Sorry for the self-centered topic, but it's something I've been wondering about for a little while, and I feel you guys might be some of the few that would have an objective view on the subject and also have enough information to assess.

As I've mentioned to the point of annoying some of you, I consider myself a zoophile activist. So in a literal sense I fight for something related to social equality. I also could reasonably consider myself a feminist. I think there are some issues that need to be addressed regarding how females are treated. I also try to do my best for a variety of other issues, such as regarding non-cis genders (trans* and non-binary gender stuff), and I'm vocal about my support for polyamory.

On the other hand, I've also talked about men's rights, and I think the people who say that women are disadvantaged exclusively are clearly wrong. I think the Gamergate movement has some good points. I'm also extremely sex-positive, which could go either way.

Notably, I am very much against the term intersectional feminism, for the same reason I'm not a fan of the term egalitarian - they are too broad, and to say anything about being a supporter of equality in general feels more like an exercise in mental masturbation than a meaningful position.

SJW is a term that's almost always used negatively, to indicate someone who's not sincere in their expressed beliefs. I'm confident that part doesn't apply to me - I know my own sincerity - but I'm ignoring that connotation for now.

Again, I do apologize for the self-centered topic here, and I also apologize in advance if this topic gets out of hand (because well, I can see many ways for that to happen), but it was something I've been curious about for a while, and as I said, I think this is perhaps the only place that I could ask this and get a reasonable answer.

you have some views against common sjw views and you have some views that are commonly associated with sjws.

Pretty sure you just opened a huge can of worms with bringing up that topic...eh, whatever. Here we go!

At this point everyone and everything is being called a SJW at some point or another. Even if they themselves are the exact opposite and actually hate SJWs. Like neckbeard or faggot it's now just another word you can throw at somebody's head if you don't like 'em or their stance on a certain topic.

I have to admit that I don't think very highly of SJWs and try to avoid them wherever I go. I've just had too many negative experiences in the past. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that a lot of crazy people (and not the good kind of crazy) that like to talk down to everyone who's not thinking the same way they do, seem to wear that title as a badge of honor or some kind. A lot of them can handle neither criticism nor people making jokes about a subject they don't like (and punish those who do).

It might just be me but I feel like a lot of 'em are highly oversensitive and think that people's freedom of speech isn't as valuable as their right to not feel offended by somebody making a joke or genuinely criticizing them (safe spaces make me cringe; I mean really?).

Furthermore, a lot of SWJs seem to be blind to everything around them except for the thing they're defending. Unlike you, a lot of 3rd wave feminists don't give a crap about men's rights or anything besides their version of feminism. A few years back I would have called myself a feminist as well but now after all those insane nutjobs have claimed that term, I'm not calling myself that anymore (I'm not happy about that but that's just how it is at the moment).

Edit:
I feel like I should point out that even though I generally dislike the term SJW and the people that call themselves this, there are a few goals me and those SJWs (and in this case you as well) have in common. But I think a lot of the things SJWs 'fight' for are a load of ludicrous nonsense.

Judging from my bias against SJWs from what I have seen, and based on our previous debates, I'd say no. You're willing to listen (or read) to the points others are bringing up, and offer articles backing up your own point. You aren't overly agressive about it, either. To the definition, perhaps you qualify as a "Proper SJW," though. Just don't ask me to call you that, because I don't like it.

Clawdragons said:
I fight for something related to social equality. I also could reasonably consider myself a feminist.

Uhh, I think you're using the wrong term here. Feminism is "Supress male rights, give females more rights." Equality is "Everybody deserves the same rights."

I also try to do my best for a variety of other issues, such as regarding non-cis genders (trans* and non-binary gender stuff), and I'm vocal about my support for polyamory.

We need to just straight up adopt nonbinary terms from other languages and get it over with. The aggressive arguments that stem from it are just stupid. The only times I've seen SJWs bring it up, they actually say "Ew get away, no special snowflakes allowed."

SJW is a term that's almost always used negatively, to indicate someone who's not sincere in their expressed beliefs. I'm confident that part doesn't apply to me - I know my own sincerity - but I'm ignoring that connotation for now.

As I said in my opening, I automaticaly associate the term with the negativity surrounding it. Even "True Justice Warriors" have that same negativity surrounding them. You're a good person (Though I suddenly find myself wondering what pronouns you use), willing to debate what matters to you, and that's what matters.

Furrin_Gok said:
The only times I've seen SJWs bring it up, they actually say "Ew get away, no special snowflakes allowed."

That's generally your cue to respond with, "No special snowflakes, huh? Then why the hell are YOU even here?!"

>;)

Furrin_Gok said:
Uhh, I think you're using the wrong term here. Feminism is "Supress male rights, give females more rights."

that is not what feminism is. feminism is about bringing equality for all genders and breaking harmful gender roles and such (this includes gender roles that are harmful for men).
what you are thinking of is misandry.

Mutisija said:
that is not what feminism is. feminism is about bringing equality for all genders and breaking harmful gender roles and such (this includes gender roles that are harmful for men).
what you are thinking of is misandry.

Things have changed. Just listen to a few of the more popular YouTube feminists and you can see that. It's insane.

Edit:
And you don't seem to think the gamergate movement has a few valid points? Don't take any offense but I'm just a little curious...are you one of those people that believe video games are sexist towards women? It doesn't have anything with the current topic but as I said, I'm curious. ^^

Mutisija said:
that is not what feminism is. feminism is about bringing equality for all genders and breaking harmful gender roles and such (this includes gender roles that are harmful for men).
what you are thinking of is misandry.

Oh. Well, then, in that case I'm experiencing more cases of people claiming they're one thing and surrounding it with their negativity when it's actually not what it truly means.

aurel said:
Look at the date.
rly, look at the date

The world ended at 2012, there is no time beyond that, and now its 2016.
This is hell
aliens
SOMETHING
People at 2011 were not this fucking insane!

No, dude, the world ended at 2000. We were in a simulation for twelve years after that, but that crashed, and now we're in limbo. When's the next doomsday, again?

Obi said:
Pretty sure you just opened a huge can of worms with bringing up that topic...eh, whatever. Here we go!

Yeah. As I said:

Clawdragons said:
I also apologize in advance if this topic gets out of hand (because well, I can see many ways for that to happen)

Furrin_Gok said:
We need to just straight up adopt nonbinary terms from other languages and get it over with. The aggressive arguments that stem from it are just stupid. The only times I've seen SJWs bring it up, they actually say "Ew get away, no special snowflakes allowed."

I've seen a greater movement to recognize that "they" functions as a gender-neutral singular pronoun and not just a plural pronoun, as well as a few people who prefer the term "they". Which I think is probably the best solution. "They" has been used that way for a while now (since the 14th century actually), so I don't get why there's even any opposition to it.

I'm going to avoid commenting on the Gamergate thing and Feminism definitions because this topic is already smouldering and I don't want to throw gasoline on it. If anyone likes, you can send me a PM for my clarifications on those points though.

Furrin_Gok said:
As I said in my opening, I automaticaly associate the term with the negativity surrounding it. Even "True Justice Warriors" have that same negativity surrounding them. You're a good person (Though I suddenly find myself wondering what pronouns you use), willing to debate what matters to you, and that's what matters.

Hey, I appreciate that.

I think I might not have been clear: I'm not asking for the purpose of identifying as a SJW or what have you. I was more curious how I came off to people, and if I was seen that way, rather than looking for a label.

As for what pronouns I use... That is both a complicated and very simple question. Simple in the sense of, you can use whatever pronouns you like and I won't mind. Most people use male pronouns, since I'm biologically male and I don't do anything to look otherwise. Complicated because, as far as gender goes, I think I'd be happy as male or female. In fantasy at least, it's maybe a 50/50 split. Same with game avatars, and the like. Hence why I don't care what pronouns are used. I try to be easygoing.

Been writing this response for a while now. Going to click post. I better not see that this has all devolved into a flame war while I was writing, or I shall be forced to waggle my finger and tut-tut quite ferociously.

Edit: Good. You are all spared from that terrible fate.

Furrin_Gok said:
Uhh, I think you're using the wrong term here. Feminism is "Supress male rights, give females more rights." Equality is "Everybody deserves the same rights."

pretty much this nowadays.

Mutisija said:
that is not what feminism is. feminism is about bringing equality for all genders and breaking harmful gender roles and such (this includes gender roles that are harmful for men).
what you are thinking of is misandry.

i wish people would start paying attention in regards to this instead of blindly saying feminism is about gender equality. what feminism is about has changed over the years so quit blindly insisting that it hasn't. it was about equality among genders but it no longer is, largely thanks to the radicals.

You are too self-aware to be an SJW and you also support men's rights.

SJW, feminist, MRA, Gamergater etc mean different things to different people but you are centrist and reasonable so don't worry about it.

Clawdragons said:
Complicated because, as far as gender goes, I think I'd be happy as male or female. In fantasy at least, it's maybe a 50/50 split. Same with game avatars, and the like. Hence why I don't care what pronouns are used. I try to be easygoing.

Ah, gender fluid, huh? I think you're the first person who I've actually spoken to who identified as such.

Been writing this response for a while now. Going to click post. I better not see that this has all devolved into a flame war while I was writing, or I shall be forced to waggle my finger and tut-tut quite ferociously.

Send in the pyros! post #253643

(Why are all of our pyro images that actually include fire of Pinkie Pie?)

Furrin_Gok said:
Ah, gender fluid, huh? I think you're the first person who I've actually spoken to who identified as such.

Some mix between gender fluid, genderqueer and bigender. I don't even know what to call myself.

As a general rule, I'm pretty open about these sorts of things though so if you have any questions about anything, you can always send a PM. I don't know. I always like to talk to people when I find they are of some identity I've not had a chance to talk to before, so I like to extend the same offer to others.

Clawdragons a zoophile activist? How do you think I feel working around animals in a veterinary hospital setting, and looking up furry porn on e621?

GameManiac said:
Clawdragons a zoophile activist? How do you think I feel working around animals in a veterinary hospital setting, and looking up furry porn on e621?

Like a sneaky Snake?

GameManiac said:
Clawdragons a zoophile activist? How do you think I feel working around animals in a veterinary hospital setting, and looking up furry porn on e621?

Probably like a 'normal' (=non-furry) person who works at a hospital for humans?

Lance_Armstrong said:
Like a sneaky Snake?

Obi said:
Probably like a 'normal' (=non-furry) person who works at a hospital for humans?

I almost feel like a double-agent. Helping animals by day, fapping to them by night.

You are you, which is all that matters.

We would likely not get along but I appreciate and respect your views regardless.

SJW is a meaningless Reddit term these days, and basically just applies to anyone who isn't a self-centred prick who can't see beyond their own selfish desires. People just use it to shut down arguments, as in "You're an SJW, so I win."

not saying a thing, just going to leave this here as a preemptive response to anyone else who tries saying feminism is still about equality. >.> i suppose it depends on what exactly a persons idea of "equality" is.

Clawdragons said:
SJW is a term that's almost always used negatively, to indicate someone who's not sincere in their expressed beliefs.

Used to be a time when "social justice warrior" didn't really mean what "SJW" means today. There was a point when the "check your privilege"- and "triggered"-types needed to be classified, and not entirely surprisingly the term SJW was born from social justice warrior and eventually supplanted its meaning.

As I remember it, a social justice warrior was someone who was generally outspoken on civil liberty issues and certain ideals that, to them, should be elevated to civil liberty status but weren't. They were the type to butt in on and potentially derail conversations with unwanted idealistic "corrections" just because someone committed a social faux pas or said something that would be inconsiderate or perhaps discriminatory to a third party not currently represented in the same room. A social justice warrior of old would push their ideals around where they weren't really needed or perhaps advocate some cause in earnest as part of an (attempted) grassroots social movement. Aggressive but mostly harmless idealists, generally saying agreeable things but forcing the issue to the point of detracting from their message a bit.

Nowadays, we have SJWs who, with their sheer belligerence, have probably either swept up their predecessors or forced a dissociation out of disgust. I feel the SJW banner attracts the lowest common denomination of present-day do-gooders. Self-righteous and thoughtless. Oh yes, and some people use the guise of SJW as permission to be assholes in public. Obviously, the entire group can't be painted with the same brush because more composed and respectful individuals will find their ideals aligned with SJWs', but those people aren't often seen representing their SJW fellows. I would characterize the former social justice warriors as loud and annoying and the latter SJWs as shouting, obnoxious, and backwards.

Clawdragons, I wouldn't pigeonhole you to either group. As far as I'm concerned, your issues and reasoning go both above and beyond what I expect from either group.

There's nothing wrong with having any set of beliefs, and there's certainly nothing wrong with expressing them. SJWs are the bastard children of political ignorance and childishness. You seem well-informed and decently mature, so you are probably not. Then again, I really don't know you well. Ask your friends who know you; we're just random dudes on the internet.

GringoAmericano said:
There's nothing wrong with having any set of beliefs, and there's certainly nothing wrong with expressing them. SJWs are the bastard children of political ignorance and childishness. You seem well-informed and decently mature, so you are probably not. Then again, I really don't know you well. Ask your friends who know you; we're just random dudes on the internet.

But my friends who know me are a biased sample, and they may also be less willing to answer honestly. They may also see a different side of me than you guys do. So it's worth asking both them and others.

Sometimes the opinion of someone who's a stranger can be more valuable. At the very least, it's worth asking and listening.

Also! Though it wasn't my goal, I got a lot of nice compliments on the thought I try to put into my positions from a bunch of you, and I really appreciate those comments. It was, for lack of a better word, quite sweet.

I am a PB&J

TheHuskyK9 said:
I am a PB&J

With crusts?
Heathen.



I am a caveman.



I live in a cave with a dog.



I spare no time for isms.



I have time for real things,
and real people.



None of you may be real.



I may not be real,
simply a construct of your imagination.

I always have a slight worry that "SJW" feminism undermines actual attempts for gender equality. Do people who watch their videos on, say, the wage gap then later decide the gap isn't real? This is scary stuff.

I thought that SJW's were all like "REHHHHH, CIS-SCUM!" and "GO KILL YOURSELF FOR BENEFITING FROM RAPE CULTURE, YOU SHITLORD!" I also heard they cyber-bullied some kid because she committed the harbl crime of drawing some Steven Universe character as "too thin" or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD_fKNwV9Wo

I also hear that they ~hate~ comedy....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s8rG9djOPw

You gunna break his legs, PC Principal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_x7yTqod0I

1. Are you reactive, especially on the internet or other media where you can avoid being called to account for it?
2. Is it against something that is at least vaguely political (ie. is viewed as a trend or movement or etc, rather than just random individuals)?

1:No? or 1:Yes but 2:No? Then you're not a SJW. Otherwise you are.

GringoAmericano said:
There's nothing wrong with having any set of beliefs, and there's certainly nothing wrong with expressing them.

Not sure this is sound. There are plenty of beliefs that don't seem to work, neither for their owners nor for society. Believing that THE MAN (or woman, soulless corporate spook, whatever..) is keeping you down is a good example.
I'm not gonna hassle a person just for having that kind of belief, but that's not because its not wrong, it's because doing so wouldn't achieve anything productive. Attacking people's coping mechanisms directly, even if they're clearly a problem to everyone concerned, just doesn't work.

SJWs are the bastard children of political ignorance and childishness. You seem well-informed and decently mature, so you are probably not.

Yeah, pretty much.

Kaeetayel said:
I always have a slight worry that "SJW" feminism undermines actual attempts for gender equality. Do people who watch their videos on, say, the wage gap then later decide the gap isn't real? This is scary stuff.

It pretty much has to, AFAICS. If there aren't an equal amount of people being loud and reasonable, then the people who are loud and unreasonable will prevail.
(ie. If reasonable feminists are drowned out by unreasonable feminists -- not in number but in volume -- then the primary definition of feminist will necessarily include unreasonableness, and therefore discredit any actually good arguments made under the banner of feminism.)

treos said:
pretty much this nowadays.

i wish people would start paying attention in regards to this instead of blindly saying feminism is about gender equality. what feminism is about has changed over the years so quit blindly insisting that it hasn't. it was about equality among genders but it no longer is, largely thanks to the radicals.

No, feminism is and has been about equality, just because some radical misandrists are trying to hijack the movement doesn't mean they deserve being called feminists. They are feminazi misandrists and nothing else, they do not deserve the credibility to be able to change what a legitimate movement is about.

Clawdragons said:
Some mix between gender fluid, genderqueer and bigender. I don't even know what to call myself.

Neither of those, that's just pragmatism with a huge helping of being down to earth.

Which opens the other can of worms that I am greatly against any of those tumblr genderfluidity stuff and other things. People that think they are trains get treated for having a mental illness, I don't expect this to go any different way in a couple years.
Or science goes crazy and we start being able to turn people into trains (like uploading consciousness into a computer and have that guy then control a train), that would be amazing and a hilarious solution.

aurel said:
@NotMeNotYou

Nope, genderfluid are people who are transexual, however they have seen this :D <---- NIGHTMARE BUTTON! AVOID CLICKING!

Or science goes crazy and we start being able to turn people into trains (like uploading consciousness into a computer and have that guy then control a train), that would be amazing and a hilarious solution.

Genderfluid don't have to be trans, actually. They could still be their born sex and simply be willing to accept being treated as either gender another wishes. It's up to the individual if they want to be considered that, though.

aurel said:
@NotMeNotYou

Nope, genderfluid are people who are transexual, however they have seen this :D <---- NIGHTMARE BUTTON! AVOID CLICKING!

We generally prefer stuff like this to not be linked, but since it's on-topic and educational (e.g., surgery versus violence), it's fine to stay. Thank you for giving a warning on it.

parasprite said:

Ignoring the transphobia...I managed to find some gems in the comments:

• can they have there period or have a baby (dozens of variations)
• Wait so do you have a piss hole like a girls AND a vagina or do you piss out the vagina?

These two are valid questions. I mean, I would assume that by now doctors know how to construct the female urethra, but can a transgender actually reproduce? I don't want to sit through watching a surgery to see if they mention it in the video D: (Even if it requires like, a testicular/ovular transplant, is it something doctors can do?)

Edit: To clarify, I found an article saying "No," but it was dated back in 2011. Has medical science advanced since then?

Furrin_Gok said:
These two are valid questions. I mean, I would assume that by now doctors know how to construct the female urethra, but can a transgender actually reproduce? I don't want to sit through watching a surgery to see if they mention it in the video D: (Even if it requires like, a testicular/ovular transplant, is it something doctors can do?)

Edit: To clarify, I found an article saying "No," but it was dated back in 2011. Has medical science advanced since then?

They use the male urethra, the male one is also a lot longer so there is enough material there to work with. And no, they get a vagina but they miss the womb, fallopian tubes, as well as the ovaries. These also can't be substituted from spare male bodyparts since their function is vastly different to the male organs. Maybe they could be grown from the male's DNA in the next century, but likely not before then.

Furrin_Gok said:
These two are valid questions. I mean, I would assume that by now doctors know how to construct the female urethra, but can a transgender actually reproduce? I don't want to sit through watching a surgery to see if they mention it in the video D: (Even if it requires like, a testicular/ovular transplant, is it something doctors can do?)

Edit: To clarify, I found an article saying "No," but it was dated back in 2011. Has medical science advanced since then?

They are definitely valid. I was just surprised to see so many of them.

1. Yes, they use the male urethra and cut it short. Since the penis is (tldr anatomy) two halves of penis tissue + urethra + glans, all they have to do is split the two halves and separate the urethra. The urethra can be cut short with the glans being moved to form a clitoris.
2. Not yet. Although ovaries and testicles are analogous to each other, they serve completely different functions. Transplants would probably be what I'd expect to work the soonest, but I haven't heard of any done sucessfully (in humans or animals).

I do actually remember hearing something about progress being made towards creating wombs. But ovaries are still a long way away.

aurel said:
Or science goes crazy and we start being able to turn people into trains (like uploading consciousness into a computer and have that guy then control a train), that would be amazing and a hilarious solution.

Neat. Like that one episode of Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex, where the dead guy has his buddy upload his brain into some fancy new tank. Me personally, I'd rather be KITT from Knight Rider.

NotMeNotYou said:
No, feminism is and has been about equality, just because some radical misandrists are trying to hijack the movement doesn't mean they deserve being called feminists. They are feminazi misandrists and nothing else, they do not deserve the credibility to be able to change what a legitimate movement is about.

Definitions have nothing to do with deserving, unfortunately. If idiots are working the PR machinery better, under your banner, than you, the presumably reasonable, the meaning of your banner will be the one they create.

I believe that they are, currently, winning.

Furrin_Gok said:
Genderfluid don't have to be trans, actually. They could still be their born sex and simply be willing to accept being treated as either gender another wishes.

+1
(there's also that playing different roles can be relaxing and grounding vs playing -- in a broad sense -- one role all the time)

NotMeNotYou said:
Neither of those, that's just pragmatism with a huge helping of being down to earth.

Which opens the other can of worms that I am greatly against any of those tumblr genderfluidity stuff and other things. People that think they are trains get treated for having a mental illness, I don't expect this to go any different way in a couple years.
Or science goes crazy and we start being able to turn people into trains (like uploading consciousness into a computer and have that guy then control a train), that would be amazing and a hilarious solution.

Yeah, but that's not particularly helpful if someone's asking though. For the the point of a label would be ideally so that I didn't have to explain things every time someone asked.

As for gender fluidity in general, I'm not actually sure what you mean. What things fall under the group of things you're against? Transsexuality? Transgender stuff? Or just the less common non-binary sorts of things?

NotMeNotYou said:
No, feminism is and has been about equality, just because some radical misandrists are trying to hijack the movement doesn't mean they deserve being called feminists. They are feminazi misandrists and nothing else, they do not deserve the credibility to be able to change what a legitimate movement is about.

savageorange said:
Definitions have nothing to do with deserving, unfortunately. If idiots are working the PR machinery better, under your banner, than you, the presumably reasonable, the meaning of your banner will be the one they create.

I believe that they are, currently, winning.

i'd say your both right and from what i've seen of news and youtube, the "feminazis" are by far the louder and more actively seen variety of "feminist". oh and it extends to just about everywhere too. you name it, theres likely feminazis stirring up a shitstorm about it in some way or another.

then theres that MGTOW movement, which if i understand things right is a side effect of the feminist movement as it is currently. or maybe it's only just now becoming far more well known and has always been around.

can't even enjoy being a gamer much anymore. it's all $, $, and more $. devs and publishers trying every trick they can possibly think of to suck the $ out of consumers wallets (those relying on micro-transactions and P2W business models can go F a flaming cactus for all i care. rotten greedy so and so's.). publishers treating they're employees like complete garbage or worse. (iirc some are now hoping konami goes bankrupt and the various IP's they hold get sold off to better people.) oh and theres SJW's and feminazis trying to cause trouble on top of all that too.

i miss the days when you didn't have to worry about all that crap. don't even want to think of how the future might be with things as they are now, too depressing.

Clawdragons said:
Transgender stufF?

Here, let me make that kerning even worse
for you:

s tu fF

(downsides of learning typography :)

savageorange said:
Here, let me make that kerning even worse
for you:
(downsides of learning typography :)

Fixed. Somehow I could barely even see it looking back at my original message. I'd have never noticed were it not for the bold.

If you guys hate feminism as much as me, you're gonna LOVE this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfIzlKwxbU8

Ahri_The_Pure_Slut said:
If you guys hate feminism as much as me, you're gonna LOVE this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfIzlKwxbU8

I hate "The Young Turks" even more than I hate feminism.
They treat their viewers like mentally retarded children.
Oh no, I've used the forbidden r-word
maybe I should've used the au-word or the g-word instead

Munkelzahn said:
I hate "The Young Turks" even more than I hate feminism.
They treat their viewers like mentally retarded children.
Oh no, I've used the forbidden r-word
maybe I should've used the au-word or the g-word instead

Holy shit, thank you. I consider myself a liberal, but TYT is so fucking insufferable. I browse their trash alot just to laugh at how ridiculous it is. Dont get me started on their audience, they're completely delusional. Blows my mind that they have so many subs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08

lol. Great song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc

Also, this.... yeah I know, it's TJ and for some reason people don't like him.

Ahri_The_Pure_Slut said:
Holy shit, thank you. I consider myself a liberal, but TYT is so fucking insufferable. I browse their trash alot just to laugh at how ridiculous it is. Dont get me started on their audience, they're completely delusional. Blows my mind that they have so many subs..

Methinks you would like the atheist roo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2VGAkZ-luw
.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUZf8oZERkw
Moaaaaaaaaaar......

You know, there's really no need to constantly multi-post. You can include everything in one post.

Anyhoo. I'll chime in that I, too, can't stand TYT. I'd try to explain why, but my reasons are uncountably infinite and thus there is no first reason which I can start at.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Methinks you would like the atheist roo.

if you're a fan of smug, self-righteous psuedo-intellectuals...

Fenrick said:
if you're a fan of smug, self-righteous psuedo-intellectuals...

When he isn't being ~legitimately~ racist, he actually does have ~points~

I can like individual aspects of a person and still think other shit about them is stupid... like... I like aspects of Bill Maher, but buying into that "some guy with arthritic goat's milk in Mexico totally cured Charlie Sheen of AIDS" ~is~ stupid. Being anti-vax ~is~ stupid. I will select the parts of someone's stuff that I like but also still reserve the right to criticize them for other shit.

http://deadline.com/2016/01/real-time-with-bill-maher-charlie-sheen-samir-chachoua-1201693424/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/five-years-on-bill-maher-is-still-an-antivaccine-crank-and-proves-it-yet-again/

On the topic of the racist 'roo, I'm going to drop this here.

Coughlan is a major drama magnet, and I get many people can't stand him. But this video had me cracking up.

This was much more funny and entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKE3OENUPIQ

Why do all the atheists on the internet have to bitch-fight with each other though? Fred Phelps is probably laughing in his grave.

GameManiac said:
I almost feel like a double-agent. Helping animals by day, fapping to them by night.

*batman voice*
Because you are the furry that animals deserve, but not the one they need right now.

Munkelzahn said:
I hate "The Young Turks" even more than I hate feminism.
They treat their viewers like mentally retarded children.
Oh no, I've used the forbidden r-word
maybe I should've used the au-word or the g-word instead

I've seen a couple of their videos but I've never understood why people seem to hate them so much.

~THIS~ is what I think of when I think of / hear "SJW."

http://www.therebel.media/watch_triggered_protester_pours_bottle_of_urine_on_lauren_southern_because_she_was_winning_debate

You disagree with what I think, you are offending me, so I am going to dump urine on you, or physically attack you. That is my basic perception of SJW.

Also, mega lol @ "I identify as an attack helicopter."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g67z_xBe07Q
Or something like this fine young lady.

I'm Pro-Choice also, buuuuuuuut... come on, no need to get violent, lol. I'm gay, also... but I'm not gunna show up to a Westboro Baptist Church rally and just walk up and deck one of the Phelps-tards. Debate them with their own silly book, yes, but not get ~physical~

The moment you start to get ~violent~ and physically aggressive is the moment you lower yourself to the level of your opponent and become just as bad as they are.... and that is what I see a lot of the more stereotypical SJWs doing, getting unnecessarily violent and using tactics of force and drowning out the other side to get their way. If I were not merely just homosexual, but non-cis or something else, I would still think SJWs are assholes who don't speak for me as much as I would think that of an atheist who decided it would be a good idea to firebomb a church. Extremism in any form is stupid.

Hurting people, for any reason other than self-defense (or they're some kinky sumbitch who's into that) is stupid. And that "hurt" includes emotional bullying, methinks. Who the fuck cares if someone draws a chubby character thin, or a thin character chubby. It's art. I don't throw some ragey fit when somebody draws Tails or Klonoa as female.

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/steven-universe-fanartist-bullied-controversy/

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Debate them with their own silly book

That's... still a pretty combative thing to say.

Fenrick said:
That's... still a pretty combative thing to say.

I guess.... but how else are you supposed to debate a theist? Would it be "mean" to tell a female Christian about the parts of the Bible that say women are basically property? lol. Hey, at least debating them on their beliefs is a step above just hitting them, or making threats of physical violence against them. I consider that to be a lot more productive than just giving them more reasons to feel like martyrs getting roughed up "because it's what God wants." Assaulting them would just reinforce their belief that they're being hurt because it's what the Bible said would happen.

John 15:18 - "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."

Oh... and I'm not a feminist, or a "male-ist" - I'm a secular humanist / atheist.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
I consider that to be a lot more productive than just giving them more reasons to feel like martyrs getting roughed up "because it's what God wants." Assaulting them would just reinforce their belief that they're being hurt because it's what the Bible said would happen.

Or... you could let them be, because the vast majority of them are not looking to antagonize you.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Would it be "mean" to tell a female Christian about the parts of the Bible that say women are basically property?

Yes, but it would be mostly ignorant and misguided, because the Bible (and every major religious text, really) is constantly interpreted to mean whatever the hell the reader wants it to mean.
Good people will use it to justify good acts, like traveling to devastated third-world countries and help the needy for no personal gain.
Bad people will use it to oppress others for their own benefit.
And, of course, those who despise its followers will use it to show how degenerate and cruel its teachings are.
And all these people will cherry-pick whatever supports their view, even though the Bible was written over the course of several millennia by dozens of different people with conflicting ideologies, and translated from languages that no longer exist.
One random passage is hardly representative of its general message.

Debate them with their own silly book, yes,

post #745859

Dragonlayer said:
Some Undertale thingie.

Naaaaaaaaaah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SRZwuqrU-s

#GU

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
stuff

from my time on youtube i've hardly ever seen an actual calm debate involving theists.

either the "debate" devolves into argument or the theist in question starts repeating itself over and over, ignoring how lots of people stop by giving various reasons and bits of logic to disprove or argue against the theist. and that's not counting anything related to the LGBT community. people opposed to that community are even less likely to maintain a calm, reasonable debate without it devolving.

it's kinda hard to maintain any debate in general when theology comes into the discussion. probably why so many sites and forums on the internet try not to get caught up in it and either don't allow or heavily disapprove of such discussions.

only rarely does a debate with such people remain calm and civil.

"And, of course, those who despise its followers will use it to show how degenerate and cruel its teachings are." ~ You perhaps might be mistaking dislike for a belief system for dislike of the individual person. If they can "hate the sin, not the sinner" then I can dislike the belief, but not the believer.... Fair?
.
.
Matthew 5:18-19 - "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 16:17 - "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."

James 2:10 - "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Regardless of an individual's personal view on the Bible, if they are a "Christian" the text seems to indicate that you are to follow the book in its entirety, and that "cherry picking" is actually not allowed. I also constantly run into what are thought to be trump cards laid by the theists, either "Jesus nulled the O.T. so we don't really have to follow it" or "you're taking that out of context." Well, here's my trump card.... if God actually existed and cared enough about being properly understood, taking his "word" out of context or using it for nefarious means would be impossible. If God can be so clever as to have preemptively encoded the data for HIV / AIDS into humans as a lock-out on the buttsex (I know, I know, HIV originates from the Simmian Immuno Virus, not skydaddy magic) then what could stop him from putting similar lock-outs on his "word?"

Or hey, why not, instead of giving us a dumb old book written by people who still thought that the Earth was flat and that rotting meat left out long enough magically transmogrified into flies, give us some kind of fancy technological device from the very start, sort of like one of them tharr Time Lord Memory Cubes like what the Doctor has? Or maybe a book that magically adds new stuff to itself, like the one in The Neverending Story?
.
.
"Yes, but it would be mostly ignorant and misguided, because the Bible (and every major religious text, really) is constantly interpreted to mean whatever the hell the reader wants it to mean.

Good people will use it to justify good acts, like traveling to devastated third-world countries and help the needy for no personal gain. Bad people will use it to oppress others for their own benefit.

And, of course, those who despise its followers will use it to show how degenerate and cruel its teachings are. And all these people will cherry-pick whatever supports their view, even though the Bible was written over the course of several millennia by dozens of different people with conflicting ideologies, and translated from languages that no longer exist. One random passage is hardly representative of its general message."

Hmmm.... well, I guess I can kind of agree with you on that, any dickwad with enough time can use the Bible to make a case for any agenda they want.

https://israelect.com/ChurchOfTrueIsrael/comparet/comp8.html
Like this here fella, Bertrand L. Comparet, who says his interpretation of the Bible toooootally validates his belief that race mixing is WRAWWWWNGUH.

Also, I guess I see what yer saying... "take the good with the bad, but don't focus so much on the bad." Well, I guess by that train of thought, if I took a copy of Mein Kampf, crossed out every part of it that says something bad about the jews, or wanting to kill the jews, then that would also be a "Good Book."

Yeah, I catch yer drift... like how, yeah, the Nazis did some super shitty stuff like operate on live human subjects, but it did lend some valuable information to the world of science and medicine. And without Wernher von Braun getting brought over to the USA via Operation Paperclip, we probably wouldn't have gotten the necessary knowledge in the field of creating rockets for landing us on the moon. Not saying like "hooray, Nazis!" or something, but ya know... that thing yer tryna get across... "take the good with the bad..."

Anyway, TL;DR mode disengaged.... my general point was that, my observations of the "SJW" shows them to act heavily on emotion, I used to also... I used to be very extremist in my feelings and views, but I calmed down a lot after I realized you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. I would not dump a bottle of my piss on Shirley Phelps-Roper or try to fist-fight with Steve Drain (dude's stocky and he'd probably win), or Fred Phelps if he was still alive. I would much rather just debate the subject without letting my "being offended" result in me launching an unwarranted physical assault against my adversary.

SJWs call non-SJWs "shit lords." But SJWs themselves are kind of like Sith Lords, because they succumbed to the dark side, they act snide, like every single person with "white privilege" is filled up with white pride, or that if you don't accept someone who identifies as an oil frigate, you're a dumb bigot, or you're an ignorant douche if you don't believe in Tumblerinas with hive-minds.

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

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
text

just going along with the point here. the same could be said of just about any "holy" book. the one middle eastern people is supposed to be all about peace right? right? and yet if anyone anywhere on the planet makes even the slightest offense (out of the lengthy list of things they consider to be an offense) everyone just flips out and loses they're shit.

that reminds me of something the Joker said in batman: dark knight but i can't really remember it exactly. something about chaos i think.

holy fuck. what

treos said:
just going along with the point here. the same could be said of just about any "holy" book. the one middle eastern people is supposed to be all about peace right? right? and yet if anyone anywhere on the planet makes even the slightest offense (out of the lengthy list of things they consider to be an offense) everyone just flips out and loses they're shit.

that reminds me of something the Joker said in batman: dark knight but i can't really remember it exactly. something about chaos i think.

Right, or Sagan forbid, someone draw a cartoon of Mohammed (Charlie Hebdo Newspaper), or write a book they don't like.... (Salman Rushdie). Beliefs are "ok" I guess... but killing over imaginary things is silly, also letting your kid die because you think prayer is somehow more effective than actual medicine.

Call me when praying gives some kid some new hands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFyP_R6wPr8
And I don't mean praying for the surgery, I mean, bam, new hands magically sprouted from his wrist stumps cuz Gawd.

Science gets the shit done that spooky woo-woos won't.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Beliefs are "ok" I guess... but killing over imaginary things is silly, also letting your kid die because you think prayer is somehow more effective than actual medicine.

oh man, i remember reading a news article about something like that once. poor kid, died from VERY easily prevented problems had he been taken to a hospital iirc.