Here, I fixed that for you!

A blog for when SJWs are people too.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

raptors-n-foxes‌:

If it takes a long time to explain, then it’s probably not a real sexuality and you’re just nitpicking.

Alright, I would just really like to zero in on this gem of golden wisdom right here.

THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF HOW GENDER AND SEXUAL IDENTITIES WORK! Simplicity is not correlated to validity. Something is not more real or true the easier it is to understand. Gender and sexuality is inherently complicated, it cannot always be explained in a single word or sentence. Anyone who actually gets psychology will be able to explain this to you.

This is textbook bigot rhetoric, these people are trying to turn their own laziness and ignorance into a pseudoscientific fact. Shame on you for encouraging purposeful dumbassery, now go educate yourself.

[librarymlm-deactivated20190530]

i have a hot take idk if yallre ready for it

[librarymlm-deactivated20190530]

a bi man married to a bi woman is peak wlw/mlm solidarity 

[niyarest]

biphobes big mad at this post

[magnumpicactus-deactivated20230]

How is that w|w/m|m solidarity??????????????

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Bi men are MLM and bi women are WLW. Marriage implies closeness. Bi men marrying bi women is a form of MLM / WLW solidarity.

[mioxenoblade]

Mocking a trans persons appearance is always an act of transphobia

[mioxenoblade]

Yall so intent on defending your desire to mock trans people guilt free and its fucked, ever hear of being nice

[morememesmemesmemes]

If someones ugly, they’re ugly. doesn’t matter whether they’re trans or whatever. Being trans doesn’t mean you’re automaticly free of being ugly, it’s called “an opinion”.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

You expressing this apparent belief that mocking a cis person’s appearance and mocking a trans person’s appearance has equal, harmless weight tells me that you have no idea what you’re talking about and just want to sound cool and rational so you don’t have to challenge your own ignorance.

Since being trans and passing (whether out of an emotional need or a need to pass to avoid physical violence being enacted upon you) is so heavily based in appearance, uh, yeah, it’s a bit different when you sit there, talking about the girl with the broad shoulders and the big nose or the boy with the big hips and tiny shoe size.

(Obviously not my view of trans men and women since the appearances of men and women vary wildly, but using common images conjured by bigots to make a point)

Fact of the matter is, let’s be honest with ourselves, you have nothing to lose but the childish, hateful glee of calling someone fat or ugly if you were expected to drop physical insults as a whole - you should drop them to begin with.

[pechpoppy]

Is there anything better than flaunting you’re attraction to minors like it’s no big deal?

Yes, realizing it’s a problem and doing something about it

[commander-lecter]

Attraction to minors is not better or worse than any other thing to “flaunt”. Like, for example, gender.

[deadpool-hates-all-maps]

You’re kidding right?

Being attracted to children and being proud of it is not okay.

Being nonbinary or trans and proud of it is okay.

Being attracted to children and actively searching for help is good.

Being attracted to children and being proud of it is not okay.

[commander-lecter]

There’s literally no difference. Being proud of traits you didn’t choose and can’t change it stupid regardless.

On a side note, there’s no “nonbinary or trans”. Nonbinary is trans too.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Being attracted to beings who inherently cannot consent to romance or sex is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT from identifying as a different gender than the one assigned to you, but, uh… Alright, bud. I guess. You do you. [slowly backs away]

[commander-lecter]

How? Both are inborn unchangeable traits.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Creepazoid, if you don’t know the difference between a harmless identity and a harmful paraphilia (yes, pedophilia is a paraphilia. Not a sexual orientation, it is classified as one of a handful harmful paraphilias that require professional help), you are flat out a bigot to the LGBT community and your “help” is not wanted. Trans people don’t deserve to be compared to pedophiles, the right is doing that to them enough.

[natasha-loves-nomaps]

dear antis,

So, you hate MAPs. Okay. I’m not going to attack you, or yell at you. I’m not going to spam you with hate. I’d simply like to sit down with you and have a civil conversation about why you hate MAPs. 

Let’s do a little exercise. I’d like you to close your eyes, and picture a MAP.

Have you done that? Good.

Most of you probably have a very specific image in your head. Most likely, you all have the same one. Most of you probably pictured a cishet caucasian man, middle-aged or older, probably balding. Most of you probably pictured a man behind a computer posing as a teenager to get young girls to trust him, so he can prey on them, sweaty palmed from watching child porn. Most of you probably pictured a child predator, and a stereotypical one at that.

I want you to think for a moment, about why you saw that image. No hate if you did, just think about it. Why is that the image that comes into your head when most of you think about MAPs?

The reason you pictured that is stigma. 

The stigma around MAPs leads society to believe that all MAPs look a certain way, act a certain way, are a certain way.

Are some MAPs like that? Yeah, probably. Most stereotypes do have a grain of truth to them. But are all MAPs like that? No.

MAPs come in all different shapes and sizes, genders, sexualities, ages, races, mental/physical abilities, economies and ethnic backgrounds. A MAP can be anyone you can think of.

A MAP can be a middle aged man behind a computer, but they can also be the 16-year-old girl you met in the park.

A MAP can be your genderqueer online friend who draws stars on their math homework.

A MAP can be the guy next door who’s really good at basketball.

A MAP can be your trans gay best friend or your black lesbian babysitter.

A MAP can be your nonbinary sibling who has blue hair and plays in a rock band.

A MAP can be literally anyone, anyone can be a MAP.

MAP simply means Minor Attracted Person. It does not necessarily mean pedophile. It does not necessarily mean child molester. It does not necessarily mean middle-aged man.

I want you, again, to close your eyes and picture a MAP.

Hopefully, the image has changed.

MAPs are just people, like you and like me. While there are some MAPs out there who are bad people, that does not mean all MAPs are bad. There are bad people in every group. There are bad black people, bad white people, bad Muslims, bad lgbt+ people. But that doesn’t mean that all black/white/Muslim/lgbt+ people are bad, now, doesn’t? 

It doesn’t mean all MAPs are bad, either.

Hating them does nothing, and telling the good ones to kill themselves won’t make the bad ones go away.

MAPs are just people, like anybody else.

I hope you have learned your lesson.

[pechpoppy]

Yo, this is fuckin stupid

[rationalsjdiscussions]

I can’t imagine hating CSA survivors as much as OP does, INB4 they come at me yelling that EXCUSE ME THEY ARE A SURVIVOR HOW DARE I.

“Sitting” a survivor down and offering a “civil conversation about why they hate people who are attracted to kiddos” as if it’s some wild irrational kind of person to hate is just absolutely unthinkable.

You are trying to tell kids who have been groomed, abused, molested and raped by pedophiles that maybe they should stop hating pedophiles, who are inherently attracted to innocent people who can’t consent to the sort of thing a pedophile wants. They are attracted to people who, if they acted on that attraction, it would be rape absolutely 100% of the time.

Because, let’s be honest with ourselves, antis are not “tyrannical teenagers who have never experienced TRUE PTSD!1!1″, they are kids who have survived the abuse of pedophiles. All of the stereotypical “worst traits” associated with antis (ex: attacking, suicide baiting and calling someone a pedophile based off of a false rumor, for example) are textbook hypervigilance. They have every right to despise pedophiles and I think we all know that - it’s just people like you, OP, who want to gaslight them and deny them their rightful anger and hatred.

OP, I think YOU are the one who needs to sit down after this bullshit. Go in the time-out corner. Think about what you’ve done.

As I have said many times before, “non-offending MAPs” need PROFESSIONAL FUCKING HELP, not ASS-PATS and ONLINE UWU POSITIVITY, and they are not part of any LGBT+ community of mine, regardless of their gender or sexuality, as LGBT+ kids deserve to feel safe and respected in their community much more than pedophiles deserve a “woke” prowling ground.

[pechpoppy]

Is there anything better than flaunting you’re attraction to minors like it’s no big deal?

Yes, realizing it’s a problem and doing something about it

[commander-lecter]

Attraction to minors is not better or worse than any other thing to “flaunt”. Like, for example, gender.

[deadpool-hates-all-maps]

You’re kidding right?

Being attracted to children and being proud of it is not okay.

Being nonbinary or trans and proud of it is okay.

Being attracted to children and actively searching for help is good.

Being attracted to children and being proud of it is not okay.

[commander-lecter]

There’s literally no difference. Being proud of traits you didn’t choose and can’t change it stupid regardless.

On a side note, there’s no “nonbinary or trans”. Nonbinary is trans too.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Being attracted to beings who inherently cannot consent to romance or sex is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT from identifying as a different gender than the one assigned to you, but, uh... Alright, bud. I guess. You do you. [slowly backs away]

[rationalsjdiscussions]

@aliferousviridity Whoops, I haven’t checked my inbox in a long while - but it’s okay! Sorry about my snappy tone, it’s been a very long few years of people scrambling to paint asexuals as predators by any means possible. >_>

[cirrates]

“this character is trans because I’m trans and I like them” is a power move but “this character is cis because I’m trans and I don’t like them” is an even bigger power move

[wonderlace19]

If you switched trans and cis around you have entire group of screeching woman studies majors at your actual doorstep ready to hang you.

If you can switch words around so easily it becomes hate it probably was hate to begin with.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Considering one group is oppressed for being trans and one group is inherently privileged on the axis of being cis, it doesn’t exactly work that way. The “but just switch it around and it’s oppression” argument doesn’t work, because in the original form of the statement, it is never oppression to begin with. It’s a comment made by someone who IS oppressed. To try to use disingenuous logic twisting to make them look like an oppressor is just flat-out messed up.

Nevermind the depiction of leftists as lynchers being incredibly awful - you think LEFTISTS are easily offended, especially considering that the point you’re trying to make is “It would be oppression the other way around” so your metaphors are kinda mixing? Try centrists and the right, you say the word “cis,” period, and they start tantruming.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

I was a fandom “teen mom” I spent my mid to late teen years moderating a fan forum for a SFF book series. A big part of my job was banning creepy teenage boys/men out of chats (they were always asking some of the younger members (mostly girls under the age of 14) to be their girlfriends, which, eww. So this assertation of fandom mothers and predators really burns my biscuits. I can’t speak to anyone else’s expierence but a lot of jerks in fandom I’ve encountered were all around my age.

Interospect I was more of a Den Mother. I had no idea Fandom Mom was considered a negative thing until a couple of years ago. Just trying to get a handle on the correct terminology. I’m so sorry that people that hurt you like that.

I get what you’re saying, but I’m referring to a massive ocean wave of grown women who would (knowingly or not - that’s how messed up fandom culture was, it was very possible to unknowingly abuse and groom a minor) prey primarily on teenage girls and teenage NBs (though boys weren’t out of the question), talk about kink and sex with them (mostly in the context of fiction, which is still not okay) and act like emotionally abusive mothers over time - utterly “blameless” when something went wrong, condescending, coercive, etc.

There’s a difference between women who act as leaders in their communities, who are nice and accommodating to kids (genuinely nice, not creepy) and kick out creeps and “Fandom Moms” just the same as there’s a difference between feminists who are white and “White Feminists,” if that makes sense. That’s at least the way I understand it, feel free to correct me if that’s wrong. It’s obviously not a 1:1 comparison but it’s accurate enough afaik.

In my experience, there have been jerks and creeps of all ages, genders, sexualities, etc. This is just a conversation describing one of them, and teenage jerks can’t really be held responsible the exact same way adult jerks can. At least not by adults.

[nyational]

No but in all seriousness, that post defending fandom moms was fucking disgusting and clearly OP wasn’t using their brain to make it.

A fandom mom is not just any woman over 25 who we’re attacking for absolutely no reason but the fact that they’re a woman??

A fandom mom is some aceywacey fujoshi who lusts over the just-legal characters in usually already problematic media, and makes all the minors uncomfortable. That’s why we have a term for them in the first place!!

Nobody has an issue with adults enjoying fandom content at all. It is when they become creepy and fetishizing that we have an issue, and that issue seems to be a common one that we should address.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

This entire definition is off, and insulting so to me as a survivor.

“ACEYWACEY”? We’re trying to define a group of predators by how EPIC CRINGE ACE they are? Yeah, nice try, OP. - Sincerely, a CSA/grooming survivor largely via fandom moms.

They lust over “JUST legal” characters? Yeah, try fictional and IRL minors.

“Usually already problematic media”? You just described everyone’s interests. If you think you’re only into unproblematic things, you’re kidding yourself LOL.

Fandom moms, at least when I was a kid, didn’t make anyone uncomfortable. That’s kind of the way they got you, they wormed their way into your trust and seemed nice and safe and nurturing. Defining them as anything but manipulative monsters who seem completely harmless and loving is just irresponsible.

Fandom moms are women usually over 25 who have no concept of boundaries, and who want to simultaneously mother minors and also talk about/do sexual things with them. They prey on minors who don’t seem to fit in, on minors with parental issues (including abuse), and then they use those minors as some kind of mother-child fantasy tool while also simultaneously sexualizing those minors, and talking about personal kink details about themselves.

When faced with boundaries and the “fandom child” growing a sense of self-respect, and realizing what proper adults do and do not do, the typical fandom mom has a crying fit and pretends she’s being betrayed and abused.

I can’t even assume you have good intentions, because you just tried to define fandom moms as essentially 25 year old ace fujoshi inclusionists who are into adult characters, who realize that liking unproblematic media only is impossible. You just listed exactly one wrong thing there, and that thing was “fujoshi.” That’s an awfully convenient definition.

[nyational]

That’s exactly what I said but longer. I don’t understand why you felt the need to mock a 16 year old over being uncomfortable about adults being predatory, just because I decided to word it in a way that you didn’t like?

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Nobody is mocking you, especially not for hating fandom moms, and that was absolutely not what you said. I don’t believe in seriously getting into it with minors so I won’t, but if you think I’m making fun of you for being uncomfortable with predators, you need to reread my initial reply to yours.

[nyational]

No but in all seriousness, that post defending fandom moms was fucking disgusting and clearly OP wasn’t using their brain to make it.

A fandom mom is not just any woman over 25 who we’re attacking for absolutely no reason but the fact that they’re a woman??

A fandom mom is some aceywacey fujoshi who lusts over the just-legal characters in usually already problematic media, and makes all the minors uncomfortable. That’s why we have a term for them in the first place!!

Nobody has an issue with adults enjoying fandom content at all. It is when they become creepy and fetishizing that we have an issue, and that issue seems to be a common one that we should address.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

This entire definition is off, and insulting so to me as a survivor.

“ACEYWACEY”? We’re trying to define a group of predators by how EPIC CRINGE ACE they are? Yeah, nice try, OP. - Sincerely, a CSA/grooming survivor largely via fandom moms.

They lust over “JUST legal” characters? Yeah, try fictional and IRL minors.

“Usually already problematic media”? You just described everyone’s interests. If you think you’re only into unproblematic things, you’re kidding yourself LOL.

Fandom moms, at least when I was a kid, didn’t make anyone uncomfortable. That’s kind of the way they got you, they wormed their way into your trust and seemed nice and safe and nurturing. Defining them as anything but manipulative monsters who seem completely harmless and loving is just irresponsible.

Fandom moms are women usually over 25 who have no concept of boundaries, and who want to simultaneously mother minors and also talk about/do sexual things with them. They prey on minors who don’t seem to fit in, on minors with parental issues (including abuse), and then they use those minors as some kind of mother-child fantasy tool while also simultaneously sexualizing those minors, and talking about personal kink details about themselves.

When faced with boundaries and the “fandom child” growing a sense of self-respect, and realizing what proper adults do and do not do, the typical fandom mom has a crying fit and pretends she’s being betrayed and abused.

I can’t even assume you have good intentions, because you just tried to define fandom moms as essentially 25 year old ace fujoshi inclusionists who are into adult characters, who realize that liking unproblematic media only is impossible. You just listed exactly one wrong thing there, and that thing was “fujoshi.” That’s an awfully convenient definition.

[how-late-am-i]

have you guys ever noticed how pretty the bi flag is???

Like, look at it

It looks like a sunset

just

#the sky is bi confirmed

[formerfundie]

You wanna get people to hate you? Just claim the whole fucking sky belongs to your favorite kink.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

You seem VERY troubled over a cutesy joke based in bisexual positivity, to be painting it as “Pervert kinksters literally saying the sky is theirs.”

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Okay - this PM I received was just kind of funny, the context is this guy (whose URL I am not disclosing, so as not to aid harassment that may or may not have occurred if I DID disclose it) tried to accuse me of saying something I never said, which in his mind was “Christianity is inherently a phase.” What I said was, to a homophobe calling LGBT+ sexuality a phase, “You just randomly became straight when you converted to Christianity? Your sexuality is caused by religion? Sounds like a phase to me,” I proved multiple times I never said that Christianity is a phase (HE EVEN TRIED TO MAKE IT ABOUT HOW HE THINKS ISLAM IS BAD AND THE SJWS DONT CRITICIZE ISLAM EVER XD), tried to bend logic every which way to try and get away with “Uhhhh well I STILL think you did it and you have to tell me my view is valid or else you’re a bad mean person,” and his was his final battle cry when I made it clear that nope, I have boundaries, I have self-respect, and I do not have to validate hateful fanfiction written about me. (Extra context: I asked if he was a kid at some point because I do not believe in getting in debates like this with minors. Turns out he is OLDER THAN ME and behaving like a child. Typical anti-SJWs, pretending to be victimized because someone is trying to have basic morals and not bully teens and because the term “white cishet male” exists, and in trying to prove their oppression, throw actual marginalized people under the bus with a cute little quip about poor people and Patreon. Ad hominem fail. xD)

[ironmess]

me, into the mic: make more women lead marvel movies

male nerds: *heads explode*

[thatsyouthatshowdumbyousound]

Just the kind of straw man someone who cares more about the sex of a fictional character in a film than in the actual quality of the film would build.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

I think it’s a very bold and tired assumption that “Make more female-led movies” and “Make high-quality movies with deep plots and characters” are mutually exclusive. It’s even more tired to assume that people who want more female representation don’t care about the quality of the film.

What good would it do anyone if, say, a Black Widow film was made, but it sucked? It would be a negative experience for everyone, ESPECIALLY the feminists who wanted to see it.

Because one, they wanted to see a good movie led by a woman.

Two, the anti-feminists would use a hypothetically shitty Black Widow movie to justify their beliefs that gender doesn’t matter in film, and that wanting more female representation leads to bad movies, which it just factually does not.

I understand that it’s easy to paint feminists with this extremely broad brush of “They ONLY care about gender, and want to make all movies really boring and bad!”, it’s very rewarding in terms of the online attention you’ll get, but… It’s just not correct. Learn a couple things instead of assuming you know what feminists care about just because your idea of what they want is completely irrational and ridiculous.

[unlimited-shitpost-works-deacti]

Ok, this guy is accusing someone of building strawman male nerds that would hate more women-lead Marvel movies. They then imply that, unlike this other person, male nerds care about the quality of the film rather than the sex of the main character.

You manage to miss the entire point that this dude is making which is: his, and other male nerds’, head wouldn’t explode if someone wanted more women-led films. You then treat this rather benign message as an attack on feminism. It’s a very bold and tired assumption that everyone that disagrees with something you support must be an anti-feminist.

Also, the new Ghostbusters was shit, so even if he was doing what you say he was doing, it isn’t as if people haven’t made totally shit movies whose only selling point is representation before.

I understand it’s easy to paint male nerds with the broad brush of “male nerds actually hate women”, and it’s very rewarding in terms of the amount of attention you get, but it’s just not correct. Learn a couple of things… blah blah blah

[rationalsjdiscussions]

… What? xD What are you even trying to say? None of this makes sense given what I said. It’s like I said “Chickens lay eggs” and you said “But brushing your teeth IS good for you!”

If I seriously am missing something, can someone help me out here? Because this reads like “I don’t know what your post meant or what you believe, but it’s time to pwn you.”

[unlimited-shitpost-works-deacti]

some dude: that’s a strawman, most people care about whether a movie is good or not rather than the sex of the lead

you: omg I’m so tired of people making assumptions that people who want representation in movies want to produce bad movies [4 paragraph rant]

me: ok, that’s not what the guy said. you missed the point of the post you replied to though, let me try to explain it.

you: what does this have to do with my post? you’re dumb!

me: [looks into the camera like Jim from The Office]

You missed the point of the post and went off on a tangent, so I tried to explain you misunderstood the guy because he didn’t say what you’re saying he said

[rationalsjdiscussions]

… Okay. Let’s really try and break this down and try to extract common sense from this.

OP: (a joke, and we all know it is a joke - if you don’t think it’s a good one, then okay, but I know it is a joke more than it is an eloquently worded political argument.)

Second guy: Sounds like, from this strawman joke you made (yes, logically it is a strawman joke) you care about the gender of a character more than the quality of a film. (Basically the actual words this guy typed, that allegedly I don’t grasp?)

Me: But consider, why can’t we care about both? Why does a character not being male imply that the movie they’re in would pay less attention to quality of plot and character interaction?

You: What? He didn’t say what he literally just typed. It’s a benign message. You think a thing that happens all the time actually happens? You just think men hate women.

Me: When did I say that?

You: (The Office Meme xddd)

Well… By and large, it happens a lot! I think you’re assuming that women exaggerate how much it happens (which, in itself, is an interestingly misogynist sentiment, that women are incapable of processing their own reality), but you gotta consider the following.

I know for a fact not every single male nerd who has ever lived on planet Earth virulently hates women, or crap their pants at the sight of a female-led movie. Crazy, I know. So do most feminists. I know male nerds who are pretty cool about gender issues. Why would I believe every single man is a violent misogynist?

What I do believe is that misogyny, like all forms of bigotry, is so subtly ingrained into society that it often goes unnoticed.

So… I guess what confuses me is this. You read “Just the kind of straw man someone who cares more about the sex of a fictional character in a film than the actual quality of the film would build,” and you decide that what it REALLY means is this. Correct me if I’m wrong, of course.

“This joke is unfair and paints all men as virulent female-haters. Most male nerds care more about the quality of films than of the gender of characters.”

Which brings up the following questions for me.

1.) Why do we ignore the flat-out accusation that people who are excited for female-led movies don’t care about the quality of movies as much as male critics do?

2.) Why do we assume that it’s fair to be inherently skeptical of the quality of female-led/female-focused movies, considering most classic, celebrated films are male-led and male-focused? If you were to tell me “Twelve Angry Men” had no women in its major important cast, and was built almost exclusively on a societally typical male narrative for its time period, and I were to tell you right off the bat, “Nnnghhh, I dunno about this, sounds like pandering to MRAs…”, wouldn’t I sound ridiculous?

(No, you can’t just insist that doesn’t ever happen the other way around, or not happens rarely. It happens quite a bit, whether you like it or not, whether you personally decide that is justified or not.

That is exactly what, sorry to generalize, a LOT of male nerds were doing when the all-female Ghostbusters came out, which, controversial opinion: it was not a cinematic masterpiece, but it was cute and fun and was important for what it was, it depicted women as more than romantic girls next door’s, mothers and sex kittens, which is surprisingly rarely even today!)

3.) Why do you interpret a nobler, deeper meaning for this guy and go beyond the literal fact of what he typed, which is that OP and people like OP care more about gender representation than quality (again, a problematic assumption that these things are in any way mutually exclusive), and not award OP with the same level of compassionate analysis, when there is obviously a deeper meaning and history behind the viewpoint they’re presenting through their joke as well?

[unlimited-shitpost-works-deacti]

Let me try to explain another way:

This dude’s statement is like “I would expect someone in a BMW to cut me off in traffic”, and you’re accusing him of making the generalization that women drive BMWs. It does not follow.

You’re the one trying to find something deeper here, not me. Somewhere in that guy’s sentence, you are trying desperately to find the statement that “wanting women led movies and making good movies are mutually exclusive”, and it ain’t in there.

The dude says that people who care more about the sex of characters than whether a movie is good behave a certain way.

You’re trying to turn an accusation of one person into a generalization of a group of people.

Do you need me to diagram the sentence for you? I’ll make some charts for you in the morning.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Ooohhh, I see - you don’t understand that the statement/accusation made by this guy is not typically geared towards folks of the male persuasion, unless said man is one of those good ol’ white knight cucks, so you think I’m pulling a misogyny accusation out of my ass. Common anti-SJW mistake.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

What’s your opinion on youtubers like Hbomberguy and Contrapoints? I think both are pretty smart political youtubers with a good grasp of what they talk about.

Hbomberguy IIRC has been really nasty to victims or sexual harassment by his friends, so he’s sorta crossed out by my standards.ContraPoints on the other hand is interesting and I think she’s commonly misunderstood as supporting OR 100% demonizing viewpoints she depicts through fictional characters.

[itsagifnotagif]

Nothing but respect for my favourite ex-Twitter employee

[cnhgirl]

So, you’re okay with a Twitter employee deactivating someone’s account just because they don’t like that person? Even though they could do that to literally anyone? Sorry, but some anvils need to be dropped:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

- Martin Niemöller

[rationalsjdiscussions]

I don’t have an actual argument to make here, this reblog specifically just tickles my funny bone.

Ya sure dropped some anvils! A temporary account deactivation that was rectified very quickly is LITERALLY THE SAME THING as THE THIRD REICH! It’s the SAME THING! Don’t you SEE?! It’s OPPRESSION! It’s LITERALLY NAZIS!

LMAO.

[cnhgirl]

So, how is this a “rational sj discussion” when you look and sound like a complete and total ass? Nothing you said is actually rational, all you did was use caps lock and hyperbole to try and make me look stupid instead of thinking about the meaning of what I was saying.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Man, if I had a dollar for every time someone assumed that my URL is a dead serious statement about every single thing that comes out of my mouth and not a comment on “facts n logic” culture.

I have to assume at this point if you posted all that, and don’t see at all what’s wrong with it, then you’re probably a kid, and I don’t believe in bullying or drawing negative attention towards kids. You’ll figure it out one day, I used to be a clueless teen who probably would have quoted that old text to defend a fascist’s “free speech” from people who can’t take it away, too.

[cnhgirl]

I’m an anthropology graduate student who fails to see how your URL is a “comment” on anything, let alone “’facts n logic’ culture” (whatever the fuck that’s even supposed to mean).

[rationalsjdiscussions]

Oh, okay, so you are in fact also a grown adult. Well, I’ll proceed then:

Since you openly admit you don’t know what it means, even with a kind of strange and self-righteous tone, I can explain it.

“Facts n’ logic culture” is a simplified way of referring to the point in time when everyone opposing those they deemed “SJWs” (that is, anyone slightly left of center at this point) demanded an impossible level of “rational” discourse from leftists, that even the most civil of civil could not reach. They claimed to only listen to arguments built on “facts n’ logic,” rather than feelings, which allegedly all far leftism is built on, and not facts ever. Supposedly.

They demanded cold, hard facts when they themselves could not provide these facts. When given cold, hard facts, they backpedaled and insisted academia is not factual anymore, and is infiltrated by SJWs who want to abuse and brainwash white men into hating themselves through race/gender studies classes. They demanded arguments free of emotion, when they themselves were highly emotional.

This URL is making fun of that time in online discourse history. Most anti-SJWs today consider that point in time so hilariously cringey and awful that they’ve dropped the “facts n’ logic” thing altogether.

[ironmess]

me, into the mic: make more women lead marvel movies

male nerds: *heads explode*

[thatsyouthatshowdumbyousound]

Just the kind of straw man someone who cares more about the sex of a fictional character in a film than in the actual quality of the film would build.

[rationalsjdiscussions]

I think it’s a very bold and tired assumption that “Make more female-led movies” and “Make high-quality movies with deep plots and characters” are mutually exclusive. It’s even more tired to assume that people who want more female representation don’t care about the quality of the film.

What good would it do anyone if, say, a Black Widow film was made, but it sucked? It would be a negative experience for everyone, ESPECIALLY the feminists who wanted to see it.

Because one, they wanted to see a good movie led by a woman.

Two, the anti-feminists would use a hypothetically shitty Black Widow movie to justify their beliefs that gender doesn’t matter in film, and that wanting more female representation leads to bad movies, which it just factually does not.

I understand that it’s easy to paint feminists with this extremely broad brush of “They ONLY care about gender, and want to make all movies really boring and bad!”, it’s very rewarding in terms of the online attention you’ll get, but… It’s just not correct. Learn a couple things instead of assuming you know what feminists care about just because your idea of what they want is completely irrational and ridiculous.

[unlimited-shitpost-works-deacti]

Ok, this guy is accusing someone of building strawman male nerds that would hate more women-lead Marvel movies. They then imply that, unlike this other person, male nerds care about the quality of the film rather than the sex of the main character.

You manage to miss the entire point that this dude is making which is: his, and other male nerds’, head wouldn’t explode if someone wanted more women-led films. You then treat this rather benign message as an attack on feminism. It’s a very bold and tired assumption that everyone that disagrees with something you support must be an anti-feminist.

Also, the new Ghostbusters was shit, so even if he was doing what you say he was doing, it isn’t as if people haven’t made totally shit movies whose only selling point is representation before.

I understand it’s easy to paint male nerds with the broad brush of “male nerds actually hate women”, and it’s very rewarding in terms of the amount of attention you get, but it’s just not correct. Learn a couple of things… blah blah blah

[rationalsjdiscussions]

… What? xD What are you even trying to say? None of this makes sense given what I said. It’s like I said “Chickens lay eggs” and you said “But brushing your teeth IS good for you!”

If I seriously am missing something, can someone help me out here? Because this reads like “I don’t know what your post meant or what you believe, but it’s time to pwn you.”

[unlimited-shitpost-works-deacti]

some dude: that’s a strawman, most people care about whether a movie is good or not rather than the sex of the lead

you: omg I’m so tired of people making assumptions that people who want representation in movies want to produce bad movies [4 paragraph rant]

me: ok, that’s not what the guy said. you missed the point of the post you replied to though, let me try to explain it.

you: what does this have to do with my post? you’re dumb!

me: [looks into the camera like Jim from The Office]

You missed the point of the post and went off on a tangent, so I tried to explain you misunderstood the guy because he didn’t say what you’re saying he said

[rationalsjdiscussions]

... Okay. Let’s really try and break this down and try to extract common sense from this.

OP: (a joke, and we all know it is a joke - if you don’t think it’s a good one, then okay, but I know it is a joke more than it is an eloquently worded political argument.)

Second guy: Sounds like, from this strawman joke you made (yes, logically it is a strawman joke) you care about the gender of a character more than the quality of a film. (Basically the actual words this guy typed, that allegedly I don’t grasp?)

Me: But consider, why can’t we care about both? Why does a character not being male imply that the movie they’re in would pay less attention to quality of plot and character interaction?

You: What? He didn’t say what he literally just typed. It’s a benign message. You think a thing that happens all the time actually happens? You just think men hate women.

Me: When did I say that?

You: (The Office Meme xddd)

Well... By and large, it happens a lot! I think you’re assuming that women exaggerate how much it happens (which, in itself, is an interestingly misogynist sentiment, that women are incapable of processing their own reality), but you gotta consider the following.

I know for a fact not every single male nerd who has ever lived on planet Earth virulently hates women, or crap their pants at the sight of a female-led movie. Crazy, I know. So do most feminists. I know male nerds who are pretty cool about gender issues. Why would I believe every single man is a violent misogynist?

What I do believe is that misogyny, like all forms of bigotry, is so subtly ingrained into society that it often goes unnoticed.

So... I guess what confuses me is this. You read “Just the kind of straw man someone who cares more about the sex of a fictional character in a film than the actual quality of the film would build,” and you decide that what it REALLY means is this. Correct me if I’m wrong, of course.

“This joke is unfair and paints all men as virulent female-haters. Most male nerds care more about the quality of films than of the gender of characters.”

Which brings up the following questions for me.

1.) Why do we ignore the flat-out accusation that people who are excited for female-led movies don’t care about the quality of movies as much as male critics do?

2.) Why do we assume that it’s fair to be inherently skeptical of the quality of female-led/female-focused movies, considering most classic, celebrated films are male-led and male-focused? If you were to tell me “Twelve Angry Men” had no women in its major important cast, and was built almost exclusively on a societally typical male narrative for its time period, and I were to tell you right off the bat, “Nnnghhh, I dunno about this, sounds like pandering to MRAs...”, wouldn’t I sound ridiculous?

(No, you can’t just insist that doesn’t ever happen the other way around, or not happens rarely. It happens quite a bit, whether you like it or not, whether you personally decide that is justified or not.

That is exactly what, sorry to generalize, a LOT of male nerds were doing when the all-female Ghostbusters came out, which, controversial opinion: it was not a cinematic masterpiece, but it was cute and fun and was important for what it was, it depicted women as more than romantic girls next door’s, mothers and sex kittens, which is surprisingly rarely even today!)

3.) Why do you interpret a nobler, deeper meaning for this guy and go beyond the literal fact of what he typed, which is that OP and people like OP care more about gender representation than quality (again, a problematic assumption that these things are in any way mutually exclusive), and not award OP with the same level of compassionate analysis, when there is obviously a deeper meaning and history behind the viewpoint they’re presenting through their joke as well?