Types of people you don't like

[Mort Divine]

One site to definitely stay away from is Jezebel, I agree with some of what gets put up on there, but the problem with the site is that it is built like many other clickbait news sites like Gawker and Kotaku - bring in the views, ignore integrity and quality.

A couple I can suggest though are Tiger Beatdown and Persephone.

 

[Dak]

One site to definitely stay away from is Jezebel, I agree with some of what gets put up on there, but the problem with the site is that it is built like many other clickbait news sites like Gawker and Kotaku - bring in the views, ignore integrity and quality.

A couple I can suggest though are Tiger Beatdown and Persephone.

Really? I mean, I know Gawker is set for clickbait, but Jezebel is like The Flagship.

 

[Mort Divine]

They are the major site, and they're not quite fringe, but the site itself has had some pretty suspect decisions such as the body shaming of Lena Dunham and need to become a bit more aware that they often come off as these people who are so unaware of anything but their feminism that they fail to see where it intersects with racial issues and class issues.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Every thread with Mort is automatically a debate about feminism.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

Okay, now I understand why people are annoyed with these "feminists." Just finished a Facebook argument with one, because she got offended that a girl I went to high school with and I said our iPods were sexually assaulted by U2. I mean really? Mind you we went to an all girl's high school, how we could be endorsing rape culture is beyond me. Unravel your fucking panties.

 

[The Butt]

What the fuck

 

[SentinelSlain]

I don't like women that think that every single object, concept, notion, piece of music, taste, temperature, texture, snail, piece of coriander, woodlouse or whatever in the world is a man that has his penis ready to have sex with them. They then react to it as if it either impressed them or did not. It's so fucking dumb and animal like. It's fucking bonobo behavior.

 

[The Butt]

Its presumptuous and self-absorbed.

 

[Mort Divine]

Okay, now I understand why people are annoyed with these "feminists." Just finished a Facebook argument with one, because she got offended that a girl I went to high school with and I said our iPods were sexually assaulted by U2. I mean really? Mind you we went to an all girl's high school, how we could be endorsing rape culture is beyond me. Unravel your fucking panties.

To be fair, what that person said is pretty fucking stupid. Comparing having an album placed on your phone is a far cry from sexual assault and I can understand people finding it offensive, and if they themselves were a victim of abuse downright hurtful.

Rape culture endorsement doesn't necessarily have to be done by males, much like misogyny is not strictly perpetuated by men. It mostly is, but women can have views and attitudes that reinforce such things.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

Mort: I was actually waiting to see you reply to see what you thought. If you didn't think it was offensive than it can't be was my logic. All jokes aside, I really don't understand these types. They seem like predators to me. Whatever happened to being focused on equality and equal wages and such? We are going to legislate humor now because "people are sensitive" ? Where's the line? I suppose we should also stop joking about fast-food, cigarettes, and accidents because people die or were hurt from these things too.

For anyone who cares… I'll probably edit this later just in case people look up their comments. This is a shortened version of it, because you know I can't be bothered with the entire thing.

[edited for lurkers]

 

[Funerary_Doom]

^ I agree with that. People cannot think that they are the only ones who can define where things are coming from. Everyone has a part in that for sure.

Fem1 continued the argument until my friend from HS completely shut her down, which was glorious because honestly i admire that girl a lot she's literally the smartest person i've ever met and wayyyy chill about it.

I'll just leave this here, "The complete and utter irony of the entire argument is based on what 'others' believe that a sexual assault victim would or should react to these 'language triggers' which I find to be borderline offensive and a revictimization in and of itself...the point is that when it comes to these jokes that involve such a dark and horrible nature at the end of the day you walk away from them feeling the same way about those subjects as you did going in but the point of the matter is that humor and comedy takes something that isn't funny and and it allows us to laugh about them for a short while before we have the rest of the day to remember how sad and horrible they actually are. So I'll take my five minutes of relief, thank you very much."

Pretty much. There's a difference between making a joke to cope and or applying a joke to an absurd situation as oppose to making a joke to humiliate someone else. That's the line, for me.

 

[Dak]

You don't trivialize shit with rape jokes. The audience does if they so choose. Words don't automatically mean something to every single person. I've attempted suicide and will say something sucks so much I want to kill myself, and I'm in no way trivializing the shit I went through, but someone else may think that I'm trivializing suicide.

That's just how they see it and they're pretending their perspective of what you say is embedded in your words and that they'll magically put the perspective in others. There isn't any arguing with these people. They want a crusade and have a filter for how they interpret things that they mistake for reality.

It's like when people say "you make me feel x." The person feeling the emotion has a part in it, too. If they ignore it, the world "makes" them feel things. You don't have to accept any ideas you don't want to. In fact, even getting angry about it means part of you doesn't want to accept it.

^Wisdom^

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Mort Divine]

You don't trivialize shit with rape jokes. The audience does if they so choose. Words don't automatically mean something to every single person. I've attempted suicide and will say something sucks so much I want to kill myself, and I'm in no way trivializing the shit I went through, but someone else may think that I'm trivializing suicide.

That's just how they see it and they're pretending their perspective of what you say is embedded in your words and that they'll magically put the perspective in others. There isn't any arguing with these people. They want a crusade and have a filter for how they interpret things that they mistake for reality.

It's like when people say "you make me feel x." The person feeling the emotion has a part in it, too. If they ignore it, the world "makes" them feel things. You don't have to accept any ideas you don't want to. In fact, even getting angry about it means part of you doesn't want to accept it.

You can't always "ignore" things. Not everyone is some stoic wall of emotional strength. It is easy to say that people have a part in the way they feel about something or react to something - but the reality is far different from that.

If someone is a rape victim (or someone who has undergone any kind of traumatic experience) and they have not recovered from the trauma, they may not be able to control their reaction to it being discussed/joked about and if you judge them for their inability to control that you're a certified asshole.

Don't apply what YOU are capable of doing to everyone.

 

[Dak]

Just because someone may not be capable of recognition or control of their psyche/action, doesn't mean they don't play a part, and that doesn't mean we can't judge in some way.

 

[Einherjar86]

Language is history. The network of signification is bound to past injustices in ways that we cannot avoid, but simultaneously in ways that only language allows us to discuss.

We can speak of nothing innocently, despite what we believe are pure intentions.

 

[mutantllama]

People who yell at cashiers or act like assholes when they are getting their shit checked out.

 

[Einherjar86]

We can choose what ideas we attach to. We don't have to relive history in words if we don't want to.

That's only true if you maintain that the meaning of words can successfully be traced back to the utterance of the speaker. This is, unfortunately, a fantasy. The association of ideas and meanings exceeds the bounds of subjectivity. Language is a social system. Without someone to interpret what you say, your words are futile; and when we speak of things like rape, the network of meanings is vast and controversial.

Sadly, we can do nothing but talk about these issues. To quote Niels Bohr, we are "suspended in language."

 

[The Butt]

Words are gay.

 

[Mort Divine]

We can choose what ideas we attach to. We don't have to relive history in words if we don't want to.

How can we choose? I am interested to hear just how you think this happens, because I just do not buy that we consciously decide what we do and don't attach ourselves to.