Search Results

You're a fop.

Am I still eligible to win?

Doesn't this also apply to racism, sexism, ageism, classism, and any other -ism that I may have missed?

See, I understand that as what it's supposed to mean. What I'm complaining about is that the majority of people who use the term don't know what it means and that has twisted its meaning over time to just be that "catch all" that I mentioned. It's like how "literally" now means the opposite of what it's supposed to mean.

I understand that there are actual people who get offended by things that are legitimately offensive. Things like using the term "******" derogatorily or refusing someone service because of their race as well as many other things that I probably haven't thought of because I don't spend my time trying to tiptoe around every little thing that could offend someone. What I'm saying here is that people who actually get offended by things are far outnumbered by people who spend all of their time looking for ways to be offended just so they can play the victim. The worst part is that it's often impossible to know for sure who is actually offended and who's just grinding for oppression points. However, I think that which it is should be pretty obvious when somebody gets all hot and bothered when I don't use "xer/xis/xerself" when I I had no way of knowing that those were the person's preferred pronouns.

[For reference, I'm referring to all -isms here, not just racism.]
I'm not denying that systematic racism doesn't exist. I'm saying that any discrimination based on race is racism. Systematic racism is absolutely many levels worse than regular racism and needs to be taken care of before other racism can be phased out, but that doesn't mean it is the only racism .

As I responded to Makaze, I understand what ableism is supposed to mean. The examples I provided are of what it has been twisted to mean by people who use it when they don't know what it means who happen to be the very same people who keep me from taking it seriously.

In that example I was referring to a surgical procedure used to make a deaf person not deaf anymore. A person who doesn't know what ableism is but throws the term around anyway would think of it as ableist because it basically says that deafness is a problem to be fixed.

Did I not acknowledge that when I said that it wasn't as relevant as I originally thought but left it in anyway because it was a cute story about a little girl who didn't understand why black people couldn't sit in the front of the bus? It's called trying to lighten the mood in an attempt to help the argument wind down. (That's actually one of the stories my grandmother tells about her childhood, by the way, so it's probably no less than 80% true.)

At this point we're just arguing semantics. What you call "equality" I call "legal equality." It should be a well known fact that when it comes to social issues, the law only ever does the bare minimum. What you're calling "justice" I call "social equality." After all, it's up to society to make the law's "bare minimum" actually work. Using your example with the boxes and the fence, the left shows legal equality which attempts to remedy the situation by giving everyone a box to stand on while the right shows social equality, where the tallest man (who doesn't need a box) has given his box (which the law stipulates must be given to him) to the shortest man (whose single legally allotted box isn't enough). Meanwhile, in what I call "legal justice," nobody gets any boxes and tallest man has to stand in a hole in order to obstruct his view just as much as anyone else. What I call "social justice" is the same except the two shorter men get as many boxes as they need.

For a more extreme example (and one where I feel justice is good), suppose I kill ten people in a state where the death sentence is outlawed and get sentenced to life in prison. That's not justice at all. That's treating me just like any other criminal. Justice would be having me painfully executed by the loved ones of all the people I killed. I'd also like to point out that under my proposed system I, the one to be executed, would have the right to a swift and private (save for those who I wronged) execution and would have to give my express written consent for any appeals to my case, none of which would be allowed to be funded with taxpayer money.

1. Does Jezebel still get click revenue if I have Adblock turned on? I'm totally willing to read that article, but I have no desire to fund that site in any way.
2. I can't take evilfeminist seriously. I can't really tell what it is, but something about the way she words everything makes it feel like she's trying really hard to be a victim.
3. Teaandfeminism is alright. The only point that I actually want to tear down with is that academia is "skewed towards upper middle-class, straight, white, able-bodied, cisgender men." The very fact that it is skewed that way should be all the more reason to get off tumblr and write something in a medium that will reach more than just the tiny amount of people who have heard of tumblr. I would probably buy several copies of a real physical book written by this gal just to loan out to friends and donate to libraries where somebody who will take it seriously will see it. Believe it or not, there are real men and women of all backgrounds who will take it seriously if it is in a medium that is accessible enough to be taken seriously. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people don't even know what tumblr is and that's why nothing on tumblr will ever reach anyone who can make a difference.

On the contrary, I do understand that there are systems in place designed to keep people down. Let me tell you a story.

I dealt with systematic disadvantages all through my schooling when I was misdiagnosed with ADHD and had all sorts of accommodations forced on me. In elementary through middle school I went with it because it made things easier. It was mostly stuff like being allowed (read: forced) to take my tests in a separate room with extra time and have a scribe because they thought I had trouble expressing myself in writing. In 8th grade I was rediagnosed with Asperger's and in high school during my freshman class on drugs and alcohol I realized something extremely important: "I'm becoming dependent on all of these accommodations." They were a crutch that I didn't want to need. From that point on, I started to wean myself off the accommodations that had been imposed on me since third grade. Instead letting the system make things easier for me, I tried twice as hard as it was letting me. First I stopped using the alphasmart, a little keyboard with a screen that replaced my scribe from elementary and middle school. When I had a good writing speed down, I imposed the normal time limits on myself. When asked why I didn't finish a few tests, I would say that I simply didn't know the answers. When I got to the point where I could finish a whole test with time to spare, I stopped going to the special testing room all together.

By my junior year, working twice as hard wasn't enough. I was studying hard subject matter that actually required real effort to understand. I was determined to not have to go back on accommodations, though, so I pushed myself three times as hard, then four, where I stayed all the way up to graduation. It was grueling to push myself that hard and still have time to be a teenager, but it taught me to value effort more than any other quality a person can have because effort is unlimited. If I had kept going with my accommodations, I would not have brought myself up to what should be everybody's standard for hard work and I would still be expecting everything to be handed to me.

As for your liberation idea, I love that. However, we need to go one step at a time. Legal equality, a crutch that doesn't really work, was the first step. Step two, which we're working toward now, is social equality: a crutch that works, but won't solve the real underlying problem. After that comes something big: All of the oppressed classes will wake up and realize that they don't want a crutch anymore. That's when Step 3, liberation, will happen. Instead of relying on their crutch, they'll go out and work four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and maybe even ten times as hard as they thought they could to rise above the systems that tried to cover up the oppression rather than actually fixing it.

I'm tired. Bedtime.

I have nothing to say to any of you guys' other points because they're all very good points and you guys are so committed that I know I can't convince you of my position anyway.

No, they don't. They still mean what they're intended to mean both by definition and connotation. If a black man runs up to me and starts beating me with a baseball bat while shouting, "That's what you get for being white," I could describe the man as a racist and no reasonable person would argue. I could even press charges on it as a racist hate crime and probably win. The same would apply if I were attacked out of nowhere by a woman shouting about how she hates men. Naturally, the odds of an encounter like this are pretty low, but the point should be clear.

"Ableism," on the other hand, has become much too broad to mean anything anymore. I promote the use of cochlear implants? That's ableist against deaf people. Amaury says that old people shouldn't drive? That's ableist against those with an age-induced loss of mental acuity. Every joke involving Toph in Avatar: The Last Airbender? Ableist against blind people. You assume that I will understand your sarcasm? Ableist against some group somewhere for some reason. Makaze condemns racism? That's ableist against people who had no control over the era that they were born in and thus have a hard time accepting things like racial integration. My grandmother at 12 years old takes the last seat in the back of the bus just because she likes the view better? She gets yelled at because she won't let the arthritic black woman sit down even though the front of the bus is totally empty. Okay, that last one wasn't as relevant as I thought, but it's a cute story nonetheless.

With how broad it is, its only real function anymore is to say, "I'm offended but I don't want to think of a reason why." And as I've said, it's a real shame because it really is the best word for what it's supposed to mean.

I think one of us misunderstands what "social justice" means. If it's you, you're mistaking social equality for social justice. If it's me, I'm just overly semantic. So we're clear:

The way I understand it, the social justice movement (if it can even be called a movement) is about punishing social majorities or powers (heterosexuals, cis-people, caucasians, men, etc.) because numbers/power=oppression and all members of a major or powerful social class are to blame for that oppression. An example of a "social justice" belief is that all men (even trans-men), are to blame for the very real trauma that women go through thanks to rapists, human traffickers (which I consider to be a particular subset of rapists), and all scum like that. Simply put, I see social justice as fighting against bigotry with even more bigoted bigotry. Fight misogyny with misandry or trans-sexism with cis-sexism. It has nothing to do with the goal of social equality that we should be reaching for and, in fact, is probably seriously hurting it by giving people who want real equality a bad name.

I thought the conversation was strictly referring to those who are developmentally disabled (formerly mentally ******ed, formerly idiots, formerly imbeciles, formerly morons, and so on down the euphemism staircase). I'm sorry if it wasn't.

And besides, your definition of "disabled" doesn't sit well with me. By that definition, literally everyone is disabled because absolutely nobody is able to function normally in every area of life.

Yes. To me, "ableism" and its related words have become catch-all terms for, "Arguing with you is making me start to think, so I'm going to say that I'm offended before my brain starts to hurt."

Not in this case. The "Vita" in Playstation Vita is somehow related to the word "Beta."

That said, I'm having a blast playing Type-0 on my Vita.

Don't forget Tenzin's salesman montage. I was half expecting, "It'll keep you from getting any uglier," the whole time.

Isn't it also pretty ableist to assume that people who are extraordinarily stupid are disabled in some way? In Full House, Kimmy clearly isn't disabled. After all, she did well enough to graduate from high school in the era before the most common approach to learning disabilities in schools simply amounted to, "Make it easier for them." Kimmy's not disabled; she's just an idiot who gets up to mischief more often she should which makes her, from Danny's point of view, a bad influence on DJ.

My point is that sometimes a stupid character is just stupid, not disabled and certainly not a means of pushing some discriminatory agenda.

Also, the word "ableist" really shouldn't be used if you want to be taken seriously. It may be the best word for its meaning, but it belongs to the social justice warriors now and it's time to accept that.

So now it's Mako's turn to be whiny little *****. Lovely.[DOUBLEPOST=1403912385][/DOUBLEPOST]And now Tenzin is an extremist idiot. What happened to the whole "everybody has their own path" mumbo jumbo?

That CG was really conspicuous.

If it were elsewhere it be all stuffy with "serious discussion" and stuff. I want a Spamzone discussion.

Well yeah, but surely they were aware of the fan translation, right? Shutting them down would have been such a Squeenix thing to do. It's like they did it specifically to say, "Hey fan translators, we're makin' a better version! Please be excited about that!"

Everything about this makes it sound like it'll be ****. Shall we tally it up?

Dumb sounding title that's just a play on the original: +5
Sequel to a show that its target audience hasn't even heard of: +5
Disney Channel: +10

That's 20 shitpoints so far. We'll keep you posted as the show premieres.

This is a thread by a Amaury.

The best part of this is that they announced it figuratively two days after the fan translation was released. You'd think they would have C&D'd it or something if they were that close to the announcement.

That sounds a lot like RUNNER 2, where you can jump over checkpoints to get bonus points added to your score. I may have to check this out.

I'm actually an ordained minister for the Universal Life Church, so I can officiate the wedding.

http://kh-vids.net/forums/the-blog-zone.42/

And you know what? I'm so happy that I'm gonna buy @kitty_mckechnie some yuri when I go to my next con anyway.[DOUBLEPOST=1403847740][/DOUBLEPOST]Okay, so it occurs to me that I should probably decide what I'd like. So, Nate, if it's still on its Daily Deal thingy when you do the buying, I'd like this Bioshock Infinite Bundle. That leaves me with $5.01. For that, just surprise me with whatever will fit from my wishlist and add remaining odd change to the next pool. If Bioshock isn't still on the daily deal, do the same thing with my wishlist. It's not in any particular order, so just use your own discretion.

Alternatively, I'll put a card up on the marketplace for $20 and you can buy it from me, which would basically achieve the same effect anyway.

WAIT A SEC DID I ACTUALLY WIN?

That's boss. This thread is boss.