My SJ Blog

I want to share my opinions here.

[qillermeme]

[slugenthusiast]

Considering how crazy so much pro-choice rhetoric has become, it really seems like there needs to be a distinction between "both options suck and deserve an honest look" and "shout your abortion! Showing how late term abortions are performed is anti-woman! I wish I had gotten pregnant so I could have had an abortion!"

The pitch used to be "safe, legal, and rare". Many people are still for that. But this crazed love for abortion is steadily pushing more and more people towards a pro-life position, because it's frankly more palatable than what looks from the outside like a death cult.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

If you are showing how late term abortions are performed by prefacing it with the fact that “late term abortions are only performed if the mother’s life is in danger or if the fetus is already dead/going to die” then sure, it’s not exactly anti-woman. However, considering the fact that 99.99999% of freaks who show how they are performed conveniently omit this fact to support their anti-choice agenda, I’m gonna have to say that yes it is fucking anti-woman, holy shit. Also, please show me one example of a woman getting pregnant just to get an abortion. I can guarantee that the vast majority if not all women who act “pro-aborting in any scenario” are not being serious. In fact, I’ve personally thought of responding to misogynist fucks with just “yes I love aborting, it’s my hobby, I do it every year” because it is actually. fucking. tiring arguing over whether I should have the basic human right of bodily autonomy.

[heir-to-the-diamond-throne]

The original tweet is in response to a tweet about Ellen Maud who sought out medical help and was routinely told to just lose weight. She later died of cancer.

[pugnacious-pacifism]

This is something I cannot advocate for enough

[prokopetz]

The thing that gets me about most arguments against accessibility features in video games is that they’re not just grossly ableist, they’re also hypocritical as hell. Video games have always had accessibility features: we just documented them poorly and called them “cheat codes”. Indeed, having a robust library of difficulty-modifying cheats was considered a mark in a game’s favour! The only difference is that a cheat code is theoretically a secret, which allows it to be framed as elite knowledge, even though it’s functionally identical to having an “infinite lives” switch on the options screen.

Here’s a thesis for you: the Konami Code was the first well-publicised accessibility feature.

[hieronymus-botch]

being bad at video games is a disability now?

[prokopetz]

I’m going to assume you’re not being disingenuous here and take this as a serious question. In brief, very few people are generically “bad at video games”; in most cases, difficulty engaging with interactive media stems from one or more of a wide range of physiological conditions, including:

visual deficit (including colourbindness; colourblind individuals often have difficulty identifying threats in action games because they don’t stand out from the background for them)

repetitive strain injury in the hands, wrists or forearms (common for anyone who performs manual labour for a living)

arthritis and other degenerative joint conditions (both those due to age and those comorbid with many autoimmune disorders)

dyslexia (a common symptom of even mild dyslexia is the inadvertent mirroring of sensory-motor responses under pressure, e.g., moving your hand left when you meant to move it right - which is a big problem for action games!)

sensory processing disorders (delayed reaction to visual stimulus is a common symptom)

spatial processing disorders (see above)

chronic pain

propensity for motion sickness

This is, of course, only a partial list. Many of these issues are individually rare, but taken together, we’re looking a huge chunk of the population - up to 40%, by some estimates - who have at least one condition that would impact their ability to play the shooters and action-platformers that are held up as the gold standard for hardcore gaming.

[hieronymus-botch]

hot tip: if your disability makes you bad at a thing, maybe either put in the extra effort to get good at it or just don’t do it instead of demanding people make the thing easier?????

[prokopetz]

Here’s the a better question: why is it an issue for you? Accessibility features in video games are entirely transparent to those who choose not to use them. Your experience of play isn’t affected by their existence in any way whatsoever unless you deliberately turn them on. Complaining about the mere existence of such features is like claiming that your viewing experience of a movie is being ruined by the fact that the disc has a subtitle feature on it, even though you haven’t actually turned subtitles on.

(And no, don’t try to frame this as video game developers somehow being victimised by unreasonable demands. The vast majority of developers are more than happy to include accessibility features in their games - and quite sensibly, because, you know, they’re businesspeople, and they want to sell things to as wide an audience as possible. The popular backlash against accessibility features is entirely on the player side.)

[satanicairpirate-deactivated201]

i just want to appreciate the genius in this thread who unironically typed what amounts to “if your disability makes you bad at a thing, try being good at the thing instead”

[animeengineer]

That’s pretty much the common American attitude toward disability. Or poverty. Or most social ills.

[niggazinmoscow]

Or how about healthcare…

[flotsamandptsd-blog]

so anyway, eat the rich

[athomeinmybooks]

Okay, so, apparently, a lot of you don’t understand what the term “net worth” actually means. It is “assets minus liabilities”. This includes properties. It means his financial holdings in Amazon, other business investments, and things of that nature. Not all of it is, as so many of you seem to assume, liquid assets, i.e., cash that is ready to be freely spent.

His actual salary, what he is paid in actual money, is $81,840 annually. 

If he wanted to liquidize his assets, he would have to sell his holdings in Amazon. And it’s the same for most CEOs. Their Net Worth is much higher because of the businesses they run than the actual cash they have ready access to, and if they cashed out, chances are those businesses would be broken up, and many people unemployed.

So, all you “eat the rich” types are really advocating for is longer unemployment lines.

[cake-and-roses]

No, we’re advocating for the overthrow of capitalism, which would also democratize all those assets and disperse the net worth among the workers, alongside guaranteeing a right to life which would make unemployment irrelevant.

Come now, you don’t think somebody advocating to eat the rich actually wants to keep the system which allowed them to exist in the first place around, do you? Surely you could have deduced these things yourself.

[theroguefeminist]

First of all, there is no way Bezos makes only $80,000 year. There are some teachers who make more than that due to seniority. Either this person is totally wrong or some shady shit is going on re: shoring up earnings or tax evasion.

Second, does anyone remember how Bezos literally had to cut his assets IN HALF when he got divorced? And it basically had no effect on him? I think people fail to recognize the absurd amount of wealth the richest have.

[danielle-mertina]

I love how the person above says people “don’t understand” networth when they don’t understand what it means to own a company.

It’s true that his salary is 81k. This doesn’t mean he’s middle class. It’s legal tax evasion. When you make a salary, you’re heavily taxed the higher it goes and there’s no way around it. So you keep your salary low, make your personal expenses business expenses which are corporate tax deductions (Bezos does this for over $1m per year), and retain ownership of stocks which could be liquified anytime unlike what the person above suggests. Anyone who owns stocks can sell at any time and that’s where the bulk of his wealth/ networth comes from.

You don’t become wealthy from how much you make as a salary. You become wealthy by how much you own–especially since capital/ assets are taxed at a far lower rate than personal income.

[smitethestate]

This is JUST ONE of Jeff Bezo’s houses. But sure, yeah, $80,000 a year. 

[socialistexan]

Also, capital gains - money made on selling stocks vs what they were worth when you bought them and appreciation of capital owned - is taxed at a far lower rate than income is (roughly 17-37% less depending on the bracket), so that money from stocks that Bezos can liquidate at any time can potentially be taxed at 0% if he’s dodgy about how he does it, and let’s face it he’s going to be dodgy about it.

Especially considering that Amazon’s stock has gone up 458% in the past 5 years alone, Bezos isn’t exactly hurting for money.

The $81k salary figure isn’t even the whole story, Amazon itself released a report that put Bezos’s income at $1,681,840 from Amazon - excluding the $120b in stock he own - in 2018. The median income for an Amazon worker is $28,446. That’s a ratio of 59:1, and that’s only if you totally exclude any other benefit or captial gain Bezos got from Amazon AND the income he gets from owning the Washington Post, Business Insider, and Blue Origin, and from the returns on his investments in Twitter, Lookout security, Grail pharamaceutical, Google, Airbnb, Uber, Stack Overflow, Rethink Robotics, and many, many more.

But we need to defend the poor CEOs, because who else will 🙄

[pissvortex]

[st-just]

[persephonenevermore]

[dudebrosunited1]

Direct fucking action.

[homoluigi]

At the time he wasn’t even a sitting MP he was just an asshole who had said rude things about suffragists.

[ironinyourheart]

they were terrorists back in the day, so he was probably a little bit right in the stuff he said when like, people got letter bombs and shit. 

[reversingtheirrevocable]

So they sent letter bombs to horribly misogynist men. I didn't know being a goddamn hero was terrorism now.

[wishgirls-archive]

post the hetalia slave fanart

[wishgirls-archive]

[pyomorphic]

[reversingtheirrevocable]

i think the icing on the cake is that they made the “black” girl’s skin light and ashy 

[oncelerfucker69-deactivated2019]

tumblr, where I have to explain why child labor is wrong to 27 year old libertarians

[higher-order]

Some kids literally have no choice but to work because their family is desperately poor. Are you going to prevent a family from having that extra income because it gives you moral fuzzys?

[the-knights-are-not-dead-deacti]

tumblr, where I have to explain why child labor is wrong to 27 year old libertarians

[willowdove]

The idea is to give parents a livable working wage so as not to force children into a situation where they have to work to provide for themselves you dipshit

[revelation19]

Robert E. Lee himself refused to wear his confederate uniform after the confederacy’s defeat in the American civil war. At his funeral he was not buried in it and no one in attendance was permitted to wear theirs either. He also declared that his confederate battle flag (what we now call “the confederate flag”) never be raised again and that it was a flag of treason.

So there’s your “southern heritage.”

[girly-friday]

Not Just Robert E Lee, which you can read here. 

but Also the President of the South, Jefferson Davis felt the same way. 

Basically, “Get the fuck over it.” We lost, we’re a part of this country, this flag signifies an old identity. Cut that shit out and move on. 

[cephalopodvictorious]

And Robert E. Lee’s decedents are also calling for the statue to come down

[republicansareahategroup]

THIS POST MAKES ME WISH PINNED POSTS WERE STILL A THING

[karadin]

The Virginia battle flag only made large public reappearances in the South during the civil rights movement.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

Wow its almost like people only started using the confederate flag again exclusively to be racist!

[kadywicker]

the thing is. The Thing Is. a gay relationship shouldnt only be obvious to gay people who’ve been drenched in fandom culture for years. it should be obvious to literally anyone that watches/reads the thing, even if they’ve never even heard what fanfiction or shipping or whatever is. it shouldn’t need articles explaining “here’s why they’re actually in love!” it shouldn’t need word of god “i wrote this as a love story” confirmations after the fact because 90% of the people watching/reading are never going to read those things and are going to continue to not notice that relationship at all. and that’s the point, most of the time. writers/directors/studios/networks want to get credit for something Progressive while at the same time letting conservative audiences watch it without feeling uncomfortable because of course they won’t notice. 

we deserve more than word of god confirmations and couples that won’t even fucking hold hands or say the words “i love you” because they’re too afraid of losing viewer/readership. yes you can love the thing and appreciate the thing and write millions of words on how beautiful the relationship is, but when other people are asking for something better, don’t get mad at them. we gotta demand more than scraps, you know?

[archdemonsblood]

We don’t say this often enough (though I think most of us know it) but men who can’t write women are bad writers. It doesn’t matter how perfect their pacing is or how many awards they’ve been given by other men. If they have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of 51% of the world’s population, they are bad writers, and nothing they have to say about the human condition could possibly be valuable.

[gahdamnpunk]

VACCINATE YA KIDS FFS

[reversingtheirrevocable]

Anti-vaxxers are mostly men, you misogynist fucking weirdos. They're also unlikely to be rich but, you know, who's gonna find sense (as opposed to personal bias) on a website that also thinks vegans are all rich white abled people?

[reversingtheirrevocable]

I hate when a post is discussing something that mostly affects women in relation to a woman’s place in society and a bunch of gremlins in the replies are like THAT AFFECTS MEN TOO like nobody was fuckin denying that dude but for every man that goes through that shit, 1000 women have to, and I think those people need to stop and realize that simple fact

Women are sexualized WAY more than men, they are catcalled WAY more, they appear in media as protagonists WAY LESS (especially if they are strong and non-sexualized), they are made to care about their appearance WAY MORE, along with a plethora of other bullshit

And this happens with fat/skinny discourse too like obviously fat people are made fun of way more than skinny people BUT SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY DENY THIS?? Like at that point people obviously know this information but just want to antagonize others

[hominishostilis]

Translation:

“I hate when I go on a self-righteous, sexism fueled tyrade about an issue and how suhsiotee hates wammen, and then someone shatters my “women are the niggers of the world :(“ circle jerk with evidence that it’s actually not as gendered of an issue as I make it seem.”

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

I think the issue is that you’re a sexist cunt and you don’t like being reminded that there’s a real world populated by real people outside of your gender politics bubble.

Oh, and that you don’t really care about these issues, you only care about the self-esteem you’ve attached to caring about the “right” issues.

[youre-not-smart-just-angry]

Imagine being so petty that you bring up TV show characters and beauty standards on the same post as FUCKING RAPE. For someone who wants victims to be taken seriously, you sure are putting rape in the same breath as extremely petty issues. It’s almost like you care more about moral grandstanding and feeling superior to others than actually caring for and helping victims.

[hominishostilis]

WHOOP

[durkin62]

And for the fat skinny thing, everybody is made fun of for everything, all the time. Short/tall, skinny/fat, pale/tan literally fucking everything. Fat people just get upset by insults more.

[ricwulf]

And that’s also a big thing too with regards to the gender divide.

This is all based upon OP’s perception, but the reality is that men don’t speak up because they get silenced when they do.

Polls have shown that (if I remember correctly) somewhere in the vicinity of thirty percent of men would give up 5 or more years of their life for a better body. That isn’t nothing. That isn’t small. That isn’t insignificant.

And the idea that men aren’t sexualised is utterly fucking ridiculous. You just don’t see it because that’s the honest to God status quo and always has been, while sexualising of women via revealing clothing and such is a modern idea (there’s a reason that conservative clothing is called “old-fashioned”).

OP is fucking hilarious when you realise that they’re wailing because people are daring to speak up about the issues that men face because it removes their victim status. After all, if everyone suffered from this, you’d have a much better chance to put an end to it all. But that isn’t what they want. They want the victim status.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

Not only did @youre-not-smart-just-angry claim that I brought up “TV show characters and beauty standards on the same post as FUCKING RAPE” out of legitimately nowhere considering rape wasn’t mentioned at all, but @ricwulf, you have straight up COMPLETELY missed the point of the post. Me, in the initial post:  Women are sexualized WAY more than men (if you weren’t aware, the phrase “way more” indicates that men are in fact sexualized, but women are sexualized in significantly higher amounts) You: wOw Op tHe IdEa tHaT mEn aReN’t sExUaliZeD iS uTtErLy FuCkInG rIdIcUlOuS The WHOLE post is about how focusing on women regarding an issue that disproportionally affects women doesn’t invalidate men, and that mentioning men’s issues on a post about women is derailing. Good job anti-feminists, you officially have the lowest reading comprehension on Earth.

[ricwulf]

I love how you harp on about reading comprehension, but miss the entire fucking point of hyperbole.

Sure, you admitted it can happen, but you have to downplay it because you know that would defeat your victimhood narrative.

What’s worse, outright denying something or severely downplaying something so that when you’re pointed out as wrong you can fall back and go “I kNoW iT eXiStS” like that is in any way the point of calling out your sexism.

But you know what’s utterly fucking hilarious? Is that it’s people like you who actively derail those posts that are about men’s issues to instead focus on women’s issues. Hell, there are multiple examples of real life harassment and protest because men decided to have discussions about their own issues, like the male suicide epidemic.

The hilarity is that you project your tactics on everyone else, while men constantly have to compare their issues in the scope of “when/if this happened to women, people would care” to get any attention on these issues, to point out clear cut societal hypocrisy.

AND BEYOND THAT, where else would you post to contest the idea that these are gendered issues, as opposed to issues faced by everyone? Of course they’re going to be on posts that are gendered, that’s what is going to be challenged. And the quickest way to do that is to show that men are just as effected by what you’re claiming.

So good job. In all of this, you’ve just shown how you don’t know a single thing about your opposition, but will assert bullshit due to a lack of basic empathy, and I don’t think improving your reading comprehension will fix that.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

By “downplay” you mean I asserted (from the get-go) that these issues affect men in lesser quantities, which is...the truth? You realize you’re attacking a straw man by screeching about how feminists are against discussions about men’s issues, right? Never did I ever state that discussing men’s issues was wrong, nor do I believe that is the case. However, framing those issues in a way so as to blame women/feminists WILL receive justified opposition. Especially considering the majority of men’s issues are caused by men themselves. Furthermore, that statement doesn’t apply to issues that don’t affect men as much as women; that criteria means they are not “men’s” issues, they’re just issues that men happen to face (on a smaller scale). Basically, the reason there’s less male-exclusive attention on sexualization, catcalling, lack of representation, etc is because...it doesn’t happen as often to them? That’s just how things are meant to work, I’m sorry to say; things that happen more get (as they should) focused on more. For your convenience, here are examples of actual “men’s issues”: draft, stigma toward male rape victims, higher suicide rates, etc. Say it with me: something that disproportionally affects one gender is a gendered issue. The things stated above are gendered issues, in case you wanna act like my stance is women-exclusive. Focusing on a group that is affected more by a certain thing is completely reasonable, whereas derailing a post to talk about a lesser affected group because you are physically incapable of making an inclusive post yourself is not.

[justsomeantifas]

straight people: we should really congratulate all the folks involved in the stonewall riots

me: sure yeah.

straight people:

me: i don’t know what i was expecting.

[ashlynnbun]

[reversingtheirrevocable]

"HURRRRRRRRRR DA STRAIGHTS FORCE DEMSELVES INTO ALL THE MEDIAS!!!! No, the fact that they are 90% of the population and so that being reflected in everyday media is IRRELEVANT!"

Fun fact: many if not most non-straight people are closeted or deal with compulsory heterosexuality. 90% is a bullshit number. Even despite that, how does that remove the relevancy? 0% of the population are gonna become zombies; that doesn’t change the fact that there’s too much zombie-centered media to count. There’s no purpose to straight people in media. It’s just unoriginal and provides nothing. Adding non-straight characters in media actually provides society with positive representation for a marginalized group.Not to mention, this ask is probably in response to a post in which straight people bitched about non-straight characters being inserted in media. So how about you take it up with them first?

[ricwulf]

Woooow. So basically, and let me just make sure here, non-straight characters are a shiny new plot device for you to fawn over?

Seems really progressive of you to treat people like that, and lgbt people as an “other” category for enjoyment, rather than as normal people.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

Cute of you to pull that out of my mouth considering I’m just responding to the millions of straight people who claim that non-straight characters in media are just “sjw bullshit” and that they need a “reason” to be included in media. This conversation wouldn’t be had if people didn’t criticize characters on the basis of their non-straight sexuality, rather than their actual character flaws. Plus, “positive representation for a marginalized group” isn’t meant to be a plot device. It’s a concept that affects how those groups are viewed in every day life. 

[reversingtheirrevocable]

I hate when a post is discussing something that mostly affects women in relation to a woman’s place in society and a bunch of gremlins in the replies are like THAT AFFECTS MEN TOO like nobody was fuckin denying that dude but for every man that goes through that shit, 1000 women have to, and I think those people need to stop and realize that simple fact

Women are sexualized WAY more than men, they are catcalled WAY more, they appear in media as protagonists WAY LESS (especially if they are strong and non-sexualized), they are made to care about their appearance WAY MORE, along with a plethora of other bullshit

And this happens with fat/skinny discourse too like obviously fat people are made fun of way more than skinny people BUT SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY DENY THIS?? Like at that point people obviously know this information but just want to antagonize others

[hominishostilis]

Translation:

“I hate when I go on a self-righteous, sexism fueled tyrade about an issue and how suhsiotee hates wammen, and then someone shatters my “women are the niggers of the world :(“ circle jerk with evidence that it’s actually not as gendered of an issue as I make it seem.”

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

I think the issue is that you’re a sexist cunt and you don’t like being reminded that there’s a real world populated by real people outside of your gender politics bubble.

Oh, and that you don’t really care about these issues, you only care about the self-esteem you’ve attached to caring about the “right” issues.

[youre-not-smart-just-angry]

Imagine being so petty that you bring up TV show characters and beauty standards on the same post as FUCKING RAPE. For someone who wants victims to be taken seriously, you sure are putting rape in the same breath as extremely petty issues. It’s almost like you care more about moral grandstanding and feeling superior to others than actually caring for and helping victims.

[hominishostilis]

WHOOP

[durkin62]

And for the fat skinny thing, everybody is made fun of for everything, all the time. Short/tall, skinny/fat, pale/tan literally fucking everything. Fat people just get upset by insults more.

[ricwulf]

And that’s also a big thing too with regards to the gender divide.

This is all based upon OP’s perception, but the reality is that men don’t speak up because they get silenced when they do.

Polls have shown that (if I remember correctly) somewhere in the vicinity of thirty percent of men would give up 5 or more years of their life for a better body. That isn’t nothing. That isn’t small. That isn’t insignificant.

And the idea that men aren’t sexualised is utterly fucking ridiculous. You just don’t see it because that’s the honest to God status quo and always has been, while sexualising of women via revealing clothing and such is a modern idea (there’s a reason that conservative clothing is called “old-fashioned”).

OP is fucking hilarious when you realise that they’re wailing because people are daring to speak up about the issues that men face because it removes their victim status. After all, if everyone suffered from this, you’d have a much better chance to put an end to it all. But that isn’t what they want. They want the victim status.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

Not only did @youre-not-smart-just-angry claim that I brought up “TV show characters and beauty standards on the same post as FUCKING RAPE” out of legitimately nowhere considering rape wasn’t mentioned at all, but @ricwulf, you have straight up COMPLETELY missed the point of the post. Me, in the initial post:  Women are sexualized WAY more than men (if you weren’t aware, the phrase “way more” indicates that men are in fact sexualized, but women are sexualized in significantly higher amounts) You: wOw Op tHe IdEa tHaT mEn aReN’t sExUaliZeD iS uTtErLy FuCkInG rIdIcUlOuS The WHOLE post is about how focusing on women regarding an issue that disproportionally affects women doesn’t invalidate men, and that mentioning men’s issues on a post about women is derailing. Good job anti-feminists, you officially have the lowest reading comprehension on Earth.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

I hate when a post is discussing something that mostly affects women in relation to a woman’s place in society and a bunch of gremlins in the replies are like THAT AFFECTS MEN TOO like nobody was fuckin denying that dude but for every man that goes through that shit, 1000 women have to, and I think those people need to stop and realize that simple fact

Women are sexualized WAY more than men, they are catcalled WAY more, they appear in media as protagonists WAY LESS (especially if they are strong and non-sexualized), they are made to care about their appearance WAY MORE, along with a plethora of other bullshit

And this happens with fat/skinny discourse too like obviously fat people are made fun of way more than skinny people BUT SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY DENY THIS?? Like at that point people obviously know this information but just want to antagonize others

[hominishostilis]

Translation:

“I hate when I go on a self-righteous, sexism fueled tyrade about an issue and how suhsiotee hates wammen, and then someone shatters my “women are the niggers of the world :(“ circle jerk with evidence that it’s actually not as gendered of an issue as I make it seem.”

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

No they’re not, you’re just a sexist suffering from confirmation bias

I think the issue is that you’re a sexist cunt and you don’t like being reminded that there’s a real world populated by real people outside of your gender politics bubble.

Oh, and that you don’t really care about these issues, you only care about the self-esteem you’ve attached to caring about the “right” issues.

[youre-not-smart-just-angry]

Imagine being so petty that you bring up TV show characters and beauty standards on the same post as FUCKING RAPE. For someone who wants victims to be taken seriously, you sure are putting rape in the same breath as extremely petty issues. It’s almost like you care more about moral grandstanding and feeling superior to others than actually caring for and helping victims.

[reversingtheirrevocable]

Who the hell is talking about rape? Who? Literally who? Where’s the rape? Please show me? Where does anyone say anything about rape in this post?