FA+
Shop
2459
Views
Views
90
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 698
File Size 224 kB
Report this content
More from technicolor_pie
I wasn't gonna upload this here because it's a quickly made piece of crap but I decided to anyway.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 698px
File Size 224 kB
I think what he's implying is that anybody can and should say anything, and not only that, all of us have to support said things by not calling them out as offensive or what have you, because calling things offensive and saying folks shouldn't say things because they're insensitive/offensive/racist is censorship, dontchaknow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA yes. and i'd rather have open racist than something that is pushed down and made more reactionary.
i am not a fan of socialism at all but google censors socialist opinions and all the like. but since no one makes a fuss about that then no one cares. wrong or right they must have their voice protected save only for national security breaches.
you can't legelsate morality
if you don't defend the speech you don't like then you will not be able to speak either.
i am not a fan of socialism at all but google censors socialist opinions and all the like. but since no one makes a fuss about that then no one cares. wrong or right they must have their voice protected save only for national security breaches.
you can't legelsate morality
if you don't defend the speech you don't like then you will not be able to speak either.
Well, IF the government ever decides to make it illegal to simply speak the n-word, then I will definitely protest this gross infringement of legal speech.
As this is not the case, then I don't have anything to worry about, and neither do you. Plus, with the current administration in the White House, I sincerely doubt this will ever be the case for the duration of this administration.
HOWEVER, folks not giving a platform to racists and such is not infringing on anybody's free speech or free association. Since we're conflating legal and social consequences as you were, folks that are not proto-racist like the subject of this picture appears to be do not have to like or associate with him. See, that's a thing, too.
Funny, though. How is it that dudes like you never defend the rights of people advocating for social justice when they are met with collective resistance? Cuz that happens. But you always seem to show up when some bell-end wants to say the n-word in a crowded theater and not suffer social consequences for it.
As this is not the case, then I don't have anything to worry about, and neither do you. Plus, with the current administration in the White House, I sincerely doubt this will ever be the case for the duration of this administration.
HOWEVER, folks not giving a platform to racists and such is not infringing on anybody's free speech or free association. Since we're conflating legal and social consequences as you were, folks that are not proto-racist like the subject of this picture appears to be do not have to like or associate with him. See, that's a thing, too.
Funny, though. How is it that dudes like you never defend the rights of people advocating for social justice when they are met with collective resistance? Cuz that happens. But you always seem to show up when some bell-end wants to say the n-word in a crowded theater and not suffer social consequences for it.
because you don't do social justice.
you're part of the problem.
feminism, as it is, exists as an abuse cartel. gatekeeping who is female or not, who is male or not.
there's a good god damn reason there's terfs and sending death threats and bomb threats are not protected by first amendment.
here you are... thinking your'e the good guys.
more CAMAB are raped, jailed, homless... and you have the nerve to say it's patriarchy backfiring? or give only symbolic bullshit?
the current administration actually oppened the case on Kavenaugh, that had to be done with the president's approval.. for their own nominee.
dont' be stupid all your life.
by consequences you mean punishment. you have the stage. you have the privilege.
no one wants to admit it but it wasn't unchecked white cis male privilege that caused the shooting at Columbine or... any where as you're so keen to blame it on. because that would mean admitting you're not the good guys.
who else cries out as they hit others apart from you?
you're part of the problem.
feminism, as it is, exists as an abuse cartel. gatekeeping who is female or not, who is male or not.
there's a good god damn reason there's terfs and sending death threats and bomb threats are not protected by first amendment.
here you are... thinking your'e the good guys.
more CAMAB are raped, jailed, homless... and you have the nerve to say it's patriarchy backfiring? or give only symbolic bullshit?
the current administration actually oppened the case on Kavenaugh, that had to be done with the president's approval.. for their own nominee.
dont' be stupid all your life.
by consequences you mean punishment. you have the stage. you have the privilege.
no one wants to admit it but it wasn't unchecked white cis male privilege that caused the shooting at Columbine or... any where as you're so keen to blame it on. because that would mean admitting you're not the good guys.
who else cries out as they hit others apart from you?
What the fuck am I even reading.
The only people gatekeeping feminism are TERFs, or 'trans exclusionary radical feminists'. So... yeah.
I think I would go on to address anything else of a number of things you brought up out of the blue, but I'm just really curious as to what this has to do with the topic at hand. You're bringing up stuff I haven't even hinted at advocating. It seems like a scattershot denigration of my supposed belief system.
What I'm almost certain I'm NOT reading, however, is why you are basically trying to defend someone that really, really, really, really, REALLY wants to say the n-word and not have any consequences fall to them of any kind. Basically, the kind of person that brings a plate of dogshit to the potluck of discourse and wants everybody to compliment them on how tasty it is, and to share the recipe with their friends.
The only people gatekeeping feminism are TERFs, or 'trans exclusionary radical feminists'. So... yeah.
I think I would go on to address anything else of a number of things you brought up out of the blue, but I'm just really curious as to what this has to do with the topic at hand. You're bringing up stuff I haven't even hinted at advocating. It seems like a scattershot denigration of my supposed belief system.
What I'm almost certain I'm NOT reading, however, is why you are basically trying to defend someone that really, really, really, really, REALLY wants to say the n-word and not have any consequences fall to them of any kind. Basically, the kind of person that brings a plate of dogshit to the potluck of discourse and wants everybody to compliment them on how tasty it is, and to share the recipe with their friends.
Well, anyone has the 'right' to say anything, but be prepared to face the consequences if anyone objects. And, remember, the 1st Amendment only applies to what the U.S. government can or cannot allow. Outside of that, it's wide open for good or bad. I'd WAG what he's trying to say is that socially 'wrong words' can be the slippery slope to more overt censorship(?)
no.
no censorship ever. you have to remember. the ruling to say fire in a crowded theatre was to imprison yiddish speaking socialists. the only reprocussion that should be from speech is more speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA
no censorship ever. you have to remember. the ruling to say fire in a crowded theatre was to imprison yiddish speaking socialists. the only reprocussion that should be from speech is more speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA
why do you say that? what evidence do you have to say this?
hate speech is very much protected speech. you'd be in trouble if it weren't.
even then. the rod you make for someone else's back will be used to break your back.
people have gone to Occupy Wallstreet to sucking cooperate cock, and communists turning in to free market absolutists when someone they don't like is de platformed.
if i've said it once i've had to say it a million times. luckily i have copypasta.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
everyone says it these days. Liberals say it. Libertarians say it. Gaurdianistas. say it. Student-union reps say it as they chase off campus feminists who don't believe Caitlyn Jenner is a real woman. Hell, the terrorists who massacred Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists probably said it. They certainly thought it. It was the ideological heart of their act of terror: "Here come the consequences of your freedom of speech..." Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like but you might suffer for it". Which is another way of saying "You can say what you like but I wouldn't if i were you". Which is another way of saying, "Best not say it, eh".
So let's get this "consequences" thing straight once and for all. If the consequence of our freedom of speech is more speech -- disagreement, argument, challenge, questioning -- that is absolutely fine. Those consequences are good, essential in fact. They're central to freedom of speech. But if the consequences are being no platformed, or expelled from polite society, or sacked, or harassed so relentlessly that you stop saying what you wanted to say, or banned from Twitter, or arrested, or jailed, or shot then that is unacceptable. And these are the consequences that all the supposed liberals, clueless libertarians, and radical Islamists who utter the words "Your free speech has consequences" are really talking about. By "consequences", they mean "punishment". They mean, "We'll teach you a lesson if you say that thing". They're making a threat. Be very worried when you hear people speak of "consequences" for what we think and say.
hate speech is very much protected speech. you'd be in trouble if it weren't.
even then. the rod you make for someone else's back will be used to break your back.
people have gone to Occupy Wallstreet to sucking cooperate cock, and communists turning in to free market absolutists when someone they don't like is de platformed.
if i've said it once i've had to say it a million times. luckily i have copypasta.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
everyone says it these days. Liberals say it. Libertarians say it. Gaurdianistas. say it. Student-union reps say it as they chase off campus feminists who don't believe Caitlyn Jenner is a real woman. Hell, the terrorists who massacred Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists probably said it. They certainly thought it. It was the ideological heart of their act of terror: "Here come the consequences of your freedom of speech..." Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like but you might suffer for it". Which is another way of saying "You can say what you like but I wouldn't if i were you". Which is another way of saying, "Best not say it, eh".
So let's get this "consequences" thing straight once and for all. If the consequence of our freedom of speech is more speech -- disagreement, argument, challenge, questioning -- that is absolutely fine. Those consequences are good, essential in fact. They're central to freedom of speech. But if the consequences are being no platformed, or expelled from polite society, or sacked, or harassed so relentlessly that you stop saying what you wanted to say, or banned from Twitter, or arrested, or jailed, or shot then that is unacceptable. And these are the consequences that all the supposed liberals, clueless libertarians, and radical Islamists who utter the words "Your free speech has consequences" are really talking about. By "consequences", they mean "punishment". They mean, "We'll teach you a lesson if you say that thing". They're making a threat. Be very worried when you hear people speak of "consequences" for what we think and say.
In reply to this because FA's threading is garbage.
Holy shit dude. Why are you saying that being no platformed or being banned from Twitter is the same thing as being arrested, jailed, or shot? Those are not the same things!
Holy shit dude. Why are you saying that being no platformed or being banned from Twitter is the same thing as being arrested, jailed, or shot? Those are not the same things!
it does. otherwise you'd be in big trouble.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
everyone says it these days. Liberals say it. Libertarians say it. Gaurdianistas. say it. Student-union reps say it as they chase off campus feminists who don't believe Caitlyn Jenner is a real woman. Hell, the terrorists who massacred Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists probably said it. They certainly thought it. It was the ideological heart of their act of terror: "Here come the consequences of your freedom of speech..." Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like but you might suffer for it". Which is another way of saying "You can say what you like but I wouldn't if i were you". Which is another way of saying, "Best not say it, eh".
So let's get this "consequences" thing straight once and for all. If the consequence of our freedom of speech is more speech -- disagreement, argument, challenge, questioning -- that is absolutely fine. Those consequences are good, essential in fact. They're central to freedom of speech. But if the consequences are being no platformed, or expelled from polite society, or sacked, or harassed so relentlessly that you stop saying what you wanted to say, or banned from Twitter, or arrested, or jailed, or shot then that is unacceptable. And these are the consequences that all the supposed liberals, clueless libertarians, and radical Islamists who utter the words "Your free speech has consequences" are really talking about. By "consequences", they mean "punishment". They mean, "We'll teach you a lesson if you say that thing". They're making a threat. Be very worried when you hear people speak of "consequences" for what we think and say.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
everyone says it these days. Liberals say it. Libertarians say it. Gaurdianistas. say it. Student-union reps say it as they chase off campus feminists who don't believe Caitlyn Jenner is a real woman. Hell, the terrorists who massacred Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists probably said it. They certainly thought it. It was the ideological heart of their act of terror: "Here come the consequences of your freedom of speech..." Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like but you might suffer for it". Which is another way of saying "You can say what you like but I wouldn't if i were you". Which is another way of saying, "Best not say it, eh".
So let's get this "consequences" thing straight once and for all. If the consequence of our freedom of speech is more speech -- disagreement, argument, challenge, questioning -- that is absolutely fine. Those consequences are good, essential in fact. They're central to freedom of speech. But if the consequences are being no platformed, or expelled from polite society, or sacked, or harassed so relentlessly that you stop saying what you wanted to say, or banned from Twitter, or arrested, or jailed, or shot then that is unacceptable. And these are the consequences that all the supposed liberals, clueless libertarians, and radical Islamists who utter the words "Your free speech has consequences" are really talking about. By "consequences", they mean "punishment". They mean, "We'll teach you a lesson if you say that thing". They're making a threat. Be very worried when you hear people speak of "consequences" for what we think and say.
No. Speech isn't meaningless. Sometimes the content and effect of free speech does harm.
"Consequences" not in the sense of "I'm offended therefore I'm gonna whoop your ass", but consequence in the sense of a chaotic result or part of an equation that may not have been known or able to know. The worst examples can be families of children killed in a shooting having to move because of harrassment from conspiracy theorists who still keep cropping up, believing they live a shilled lie about their children dying or even existing, just for some sociopolitical cause. Then there's black people and immigrants having to put up with regurgitated bullshit statistical half-truths about violent crime and poverty numbers over and over, because of others' beliefs. Then there's parents refusing medical treatment for children in their care against the advice of medical professionals, soley of their own religious convictions.
"Consequences" not in the sense of "I'm offended therefore I'm gonna whoop your ass", but consequence in the sense of a chaotic result or part of an equation that may not have been known or able to know. The worst examples can be families of children killed in a shooting having to move because of harrassment from conspiracy theorists who still keep cropping up, believing they live a shilled lie about their children dying or even existing, just for some sociopolitical cause. Then there's black people and immigrants having to put up with regurgitated bullshit statistical half-truths about violent crime and poverty numbers over and over, because of others' beliefs. Then there's parents refusing medical treatment for children in their care against the advice of medical professionals, soley of their own religious convictions.
Lizard who got popular by "animating" (jiggling) various peoples' art gets mad on twitter. People call him out, repeatedly. He's recently started calling people NPCs, which is a term the altright twits started. As an insult. As a stand in for for another N word.
Actually, you are partially correct.
The version of "NPC" you mention is a version of calling people "Sheep". -Someone is a non-player character because they just follow the party line/ friends/ media, etc.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/def.....e.php?term=NPC
There's another usage more likely to be pertinent, which is "Nearest Person of Color", and created by alt right/ racist types at least partly to be used in a pejorative way in place of the "N" word on social media sites in order to avoid hate speech filters. They did this for other common hot-button words as well, of course.
http://acronymsandslang.com/definit.....C-meaning.html
The version of "NPC" you mention is a version of calling people "Sheep". -Someone is a non-player character because they just follow the party line/ friends/ media, etc.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/def.....e.php?term=NPC
There's another usage more likely to be pertinent, which is "Nearest Person of Color", and created by alt right/ racist types at least partly to be used in a pejorative way in place of the "N" word on social media sites in order to avoid hate speech filters. They did this for other common hot-button words as well, of course.
http://acronymsandslang.com/definit.....C-meaning.html
Don't forget not only essentially saying, "child abuse isn't real and if it was you shouldn't be upset about it cause it made you a better person or something" but also posting it out of the blue on another artist's personal comic detailing the abuse they suffered as a child!
And also getting famous for motion tweening and riding his girlfriend's coattails, but everyone knows that one.
And also getting famous for motion tweening and riding his girlfriend's coattails, but everyone knows that one.
no, if we're really going to go social justice on this. it all intersects.
an open bigot is far better than one that hides it and makes policy.
Today we remember that cisfeminists fought for, and won, the restricting of provision of transition medicine, which kicked off a queer health crisis of choice (which, not for nothing, exacerbated the AIDS crisis, and to this day CAMABs generally, and out trans women specifically, have some of the highest seroprevalence rates in the US) at the exact same time as the AIDS crisis was in full-swing. Learn more:
http://thecurvature.tumblr.com/post.....ference-gloria
http://transadvocate.com/fact-check.....rt_n_14554.htm
http://transadvocate.com/50000-deaths_n_8926.htm
thank you Valerie Keffe for the transfeminist wisdom and showing how bullshit the neoliberal cisfeminism is oppressive and has been since it's creation.
an open bigot is far better than one that hides it and makes policy.
Today we remember that cisfeminists fought for, and won, the restricting of provision of transition medicine, which kicked off a queer health crisis of choice (which, not for nothing, exacerbated the AIDS crisis, and to this day CAMABs generally, and out trans women specifically, have some of the highest seroprevalence rates in the US) at the exact same time as the AIDS crisis was in full-swing. Learn more:
http://thecurvature.tumblr.com/post.....ference-gloria
http://transadvocate.com/fact-check.....rt_n_14554.htm
http://transadvocate.com/50000-deaths_n_8926.htm
thank you Valerie Keffe for the transfeminist wisdom and showing how bullshit the neoliberal cisfeminism is oppressive and has been since it's creation.
First off, "like you?" That doesn't really make any sense. Feel free to clarify.
Secondly, I'll assume that you're accusing me of being pro censorship, which I'm absolutely not.
I am, however, for people facing the consequences of what they say. For instance in this case with their use of a word which has been historically used to demean and belittle whole groups of people on the basis of superficial surface traits. It's not the use of the word itself, it's how the word is used and the intent of its user.
I also happen to be against the cynical tactic of weaponizing the First Amendment in the service of fascistic right wing ideologues who actually seek to foment violence and division.
And yes, "Fascist" is spelled with an "S". Looks like you might be able to use that piece of info.
Secondly, I'll assume that you're accusing me of being pro censorship, which I'm absolutely not.
I am, however, for people facing the consequences of what they say. For instance in this case with their use of a word which has been historically used to demean and belittle whole groups of people on the basis of superficial surface traits. It's not the use of the word itself, it's how the word is used and the intent of its user.
I also happen to be against the cynical tactic of weaponizing the First Amendment in the service of fascistic right wing ideologues who actually seek to foment violence and division.
And yes, "Fascist" is spelled with an "S". Looks like you might be able to use that piece of info.
really? as you argue semantics? ... let me quote something
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
everyone says it these days. Liberals say it. Libertarians say it. Gaurdianistas. say it. Student-union reps say it as they chase off campus feminists who don't believe Caitlyn Jenner is a real woman. Hell, the terrorists who massacred Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists probably said it. They certainly thought it. It was the ideological heart of their act of terror: "Here come the consequences of your freedom of speech..." Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like but you might suffer for it". Which is another way of saying "You can say what you like but I wouldn't if i were you". Which is another way of saying, "Best not say it, eh".
So let's get this "consequences" thing straight once and for all. If the consequence of our freedom of speech is more speech -- disagreement, argument, challenge, questioning -- that is absolutely fine. Those consequences are good, essential in fact. They're central to freedom of speech. But if the consequences are being no platformed, or expelled from polite society, or sacked, or harassed so relentlessly that you stop saying what you wanted to say, or banned from Twitter, or arrested, or jailed, or shot then that is unacceptable. And these are the consequences that all the supposed liberals, clueless libertarians, and radical Islamists who utter the words "Your free speech has consequences" are really talking about. By "consequences", they mean "punishment". They mean, "We'll teach you a lesson if you say that thing". They're making a threat. Be very worried when you hear people speak of "consequences" for what we think and say. Especially coming from a fandom who knew Kero and his friends were engaged in pedophilia and the drugging and raping of dogs and puppies.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
everyone says it these days. Liberals say it. Libertarians say it. Gaurdianistas. say it. Student-union reps say it as they chase off campus feminists who don't believe Caitlyn Jenner is a real woman. Hell, the terrorists who massacred Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists probably said it. They certainly thought it. It was the ideological heart of their act of terror: "Here come the consequences of your freedom of speech..." Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like but you might suffer for it". Which is another way of saying "You can say what you like but I wouldn't if i were you". Which is another way of saying, "Best not say it, eh".
So let's get this "consequences" thing straight once and for all. If the consequence of our freedom of speech is more speech -- disagreement, argument, challenge, questioning -- that is absolutely fine. Those consequences are good, essential in fact. They're central to freedom of speech. But if the consequences are being no platformed, or expelled from polite society, or sacked, or harassed so relentlessly that you stop saying what you wanted to say, or banned from Twitter, or arrested, or jailed, or shot then that is unacceptable. And these are the consequences that all the supposed liberals, clueless libertarians, and radical Islamists who utter the words "Your free speech has consequences" are really talking about. By "consequences", they mean "punishment". They mean, "We'll teach you a lesson if you say that thing". They're making a threat. Be very worried when you hear people speak of "consequences" for what we think and say. Especially coming from a fandom who knew Kero and his friends were engaged in pedophilia and the drugging and raping of dogs and puppies.
Seems to me discussing/ arguing semantics is a pretty good place to start. Let's be clear with our language and communication and perhaps we can do a better job of nipping violent ideologies in the bud.
Naming and shaming is a fairly effective way that society has of pressuring individuals that express violent/ hurtful/ exclusive views such as racism/ nationalism/ xenophobia/ homo/ transphobia etc. to confront and examine the consequences of their language and actions short of doing violence to them. Perhaps if this sort of pressure was exerted more effectively in prewar Nazi Germany or during the Trump campaign, for instance, there would have been less subsequent violence and division.
I don't believe that any system involving humans is likely to be perfect, because we're not perfect. There will always be those who consciously or not pursue violent or divisive ideologies. But like it or not, we live in a society, which means that in order for us to survive we need to strive to work together towards positive outcomes for society as a whole while preserving as much personal freedom as possible. These things aren't simple black and white choices. There is always a back-and-forth and debate, slippery slopes and all. Our existence is an ongoing experiment and we're all making it up, learning and accommodating as we go along.
Personally, I'm an anarchist, and while I would espouse the idea that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", I also embrace the inherent contradictions in those ideas, and believe that it's necessary to be pragmatic. I feel a personal responsibility to recognize the individual rights of others as being equal to my own. We're not going to stop arguing our ideals any time soon, but it's far superior to be arguing them than resorting to physical violence against each other.
Oh, and blaming the fandom for things, -assuming they are true-, that scant few could have been aware of, and almost all would condemn and be sickened by is ridiculous.
Naming and shaming is a fairly effective way that society has of pressuring individuals that express violent/ hurtful/ exclusive views such as racism/ nationalism/ xenophobia/ homo/ transphobia etc. to confront and examine the consequences of their language and actions short of doing violence to them. Perhaps if this sort of pressure was exerted more effectively in prewar Nazi Germany or during the Trump campaign, for instance, there would have been less subsequent violence and division.
I don't believe that any system involving humans is likely to be perfect, because we're not perfect. There will always be those who consciously or not pursue violent or divisive ideologies. But like it or not, we live in a society, which means that in order for us to survive we need to strive to work together towards positive outcomes for society as a whole while preserving as much personal freedom as possible. These things aren't simple black and white choices. There is always a back-and-forth and debate, slippery slopes and all. Our existence is an ongoing experiment and we're all making it up, learning and accommodating as we go along.
Personally, I'm an anarchist, and while I would espouse the idea that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", I also embrace the inherent contradictions in those ideas, and believe that it's necessary to be pragmatic. I feel a personal responsibility to recognize the individual rights of others as being equal to my own. We're not going to stop arguing our ideals any time soon, but it's far superior to be arguing them than resorting to physical violence against each other.
Oh, and blaming the fandom for things, -assuming they are true-, that scant few could have been aware of, and almost all would condemn and be sickened by is ridiculous.
no they're not. all of it is signaling. there is a massive laundrylist of all the terrible justifications that you cisfeminists use for the genocide of trans people.
and the abuse you give out... of course. you have to gaslight. you bully the transmed community, you turned on everyone and have acted on death threats and bomb threats at SPJ airplay, no platformed speakers and erased and benefit from the cishetro patriarchy you SO SEEM TO WANT TO TEAR DOWN... while reaping the benefits of being privileged.
More camab are raped, jailed, killed, abused and all the like but hey that's aliens.. i mean "patriarchy is backfiring".
fuck off
and the abuse you give out... of course. you have to gaslight. you bully the transmed community, you turned on everyone and have acted on death threats and bomb threats at SPJ airplay, no platformed speakers and erased and benefit from the cishetro patriarchy you SO SEEM TO WANT TO TEAR DOWN... while reaping the benefits of being privileged.
More camab are raped, jailed, killed, abused and all the like but hey that's aliens.. i mean "patriarchy is backfiring".
fuck off
Wow... Where does all the anger come from? Who has actually hurt you and what did they do?
Firstly, screw the idea of demonizing those who would seek social justice as "SJW"s. This just plays into the hands of the alt right and their ilk who wish to cast social justice as something negative. This kind of twisting of language only ends up poisoning the efforts of those who sincerely seek social justice, such as myself, and I'll go ahead and assume, you.
Next, your use of the word "You" directed at me would seem to saddle me with speaking for everyone who seeks social justice, and I can't really pretend to speak for anyone beyond myself, let alone a group so large and diverse. You seem in an awful hurry to see everything in a black-and-white sense and to seek to tar a rather diverse group of folks with the same brush. It seems to me rather paranoid to assume that the vast majority of cis feminists have any sort of anti-trans/ non gender conforming agenda, even on an unconscious level. But I'll go out on a limb and say that a lot of folks, trans/ etc. included, are still somewhere in the process of trying to grasp the subtleties of gender and have no axe to grind, and the best of intentions in this regard.
So while all sorts of discrimination and oppression of trans and non-binary conforming people continues, those on the leading edge of social justice campaigns are more aware and open all the time, and trans and non-binary people are leading the efforts to expand the horizons and inclusiveness of this particular frontier.
Firstly, screw the idea of demonizing those who would seek social justice as "SJW"s. This just plays into the hands of the alt right and their ilk who wish to cast social justice as something negative. This kind of twisting of language only ends up poisoning the efforts of those who sincerely seek social justice, such as myself, and I'll go ahead and assume, you.
Next, your use of the word "You" directed at me would seem to saddle me with speaking for everyone who seeks social justice, and I can't really pretend to speak for anyone beyond myself, let alone a group so large and diverse. You seem in an awful hurry to see everything in a black-and-white sense and to seek to tar a rather diverse group of folks with the same brush. It seems to me rather paranoid to assume that the vast majority of cis feminists have any sort of anti-trans/ non gender conforming agenda, even on an unconscious level. But I'll go out on a limb and say that a lot of folks, trans/ etc. included, are still somewhere in the process of trying to grasp the subtleties of gender and have no axe to grind, and the best of intentions in this regard.
So while all sorts of discrimination and oppression of trans and non-binary conforming people continues, those on the leading edge of social justice campaigns are more aware and open all the time, and trans and non-binary people are leading the efforts to expand the horizons and inclusiveness of this particular frontier.
of course. fools laugh.
this moral panic about a word or words do nothing to address the transmisoginoir that neoliberals seem to love.
the party "switching" myth has been repeated so often that it became the truth.
that aside: who gets to decide? If it's only acceptable in a certian time or place, who gets to decide that? Would you have bill cosby do that? Mob rule? decency laws and blasphemy laws wound the people you try to help. and what restriction you put on some people will be used as a tool against you. i'd rather have them openly say it and reveal the content of their character than to have it come out in more terrible ways.
taking down monuments limiting speech and expression will only have the past repeat itself. it's empty signaling and fascistic at it's core
this moral panic about a word or words do nothing to address the transmisoginoir that neoliberals seem to love.
the party "switching" myth has been repeated so often that it became the truth.
that aside: who gets to decide? If it's only acceptable in a certian time or place, who gets to decide that? Would you have bill cosby do that? Mob rule? decency laws and blasphemy laws wound the people you try to help. and what restriction you put on some people will be used as a tool against you. i'd rather have them openly say it and reveal the content of their character than to have it come out in more terrible ways.
taking down monuments limiting speech and expression will only have the past repeat itself. it's empty signaling and fascistic at it's core
to spazfox. because he blocked me to avoid confronting their own bigotry.
yay.
i've just got a contra points ready against contra points. she's great but i have to disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA
Today we remember that cisfeminists fought for, and won, the restricting of provision of transition medicine, which kicked off a queer health crisis of choice (which, not for nothing, exacerbated the AIDS crisis, and to this day CAMABs generally, and out trans women specifically, have some of the highest seroprevalence rates in the US) at the exact same time as the AIDS crisis was in full-swing. Learn more:
http://thecurvature.tumblr.com/post.....ference-gloria
http://transadvocate.com/fact-check.....rt_n_14554.htm
http://transadvocate.com/50000-deaths_n_8926.htm
The parties never switched. the democrats including Byrd and Al Gore senior were the ones who filibustered AGAINST the equal rights act for 70 days as the former was a grand cyclops of the KKK. till the day they died.
but it's ok when you do it. right? Neoliberals are obsessed over signaling but don't do a damn thing policywise except try to use white out on their own dirty history. so yeah.
what do you have to say for yourself?
yay.
i've just got a contra points ready against contra points. she's great but i have to disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA
Today we remember that cisfeminists fought for, and won, the restricting of provision of transition medicine, which kicked off a queer health crisis of choice (which, not for nothing, exacerbated the AIDS crisis, and to this day CAMABs generally, and out trans women specifically, have some of the highest seroprevalence rates in the US) at the exact same time as the AIDS crisis was in full-swing. Learn more:
http://thecurvature.tumblr.com/post.....ference-gloria
http://transadvocate.com/fact-check.....rt_n_14554.htm
http://transadvocate.com/50000-deaths_n_8926.htm
The parties never switched. the democrats including Byrd and Al Gore senior were the ones who filibustered AGAINST the equal rights act for 70 days as the former was a grand cyclops of the KKK. till the day they died.
but it's ok when you do it. right? Neoliberals are obsessed over signaling but don't do a damn thing policywise except try to use white out on their own dirty history. so yeah.
what do you have to say for yourself?
The comments from that one dude got so far out here.. it's really made this already hilarious comic take on an entirely separate light...
Doesn't this 'mah free speech to spout offensive shit' warrior in here realize he's attacking the free speech of the artist?
Further nobody is saying Jasonafex cannot say that word; we all just realize he shouldn't and it makes him a bigoted asshole.
Keep on keeping on pie.
Doesn't this 'mah free speech to spout offensive shit' warrior in here realize he's attacking the free speech of the artist?
Further nobody is saying Jasonafex cannot say that word; we all just realize he shouldn't and it makes him a bigoted asshole.
Keep on keeping on pie.
Comments