Everyday Feminism - aka Everyday Autism

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
With this article, they couldn't have picked a "better" pic which at first glance looks like an Asian woman ragging on while this white guy has to put up with it. So basically, in their backwards land, wanting all the races to be seen a equal, wanting some assimilation or beleiving people should try their best by their own merits makes you more dangerous than the KKK.
 
Better idea: Get an apache helicopter to dump several pounds of pineapples on their headquarters, with a pickle placed to be the last thing to drop on the building. That'll show them.
 
Jozef said:
"We are all one", and "we are all the same" is considered racist now. Just let that sink in.
Click to expand...
I'm still under the impression that the issue is more they have this autistic view of certain ideas as absolutes. That's why they think saying "I don't judge people based on the color of their skin" means you refuse to acknowledge if someone is truly facing struggles with racism because you just said you'd ignore the differences they have. For whatever reason they can't comprehend the ideas as not being exclusive.
 
RockVolnutt said:
I'm still under the impression that the issue is more they have this autistic view of certain ideas as absolutes. That's why they think saying "I don't judge people based on the color of their skin" means you refuse to acknowledge if someone is truly facing struggles with racism because you just said you'd ignore the differences they have. For whatever reason they can't comprehend the ideas as not being exclusive.
Click to expand...

The explanation is likely even simpler: they simply think certain groups deserve preferential treatment, and if you say you're "color blind", "we are as one" you deny them of that.
 
I hate most of the shit they post but there's one thing I respect them for is that recently they did a few articles on abuse in the SJW world and how some SJW people use Progressive language to abuse (like black gay guys beating up their white BF and saying it's payment for white privilege) and they did another one for traumatised/disturbed women on how you should be honest with yourself if you are getting abusive. Not many SJWs are frank about those issues so I tip them for that. But yeah, the rest of their "hate yourself for being white, all non-poly dating is abusive, act like a cringing suck up to minorities" stuff I can't stand.
 
BurningPewter said:
I hate most of the shit they post but there's one thing I respect them for is that recently they did a few articles on abuse in the SJW world and how some SJW people use Progressive language to abuse (like black gay guys beating up their white BF and saying it's payment for white privilege) and they did another one for traumatised/disturbed women on how you should be honest with yourself if you are getting abusive. Not many SJWs are frank about those issues so I tip them for that. But yeah, the rest of their "hate yourself for being white, all non-poly dating is abusive, act like a cringing suck up to minorities" stuff I can't stand.
Click to expand...
Every now and then they have a decent article; I'll give them that.
 
Emperor Julian said:
Which is oddly enough factually wrong. Censorship is based on power and power alone.
Click to expand...

Nah, the days of the Hollywood blacklists were totally not-censorship. See, it was just private film companies all deciding at once to purge themselves of all suspected homosexuals and commies. Totally legit! They're not obligated to give anyone a platform, especially in the days before the internet, especially when they had the power to end writing careers with a penstroke. It's nice to see that third-wave feminists and racist libertarians can find common ground.

I'm sure there's a dictionary out there, at least ONE that defines censorship as being exclusive to the state.
 
Odd they're bitching about neo-liberalism taking away personal responsibility when they tend to downplay people's agency in social constructs . Also their assessment is totally vapid and fairly self-contradictory. Not in the least because this article empowers the soulless corporate bastards they're supposed to rallying against.

And yes Mexican food is bad for you if you eat it in vast quantities, because it's the rich, tasty but fatty foods we're usually on about rather than the day to day meals most mexicans eat. It's like if british people ate nothing but English breakfasts and fish and chips.
 
Last edited:
Emperor Julian said:
Odd they're bitching about neo-liberalism taking away personal responsibility when they tend to downplay people's agency in social constructs . Also their assessment is totally vapid and fairly self-contradictory. Not in the least because this article empowers the soulless corporate bastards they're supposed to rallying against.

And yes Mexican food is bad for you if you eat it in vast quantities, because it's the rich, tasty but fatty foods we're usually on about rather than the day to day meals most mexicans eat. It's like if british people ate nothing but English breakfasts and fish and chips.
Click to expand...
They also failed to remember that things like fruits and vegetables are healthy and always have been. But that would go against their narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom