4 ms·

Why do you think feminists like Emma Watson glorify prejudice? She does no such thing. To the contrary: she is painfully nice to everybody. Why do you equate t

by gizmo 10y ago

Why do you think feminists like Emma Watson glorify prejudice? She does no such thing. To the contrary: she is painfully nice to everybody. Why do you equate the meanness of Trump and Clinton? In what world are their personal faults comparable? Donald Trump is petty and vindictive to an unusual degree. Clinton is a normal politician. You cannot change society without criticizing it. Social justice activists spend a lot of time pointing out injustice in society, in the hope to persuade people to become less discriminatory. This doesn't make them mean or bullies. The problem is that any time sexist, racist or otherwise nasty behavior is pointed out people tend to get angry, and they want to lash out at person who criticized their behavior instead of reflecting on the merits of the accusation. It's embarrassing to see your post at the top of this thread. And people wonder why there aren't more women and minorities in tech...

whybroke 10y ago
A conspicuous and large campaign contribution by a key figure associated with this site sure won't encourage women or minorities in tech either. But it sure seems to have attracted a flurry of disturbing posts (eg my grandparent and sibling post's)
mafribe 10y ago
Clinton is a normal politician. Isn't it problematic that being directly involved in the destruction of Irak, Libya, and probably Syria is considered normalcy?
- gizmo 10y ago
  I would say so -- US foreign policy horrifies me time and time again.
- atmosx 10y ago
  I'm not a US citizen but from what I understand, if Clinton was seen as mediocre politician, there would no Trump-danger. The only thing that makes this election somewhat interesting for outsiders like myself, is that she's the only candidate I could think of that has a real, although slim, change of losing. Given recent events in Europe, I will wait for election day, polls doesn't mean anything. Also, the fact that nearly all mainstream US media I read is extremely pro-Clinton might have an unexpected backlash a-la Brexit.
mafribe 10y ago
nasty behavior is pointed out This trivialises the discussion because there is no agreement on what is sexist, racist or otherwise nasty behaviour. For example a certain form of radical feminist thinks all heterosexual intercourse is rape. Plenty of people think affirmative action is racist. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the communist tradition has murdered millions of people in the name of social justice. And older people who still remember the communists often can't help but see that eerie similarities ...
- gizmo 10y ago
  The parallel you draw to communist purges is illogical. When you look at historical conflicts all parties think their actions are righteous, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. Purges are justified (rationalized) by the need to solidify power for the greater good. In other words: it's about expedience. It doesn't matter whether the purges are committed by communists, fascists, or religious zealots.
  - misnome 10y ago
    I read that as their point to begin with.
  - mafribe 10y ago
    A lot of contemporary SJWism follows Leninist, Trotskyite and Gramscian scripts. The boots on the grounds don't realise this, they are young and naive, but their leaders know exactly what they are doing.
- whybroke 10y ago
  So pointing out unambiguously[1] bad behavior is wrong because communists murdered people. wow. [1] unambiguous = something you would not want done to your mother
  - mcguire 10y ago
    If A then B, but C, therefore D. Modus indisponens.
grzm 10y ago
I agree that it's necessary to often look at society with a critical eye if you want to improve it. I think no small part of a lot of the heat in these discussions is that people do care about making things better. > This doesn't make them mean or bullies. The problem is that any time ... behavior is pointed out people tend to get angry, and they want to lash out at person who criticized their behavior instead of reflecting on the merits of the accusation. I elided the behavior qualifiers because I think you're getting at a deeper point that works in general. (Please correct me if this is unfair.) The way the criticism is presented is important. There's an effective difference in listing faults, presenting evidence, or making accusations that put people on the defensive (and they're no longer listening to you), and figuring out ways to take into account human psychology in ways that are more likely to make a change. As you said, "people tend to get angry, and they want to lash out ... instead of reflecting." Engaging people in a way that encourages that reflection rather than the anger is hopefully going to be more productive. This can be increasingly difficult when tensions are high. And that's usually when it's even more important. And sometimes I feel like this is a slower path, but then if the alternative isn't likely to make a change at all--or make it worse--, slower seems like a better alternative. This comment is in part me working through my thoughts. The fact that it's attached to your comment is because it prompted me to think more about this, so thank you! To the general reader, in the hopes of better communication, if you'd like to down vote this comment, will you also take the time to add a brief reply? I appreciate it.

by gizmo 10y ago

whybroke 10y ago

A conspicuous and large campaign contribution by a key figure associated with this site sure won't encourage women or minorities in tech either. But it sure seems to have attracted a flurry of disturbing posts (eg my grandparent and sibling post's)

mafribe 10y ago

Clinton is a normal politician. Isn't it problematic that being directly involved in the destruction of Irak, Libya, and probably Syria is considered normalcy?

gizmo 10y ago
I would say so -- US foreign policy horrifies me time and time again.
atmosx 10y ago
I'm not a US citizen but from what I understand, if Clinton was seen as mediocre politician, there would no Trump-danger. The only thing that makes this election somewhat interesting for outsiders like myself, is that she's the only candidate I could think of that has a real, although slim, change of losing. Given recent events in Europe, I will wait for election day, polls doesn't mean anything. Also, the fact that nearly all mainstream US media I read is extremely pro-Clinton might have an unexpected backlash a-la Brexit.

mafribe 10y ago

nasty behavior is pointed out This trivialises the discussion because there is no agreement on what is sexist, racist or otherwise nasty behaviour. For example a certain form of radical feminist thinks all heterosexual intercourse is rape. Plenty of people think affirmative action is racist. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the communist tradition has murdered millions of people in the name of social justice. And older people who still remember the communists often can't help but see that eerie similarities ...

gizmo 10y ago
The parallel you draw to communist purges is illogical. When you look at historical conflicts all parties think their actions are righteous, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. Purges are justified (rationalized) by the need to solidify power for the greater good. In other words: it's about expedience. It doesn't matter whether the purges are committed by communists, fascists, or religious zealots.
- misnome 10y ago
  I read that as their point to begin with.
- mafribe 10y ago
  A lot of contemporary SJWism follows Leninist, Trotskyite and Gramscian scripts. The boots on the grounds don't realise this, they are young and naive, but their leaders know exactly what they are doing.
whybroke 10y ago
So pointing out unambiguously[1] bad behavior is wrong because communists murdered people. wow. [1] unambiguous = something you would not want done to your mother
- mcguire 10y ago
  If A then B, but C, therefore D. Modus indisponens.

grzm 10y ago

I agree that it's necessary to often look at society with a critical eye if you want to improve it. I think no small part of a lot of the heat in these discussions is that people do care about making things better. > This doesn't make them mean or bullies. The problem is that any time ... behavior is pointed out people tend to get angry, and they want to lash out at person who criticized their behavior instead of reflecting on the merits of the accusation. I elided the behavior qualifiers because I think you're getting at a deeper point that works in general. (Please correct me if this is unfair.) The way the criticism is presented is important. There's an effective difference in listing faults, presenting evidence, or making accusations that put people on the defensive (and they're no longer listening to you), and figuring out ways to take into account human psychology in ways that are more likely to make a change. As you said, "people tend to get angry, and they want to lash out ... instead of reflecting." Engaging people in a way that encourages that reflection rather than the anger is hopefully going to be more productive. This can be increasingly difficult when tensions are high. And that's usually when it's even more important. And sometimes I feel like this is a slower path, but then if the alternative isn't likely to make a change at all--or make it worse--, slower seems like a better alternative. This comment is in part me working through my thoughts. The fact that it's attached to your comment is because it prompted me to think more about this, so thank you! To the general reader, in the hopes of better communication, if you'd like to down vote this comment, will you also take the time to add a brief reply? I appreciate it.