feminist, the analytic feminist is committed to perpetuating patriarchal notions of objectivity, truth, and justice. What's more, in favoringtraditionally masculine ideals like science and logical reasoning, analytic feminists are tacitly dismissing more feminine ways of knowing like listening, intuition, subjectivity, and emotion(I'll assume you're familiar withWomen's Ways of Knowing. It was required reading in my library science program, and this idea is right at the beginning, pp. 5-7)

Again, the sad part is I'm NOT exaggerating. Almost a million dollars was spentresearching how glacier research is sexist.. Objectivity is seen as a tool of oppression associated with men. You should hear some of these idiots debate things like the reasonableness standard in the court of law, and how that was essentially made so men could rape women and get away with it. Any attempt to remove emotion and bias from an equation, is seen as a direct influence of the patriarchy (And Western enlightenment colonial thought in general)

The ol' quintuple quote-split.

Nope.

Tanoomba_sl said:

The thing is, Jive, most of these "crazy beliefs" tend to be exaggerations, misrepresentations, or something a random idiot said on Tumblr or Twitter that NOBODY should pay any attention to. If you want to make a valid point about what feminists believe, then referencewhat they actually believeinstead of a silly straw man. This constant caricaturization of feminists and SJWs is childish, immature and completely counterproductive. Which, by the way, is fine if your goal is simply to boost your ego by mocking others, but at least own it and don't pretend you're a beacon of truth when you're actually full of shit. (Not YOU in particular, obviously.)

Click to expand...

But these ideas should be openly mocked because inevitably, fragments of crazy fringe ideas end up in mainstream discourse.Manspreading, for example