Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

1…910121415…45

Comments

  • #552
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,859 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    jank wrote: »

    He speaks for all but can we? Tbh its no wonder people are so medicated if nobody knows what the hell they are supposed to do anymore in social circles deem they offend someone or find something offensive. What does TQWIA stand for anyway?

    From what I can find, LBGTTQIA : Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer or Questioning, Intersex or Intergender, Asexual or Ally.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #553
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Like can anyone else but 'women' give birth? If a man/person gives birth, are they not a woman?
    I'm not sure that calling people by one name or another influences how one's body works. If somebody wants to call themselves a woman, a man, transgender or whatever - why not leave them do it?

    There's a lot more to sexuality than the body's ability to give birth to a baby, though I imagine our religious friends and colleagues would disagree with that.


  • #554
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm not sure that calling people by one name or another influences how one's body works. If somebody wants to call themselves a woman, a man, transgender or whatever - why not leave them do it?

    There's a lot more to sexuality than the body's ability to give birth to a baby, though I imagine our religious friends and colleagues would disagree with that.

    Yeah, I agree with this. If people want to be called a certain thing then as long as it is not obviously ridiculous then I'd say just let them get on with it.

    I suppose there is a problem if someone aggressively corrects you for saying "pregnant woman" instead of "birthing individual" because sometimes how can you realistically be expected to know?

    I mean if I refer to someone as "her" when I should have used "zir" then I am OK with being politely corrected. I am not OK with an aggressive attitude implying I am some kind of horrible bigot because I got it wrong.

    Otherwise, it's basically harmless and surely it's just good manners to call someone by whatever they want to be called.

    It seems pretty obvious now that sexuality is a lot more complicated than most of us ever realized. So it follows that things are way more complicated than the basic understanding that most of us were taught and/or raised with.

    I'm assuming that the natural consequence, if people are aggressively correcting people for using the wrong pronouns etc, is that the language will evolve to not use pronouns at all.


  • #555
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    'From now on I want you all to call me Loretta'.


  • #556
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    orubiru wrote: »
    I'm assuming that the natural consequence, if people are aggressively correcting people for using the wrong pronouns etc, is that the language will evolve to not use pronouns at all.
    Was never "aggressively" corrected myself, but I've pretty much done this anyway. Company regardless, I call everyone lads. Male/female gathering: Lads, what are we doing :D ? All female: Are ye alright there lads :p ? All male: Ah lads..... :(
    It shall be known, henceforth (as my friends and acquaintances already know), that I have taken it upon myself to use lads as an entirely gender-neutral term. Hijacked it, if you will.
    pauldla wrote: »
    'From now on I want you all to call me Loretta'.

    Grand Loretta.


  • #557
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    robindch wrote: »
    Should Irish people ban the depiction of leprechauns, pots of gold and shillelaghs lest somebody take offence?

    I'm offended, but do I care?

    No.


  • #558
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    pauldla wrote: »
    'From now on I want you all to call me Loretta'.

    splitter.


  • #559
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    orubiru wrote: »
    Yeah, I agree with this. If people want to be called a certain thing then as long as it is not obviously ridiculous then I'd say just let them get on with it.

    I suppose there is a problem if someone aggressively corrects you for saying "pregnant woman" instead of "birthing individual" because sometimes how can you realistically be expected to know? . . .
    That's not what's going on here, though. Nobody is "aggressively correcting" anybody.

    Most people who give birth identify as women; a few do not. There is no problem about using the term "woman" to refer to a person who identifies as a woman, and the Midwives Alliance does not suggest there is. But when referring collectively to the clients of midwives, they don't like "women", etc, because the client population includes some who identify as women, and some who do not. Hence, "pregnant people".
    orubiru wrote: »
    I'm assuming that the natural consequence, if people are aggressively correcting people for using the wrong pronouns etc, is that the language will evolve to not use pronouns at all.
    I think it t will just lead to a trend (or accelerate an existing trend?) towards the use of inclusive pronouns - e.g. "they" meaning "he or she". We already do this quite a lot.


  • #560
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,521 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    "..pregnant person.."

    "But! But! I don't identify as human"

    Scrap the cap!



  • #561
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    "But! But! I don't identify as human"
    I'll bear that in mind, Hotblack.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,791 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Woman, female, lady are nouns referring to adult human beings who are biologically female; that is, capable of bearing offspring.

    So if you are a human being capable of bearing offspring you are inevitably a woman


  • #563
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    "..pregnant person.."

    "But! But! I don't identify as human"


    You want to sit on an egg for 9 months, then all I can do is respect your diversity.


  • #564
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    That dingbat diversity officer from Goldsmiths college is back in the news again after tweeting the hashtag #killallwhitemen

    Now I'm not a fan of arresting or prosecuting people for sending tweets, it seems like a waste of police and CPS time, although locking her away for being a silly idiot is rather tempting.


  • #565
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,521 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Yeah but that would put intolerable pressure on prison places

    Scrap the cap!



  • #566
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    its funny how christians and regressives go after the same things


    http://6abc.com/education/new-jersey-school-cancels-halloween-parties/1045540/
    MAPLEWOOD, N.J. (WPVI) -- There will be no little ghosts and goblins at an elementary school in North Jersey this year.

    They won't get to celebrate Halloween.

    Administrators aren't allowing any parties because they say some students of different cultures felt left out in past years.

    A letter went home to parents of students at Seth Boyden Elementary in Maplewood.

    The school tried to cancel the parties last year, but there was outrage and they were ultimately allowed to go on as planned.

    But, this year no parties.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #567
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Remember when Harry Potter pissed off some of the evangelicals? Reminds me of this.

    As mentioned before, horseshoe effect. The pendulum has swung wildly to the far left. Before religion and their clerics were the moral arbitrators of western societies. Now we have self appointed 'equality' and 'human rights' officials and officers who are the moral arbitrators and the outcomes are sadly similar.

    A title of Fr. or Rev. garnered tremendous respect in the past and one would have to be brave to speak out against their moral overtures on how society should behave and be shaped in a certain vision. Now, swap it with 'equality officer' or 'human rights lawyer'. It is not worth going up against them as one is risking permanently being ostracised via twitter as sure, who would want to speak out against equality or human rights!

    In some ways I think society has moved on so much in the past 30 years. In other ways I see us basically living in the 50's only with different masters.


  • #568
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee has set up an "Inclusive Excellence Center" whose main product is buzzwords:
    IEC wrote:
    The Inclusive Excellence Center (IEC) is committed to cultivating an intercultural, equitable climate and learning environment for all UW-Milwaukee members. As a student-centered entity, the IEC appreciates diversity and strives for excellence in fostering peer-to-peer connections and critically reflective opportunities through initiatives, experiences, and collaborations. The IEC will invest time to create a socially just campus in order to include different perspectives, engage in authentic and challenging dialogue, and connect vibrant and global communities. [...] The Inclusive Excellence Center is the next necessary step in the evolutionary process of creating a more equitable campus climate by facilitating a welcome and inviting community and provide support for other UWM groups.Through our efforts we hope to develop a rich tradition of collective involvement and equity to ensure folks feel included, engaged, and connected.
    Buzzwords aside, they've decided that, amongst others, the following words or phrases amount to "microaggressions" and should be avoided lest somebody's feelings be hurt:
    • Third World
    • Ghetto
    • Crazy
    • Are you deaf?
    • Man up
    • Thug
    • Thot
    • Politically Correct
    With online-report-form goodness here.

    Anyway folks, you heard it here first - the term "politically correct" is no longer politically correct.


  • #569
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    robindch wrote: »
    The University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee has set up an "Inclusive Excellence Center" whose main product is buzzwords:Buzzwords aside, they've decided that, amongst others, the following words or phrases amount to "microaggressions" and should be avoided lest somebody's feelings be hurt:
    • Third World
    • Ghetto
    • Crazy
    • Are you deaf?
    • Man up
    • Thug
    • Thot
    • Politically Correct
    With online-report-form goodness here.

    Anyway folks, you heard it here first - the term "politically correct" is no longer politically correct.

    Jaysus help them on a building site. Or within five miles of me.

    Thot is a new one to me at least.


  • #570
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,968 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    THOT = That Ho Over There.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    Jeremy Howling Raffle
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Jeremy Howling Raffle


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    THOT = That Ho Over There.

    3jxt8jccta3mvpflaes4grpz2.350x350x4.gif


  • #572
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Their twitter feed has some as a fair bit of nuttiness as well.
    Take this article.

    "How To Not Wear A Racist Halloween Costume This Year: A Simple Guide For White People"

    Are we back to the ol' only white people can be racist malarkey?

    I love this reasoning.
    Why run the risk of running afoul of a scholarship committee or potential employers who do their due diligence on social media, when you can have any one of hundreds of perfectly fun, scary, or silly costumes that are frankly much more interesting than being a walking racist stereotype

    Dressing up as a Geisha, putting some feathers in your hair like an Indian or wearing a sugar skull could/should deny you a job or a place at a university. Best lock yourself in a room in case your mere mortal presence offends someone.


  • #573
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    robindch wrote: »
    Anyway folks, you heard it here first - the term "politically correct" is no longer politically correct.
    Gosh, but you're behind the times Robin. Keep up! "Politically correct" hasn't been politically correct for decades. In fact, I'm not sure that it ever was.

    The term is only ever used by the sort of people who are the subject of the other thread. Usually in the sentence "I know it's not politically correct, but . . ." followed by some statement of the kind that gets talked about in that thread.


  • #574
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    "Politically correct" hasn't been politically correct for decades.
    I would disagree - the term is treated with ironic contempt by liberal types while, apparently, still being taken seriously by low-end conservatives. In any case, the term is now banned - at least in Wisconsin.

    BTW, if "lame" constitutes a "microaggression" and, therefore, can be banned, how does the good IEC deal with words like "fuck"? Do they call the SWAT squad or something?


  • #575
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    robindch wrote: »
    I would disagree - the term is treated with ironic contempt by liberal types while, apparently, still being taken seriously by low-end conservatives. In any case, the term is now banned - at least in Wisconsin.

    BTW, if "lame" constitutes a "microaggression" and, therefore, can be banned, how does the good IEC deal with words like "fuck"? Do they call the SWAT squad or something?

    the term microaggression triggers me :( ..... and when I say "trigger" that triggers me too

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #576
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    robindch wrote: »
    I would disagree - the term is treated with ironic contempt by liberal types while, apparently, still being taken seriously by low-end conservatives.
    But neither of those things would make the term politically correct, would they? The stereotypically politically correct don't use the term, and those who do use it would indignantly deny that they are being politically correct in doing so (or anything they do).


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But neither of those things would make the term politically correct, would they?
    No idea really - in their usage, the term disappears up its own ass and becomes even more meaningless than it already is which is almost an achievement in itself.

    Actually, now that I mention the word ass, the entire notion that it's acceptable to hear a word used in one context and interpret it in some preposterous fashion somewhere else entirely - reminds me of an account of a scientologist auditor who was reported to have made a most remarkable diagnosis on the basis of a word which his mum said while he was a baby in his mother's womb:

    http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/tsos/sos-03.html
    Xenu.net wrote:
    It would seem that the engram sees all, hears all, and registers everything, but sometimes it is incorrect. One auditor reported that a rash on the backside of his preclear -- and it was not stated how the auditor found out about that rash -- started when the preclear was in the womb and his mother frequently asked for an aspirin. The engram was said to have accidentally misrecorded this as "ass burn."

    To say nothing about this poor unfortunately guy and, famously, this unfortunate medic.


  • #578
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/03/college-administrator-shreds-the-constitution-on-hidden-camera-video/

    A new video produced by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas shows one college administrator shredding a copy of the Constitution at the request of an undercover reporter.

    Another administrator promised to destroy a copy of the nation’s founding document, and two other administrators made disparaging comments about the document to a Project Veritas reporter pretending to be offended by it.

    In the video, the reporter approached several faculty members at Vassar and Oberlin Colleges and said that “the Constitution is kind of a trigger for me. Overall I see it just as a really oppressive document.”

    “I mean, it’s not just me,” the reporter told Kelly Grab, assistant director of equal opportunity at Vassar. “I thought that Vassar wanted to create like a safe place here. You know, a place where students could walk around and not be scared of seeing discriminating things on campus.”

    Eventually, the reporter suggested that shredding the Constitution could be “therapeutic,” and suggests that Grab destroy it. Grab then shreds the document.

    Additionally, Colleen Cohen, faculty director of affirmative action and professor of anthropology at Vassar, told the reporter that “it’s horrible that this is something that has caused you such pain. … Can I destroy this?”

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #579
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Daily Caller wrote:
    [...] James O’Keefe and Project Veritas [...]
    Neither are quite the impartial types they claim to be - amongst other projects, O'Keefe has been involved with "investigations" into Planned Parenthood and most famously of all, ACORN:

    http://www.projectveritas.com/about

    ACORN was a largish, federally-funded organization which promoted voter rights, healthcare, housing and a range of other issues generally contra the financial and political interests of Republican voters, or at least the people and corporations who fund the Republican party. Following O'Keefe's attacks, ACORN's funding was withdrawn and the organization closed down. O'Keefe has also won various awards from Fox News for political jiggery-pokery.


  • #580
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    robindch wrote: »
    Neither are quite the impartial types they claim to be - amongst other projects, O'Keefe has been involved with "investigations" into Planned Parenthood and most famously of all, ACORN:

    http://www.projectveritas.com/about

    ACORN was a largish, federally-funded organization which promoted voter rights, healthcare, housing and a range of other issues generally contra the financial and political interests of Republican voters, or at least the people and corporations who fund the Republican party. Following O'Keefe's attacks, ACORN's funding was withdrawn and the organization closed down. O'Keefe has also won various awards from Fox News for political jiggery-pokery.

    never heard of them before , being presented with such a scenario though the correct response is to seek medical help, not turn themselves into an Onion article

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #581
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,521 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Sex robots are demeaning to women and should be banned, apparently.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/sex-robots-should-be-banned-expert-tells-web-summit-1.2416948

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #582
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Sex robots are demeaning to women and should be banned, apparently.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/sex-robots-should-be-banned-expert-tells-web-summit-1.2416948

    I dont think the three laws of robotics are actual laws in real life.

    What does the shadow proclamation have to say on the matter?


  • #583
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Sex robots are demeaning to women and should be banned, apparently.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/sex-robots-should-be-banned-expert-tells-web-summit-1.2416948

    <cough> vibrators :pac:

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #584
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    If you find they make you cough, you're doing it wrong.


  • #585
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    If you find they make you cough, you're doing it wrong.

    if I can get through life without having to take a suppository Ill consider it a minor victory.....I dont think Im the target market for 'em :pac:

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #586
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Sex robots are demeaning to women and should be banned, apparently.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/sex-robots-should-be-banned-expert-tells-web-summit-1.2416948
    It seems like restricting the sexual activities of consenting adults just wasn't enough for some people.
    Now they want to ban sex toys. :confused:
    silverharp wrote: »
    <cough> vibrators :pac:
    That inconvient fact is explained away in her research paper.
    While males are the chief buyer of human sex, females are more likely to purchase artificial nonhuman substitutes such as vibrators [1] that stimulate a discrete part of the body rather than purchase an adult or child for sex.
    Women using sex toys are fine but men, well they're child rapists.:rolleyes:


  • #587
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    It seems like restricting the sexual activities of consenting adults just wasn't enough for some people.
    Now they want to ban sex toys. :confused:


    That inconvient fact is explained away in her research paper.

    Women using sex toys are fine but men, well they're child rapists.:rolleyes:

    feminists are in danger of out christ-in-ing christians. I don't forsee the pope producing a paper on sex robots or Occulus Rift anytime soon :D

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #588
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    silverharp wrote: »
    feminists are in danger of out christ-in-ing christians. I don't forsee the pope producing a paper on sex robots or Occulus Rift anytime soon :D

    Pseudo feminists, surely? Feminists are for equality. I know it's a dirty word now because of these muppets, but can't we reclaim it?! Please? :)


  • #589
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,521 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    females are more likely to purchase artificial nonhuman substitutes such as vibrators [1] that stimulate a discrete part of the body

    Ah but now you can buy silicone... orifices... on Amazon. Apparently. So I'm told. I don't know how they appeared in my 'you might also be interested in' thing. honest.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #590
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Shrap wrote: »
    Pseudo feminists, surely? Feminists are for equality. I know it's a dirty word now because of these muppets, but can't we reclaim it?! Please? :)
    First things first, Shrap. A&A has yet to secure universal submission to its decrees about who is, and who is not, a Catholic. I think until that has been achieved it would be unwise to start promulgating encyclicals about who is, and who is not, a feminist.


  • #591
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Shrap wrote: »
    Pseudo feminists, surely? Feminists are for equality. I know it's a dirty word now because of these muppets, but can't we reclaim it?! Please? :)

    Is that a no true Scotsman argument? I think its too late , it was bound to happen that as the major goals were achieved it would have problems. All those gender studies and women's studies departments and academics need to be fed. Modern feminism seems to have overlapping layers of misandry and I dont see any criticism coming from within feminism.
    There are still clearly pockets where real activism is still needed , but as a movement its deserving its reputation.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • #592
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Shrap wrote: »
    Feminists are for equality.
    With becoming submission, I would suggest that the majority of people who self-describe as feminists these days are not in favour of equality as they demand privileges - of various kinds - for women which they do not wish for men to have.

    I'm not sure there's a word for somebody who supports the idea of total equality between men and women - the countereuphonious 'parityist' or 'eqaulityist' might do the trick, if the simple 'humanist' doesn't.


  • #593
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm not sure there's a word for somebody who supports the idea of total equality between men and women - the countereuphonious 'parityist' or 'eqaulityist' might do the trick, if the simple 'humanist' doesn't.
    Egalitarian?


  • #594
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Thunderf00t looks into #ConcernedStudents1950 and the "Safe Space" which a group of SJW's created for themselves at the University of Missouri. Which unfortunately turned out to be less than fully "safe".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5MPzQnokMU


  • #595
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Ok, feminism is dead. Rest in pieces.

    Christ on a bike, the ignorance :mad: Couldn't even watch all of that.


  • #596
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,968 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    And on the other extreme: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34790285


  • #597
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Shrap wrote: »
    Ok, feminism is dead. Rest in pieces.

    Christ on a bike, the ignorance :mad: Couldn't even watch all of that.



    I cant say I can even begin to understand this skullfck...makeof it what you can :pac:


    http://www.metamute.org/community/your-posts/intersectional-or-sectarian

    For the radical left 'intersectionality' seemed to be a way of 'achieving effective political unity among the oppressed.'3 Those leftists were embarrassed by their own tradition, which seemed to them to be too mannish. They felt they had ignored questions of oppression, and would make amends through an intersectional approach. The older texts that saw women's oppression as a footnote to the class struggle were set aside.4

    The meaning of Intersectionality raised its head in a bitter dispute at the annual Radical Feminist conference in London. The Radical Feminists insisted on a 'women only' space for their discussion. No-one argued that it was a bad idea to reflect the divisions in society in your conference (because most on the radical left shared the RadFems belief that men exploit women and have no direct interest in fighting for equality). But the RadFems were attacked for the exclusion of transsexuals. Transsexuals were not women, but men seeking to invade women's space, said the RadFems. The RadFems were guilty of discrimination, said their intersectional critics. Transsexuals identify as women, and therefore they are women, because gender is a social construct, not a natural one. The RadFems were denounced as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFs. In a moment, all of the moral authority of the Radical Feminists (which was surely resented by those outside the group) disappeared in a twitterstorm of moral disapproval.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #598
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    silverharp wrote: »
    [...] make of it what you can [...]
    368393.gif


  • #599
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,521 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Interesting that you chose a picture of a woman doing that, Rob.

    Are you a sleeper agent of the oppressive patriarchy?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #600
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    silverharp wrote: »
    I cant say I can even begin to understand this skullfck...makeof it what you can :pac:


    http://www.metamute.org/community/your-posts/intersectional-or-sectarian

    Nope.....nothin' in my noggin. Not a notion.

    But I quite hope this sh1tstorm has coined the phrase "TERF wars".


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    a satire on PC culture. No negative criticism please, I will be triggered :pac:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



Advertisement