Lotsa white tears in here.

I'm guessin maybe she was trying to say that we all have, like, biases, or something? Like, quick conclusions on incomplete and/or superficial information. Useful survival technique - awkward in modern society - decidedly not demonic. Quintessentially human and not unique to white folks either. But if you define "racist" so loosely it does rather make it impotent. So were all racist and we'll never not be? Why am I listening to you then?

If you listen closely you can hear a faint cry on the wind,

"Fenton!"

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

Bronze is sufficient actually. You just need to declare it *dead, and wait 2 days until it goes from dead to deadpool, then you can put in the fix from the deadpool.

Of course, in this case, @eric3579 has already fixed it... that's the other way to fix it if the toaster won't listen to you - put in a comment and wait for one of us to pounce on it

I disagree.

This was in England, but (from HERE):
-----
“I tried to write the shortest joke possible,” he (Jimmy Carr) said. “So, I wrote a two-word joke which was: ‘Dwarf shortage’. It’s just so I could pack more jokes into the show.”

Carr added: “If you’re a dwarf and you’re offended by that, grow up.”

Ofcom has received two complaints about the incident, which aired on 4 November, and has decided it warrants a formal investigation to see if there has been a breach of the broadcasting code.
-----

That wasn't people telling Jimmy Carr that the joke "wasn't funny". They specifically were suggesting that he shouldn't / couldn't say it, and he might have to pay a fine or face other actual legal consequences for it.

Saying "that comedian's joke offended me, so I am never going to pay to see one of his shows ever again" is a perfectly acceptable decision.

Adding "and I will encourage my friends and acquaintances to do the same" is also basically OK, as long as you accept that they don't have to listen to you.

...But calling up Momthe Government and saying "that comedian made an offensive joke, I demand that you fine (/incarcerate, /torture, /summarily execute) him!" is just insane.

Right? I suggest just listening if you want to learn anything. I know I couldn't focus. Well, not on Pluto. Go Broncos.

@ChaosEngine

Just like with religion, there is no point in trying to get a point across to someone who doesn't want to hear..

I think I am listening to you. You think you are listening to me.

I KNOW you aren't listening to me.

I'm not that interested anymore in attempting to get my point across to you, dear Chaos. You want perfection in the world, which is a zealot's point of view. I can live with the horrible imperfection of humanity -- because I have no other choice. I have all of human history as support for my point of view.

The suffering of the idealist. I know it well. I have it in certain areas of my life. I can't stand seeing office systems that can be improved but human need for fiefdom's block efforts to make things better. I suffer and suffer and rail and shake my fist as I know in my ideal world things can run more smoothly. I've been in the same office for 30 years and have made some progress, but I am finally realizing I have to stop and just let it be. As an idealist, it drives me crazy.

But it's all good.

This. Is. The. Human. Condition.

The difference being my lenses are designed to show reality, and can self correct when a flaw is discovered. Religion glasses are fixed lenses that distort what you see intentionally.
You can't prove it only because you can't examine everything you can apply the scientific method to, but every time it's been applied to a problem/question, it has been the best method tried to answer the question, no matter what other methods are tried.
Please, explain the 'assumptions' you speak of. The assumption that reality is real, and what we measure is also real? I'm happy to make that assumption, and will admit that it is one, but a base one must assume if you wish to have a chance of understanding the real world. If you don't believe reality is real, you have little place in science, as it only attempts to explain reality.
The 'problem of induction' sure seems a misunderstanding of science, which does NOT say the laws of physics are immutable, or that a series of measurements PROVES a pattern that will continue. The laws of physics were different at and near the big bang, and patterns change. Science knows this, and accounts for it, in fact, science discovered it.
Of course I have a world view, but it is not rigid as your is. I can assimilate new information to modify my world view as it becomes available, you can not, you must modify the information to fit your view.
When my 'sources of information' are data from random experiments and studies of phenomena, they are NOT selected because they agree with my assumptions, they just happen to agree with them (usually) because I had good teachers that give me a good base to make assumptions from, and when I see the assumption is wrong, I toss it. It happens...just not about religion.
You don't listen to me seriously, because you're mind is made up, I don't listen to you seriously because you're a fallible human and can't possibly know the things you claim to 'know', nor can you prove the unprovable, and trying is a total waste of time.
Tell god to get off his ass and show me then, and we can stop all this BS...until he proves the unprovable to me, it will remain unproven.
Your awe at reality is not proof of anything except your awe, no matter how much you wish it to be proof of god. My awe at beauty is simply awe, nothing more.
I'm not looking at your last video link, I've spent WAY too much time on this already, for nothing. You can't admit you even might be wrong, and can't ever prove you're even partially right (I've explained why)...so Good night.

@GenjiKilpatrick

First, don't be a smarmy dick and try to tell me what to do, you aren't my parent.

Second, please learn how to read carefully, then actually READ before replying.

This ^ is ANOTHER comment off topic. THE TOPIC IS HER POSITION ON SEX WORKERS, AND YOUR INABILITY TO PROVE WHAT THAT POSITION IS.

Please learn how to stick with one argument and not move on to another, then another, then another when you can't back up your first. That's what you've done, you made a specific claim, I asked you for proof, you gave 'proof' that she's a bad person (which no one ever denied)...but not about your claim. EVER. STILL.

GET IT?!?! ONE ARGUEMENT/TOPIC. STICK TO IT AND ANSWER IT.

If you are going to make specific claims about her position(s) PROVE IT or stop saying it...at least to me.

You completely failed to provide a single piece of evidence about what you said about her sex worker stance...still. All you've ever provided is numerous non-sequitur videos and articles that did NOT address your claim.

YOU HAVE NEVER BACKED UP YOUR CLAIM about her hating sex workers with evidence. Other people's opinion is not evidence of hers, and that's all you've given. Not a single quote or video of HER backing you up. It must not exist, since you've spent hours trying to convince me, if you had a video or article where she clearly attacks sex workers, you would have provided it. Instead you've wasted hours of my time with links that had nothing to do with our topic.


Either learn to stick to the topic you start with, or leave me alone. I can't stand peoole who agrue like you, making a claim, claiming you can prove it, then providing nothing but time wasting, non-sequitur, off topic pieces showing how bad a person she is....when that's completely not the topic, then angrily attacking the listener because you failed to convince them.

I have NEVER supported Sarkeesian. Requireing proof of something NEW about her that's illogical is not "supporting her". Seeing that you've provided ZERO proof of your claim is not " supporting her" or "closing my mind due to bias"...it's a complete failure of you to provide a single word of EVIDENCE of your claim.

Change your tactic, or join lantern and trancecoach on ignore, because you are being completely ridiculous.

You don't convince me the sky is green by sending articles and videos about your pond. You won't convince me she hates sex workers by sending articles and videos about her terrible work as a 'feminist gamer' that has nothing to do with your claim.

Do I need to say it 7 more times, because I've said the same thing over and over and over and over...but you still act like I just ignored your evidence....but YOU DON"T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE ON THE TOPIC WE'RE ON.

STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.STAY ON TOPIC.

Negative, chief.

1) If you turn up the volume and listen closely, you can hear him change gears right before he starts accelerating. Are you really claiming it's not possible for a big-rig to change to a higher gear and put their foot down on the gas in a way that it would increase its speed?

2) The Nissan in front of him wasn't slowing down.

3) From all my years as a rambling man in the trucking game hauling loads down winding roads from Anaheim to New Orleans, truckers know full well how to teach a blonde bitch a lesson usually with the voice of CB Savage (look it up) in the back of their mind. If he wasn't trying to scare or collide, he could have slowed to prevent the accident. Unless you're saying big-rigs are also not capable of slowing down.

I love how passionate everybody is about debating traffic. How cute we all are.

Enough over-analyzing! If you think it looks cool, watch it and enjoy it.

If you don't think it looks cool, I probably won't listen to you anyway!

I don't care about the politics of the studios. I don't care about the feasibility of certain weapons. I don't care about how or why certain vehicles are used in certain situations. I just think it looks cool and have faith that it will be told by a good story teller. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out. I, for one, think that it's gonna rock.

And it makes me happy!

Straight up yes, just because your skin colour is white, doesn't mean you will be treated as a prince, I never intended to insinuate that at all, just look at the position of women throughout history, oppression works through many levels, class, sex, race, nationality, the list goes on, and I was only referring to race, and I should have really been writing in a manner which acknowledges intersections of oppression, so my bad, and good job chaos engine for calling out this failing.
This next thing is what bothers me, despite the anger and the vitriol expressed in this thread, all seem to agree with my central thesis of "don't diminish oppression which you don't experience" and "don't get your underwear in a twist when someone generalises about an oppressive group"

for example, I am English, and I will never try to diminish the perception of oppression that Irish faced, and still face today at the hands of the English. What's more if an Irish person says to me that the English treat them terribly, I would have to agree, throughout history and now, we have.

And this is the real crux: if an oppressed group says that another group that you belong to is oppressive, the proper reaction isn't go "OH I'M NOT LIKE THE OTHERS, PLEASE GIVE ME A GOLD STAR MR. OPPRESSED, ALSO SAYING THAT IS ACTUALLY RACIST/NATIONALIST/WHATEVER". The proper response is listen, so you can treat that person better, and hey if you are one of the good guys that stands up for oppressed groups good for you!, be happy with the notion that you are a good person, and not unhappy because you didn't get a pat on the back from said oppressed groups

It is not a white problem, it is a human race problem. Every ethnicity has racism towards others. I refuse to allow people, whose only real knowledge of racism is what they've been taught by professors who make a living off 'white guilt', to label my race as inherently the only racist one based off of what happened almost 150 years ago.

Are there white racists? Hell yes! There are also Hispanic racists, Asian racists, and Black racists. Every culture fears and has stereotypes about other cultures that are not logical, but are ingrained into their sub-conscious from the moment they learn how to listen. If you have ever been to Japan, you learn very quick that there is a undercurrent of racism that is extremely strong. Same in the Middle East, same in many parts of Africa.

Is it fair to only label white people as racists when most of the people living today do not come from a family that owned slaves, or in some cases were close to slaves themselves? Half of my family came over to this country from Germany and immediately went to work in the coal mines, paying a huge chunk of their wages to the company store to subsist. The other half came from Italy and were also relegated to the poor jobs that no one wanted. I am 100% certain that they were scared and racist towards other races, because everyone is scared of the unknown. You grow out of it over time and the mixing of cultures.

An important listen for you and all your kiwi brothers and sisters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0#t=1300