a pyode amedha

sj blog | belarus appreciation blog | seventeen | hipster blogging |

radicalrascality:

"Nothing is ever enough for people like you. We ended slavery. Not enough. We gave you equal rights. Not enough."

He went on, but I had to stop right there because this dumbass said he wish racism was not a thing and swears he isn’t racist and acted like Black people were ungrateful because they weren’t satisfied during the period between slavery and the Civil Rights era.

And telling him that equal rights on paper is not the same thing as equal rights in practice wasn’t enough for him. And when he backed himself into his racist, elitist (and don’t you hate when broke people are elitist, like what the hell kind of indoctrination have you undergone, wake the fuck up), corner; he totally reframed the debate.

He brought up kids in Syria. “They have it worse.” So talking about anti-Black discrimination in America is stopping people from talking about Syria… how? “I’m just saying there are other things to talk about.” And you feel like this shouldn’t be talked about because— “I never said that.” Pretty sure you said stop complaining. And then he brought up Asian Americans and Latinos, as if Asian Americans aren’t referred to in the field as model minorities for no reason — and I’m not saying that it’s a good thing, or that there aren’t issues, just that the issues and rates on the similar issues are notably different — to say that he thinks everyone should be included in a discussion. But, again, did you not say all of the dumbest possible things to downplay the statistical fact of the general Black American experience and say “stop complaining?” The backpedaling was amazing.

And he accused me of bringing race into it. Yet, I shared an anti-ableism post with components of racism, yes, but I did not mention them. Race was mentioned when he decided to complain about “reverse racism” and how no one talks about it and how a Black person wouldn’t be punished for an anti-White hate crime (dumbest of fucks, I swear). So I had to remind him of that. And ask why he the people who are statistically proven to be hurt by the system should stop complaining so we can talk about Syrian kids, but it makes perfect sense to come onto someone’s link talking about something completely irrelevant and that something being anti-White racism. Or is that on par with what happens to children in Syria?

Some people are impossible, boy. Don’t even realize how much a part of the problem they are.

Not to mention the line, “Even Native Africans hate Black people.” After going on and on about how it’s wrong to generalize White people. Funny, though, because some of the UN reports on anti-Black discrimination in America are from investigations carried out by Black Africans, but I don’t know, I guess they don’t count.

And, after listing only some of the ways institutional racism comes into play and how it puts Black people at a disadvantage, he goes on and on about, “Oh, really? Tell me about your time in jail?” And if it were face to face, I probably would have. “If life is so bad for you, how did you get to go to France?” A scholarship created for students that are commonly discriminated against, dumbass. But, oh, if my one singular experience is supposed to be reflective of the Black experience at large, then I may as well assume you have no financial problems at all and are in college getting a pre-med b.s. because of these rich ass White kids rolling around in luxury cars on campus.

They don’t even realize the shit they say, man. They just don’t.

(Source: zizicat, via kallisteii)

adhoption:

poorpoorpitifulme:

adhoption:

schaka:

just-smith:

bluesigma:

real-justice-waluigi:

it’s still very strange to Waluigi that feminists are complaining about having to wear shirts in public and claiming oppression when there are women in other countries being denied an education based on their gender.

while i understand where you’re coming from and agree to an extent, you’re kinda coming off as saying ‘other people have it worse so you shouldn’t complain about [x]’

Waluigi should stop complaining about feminists choosing certain things to discuss when there are people all over the world actually murdering each other. You’re criticising the wrong group; get your priorities straight.

The appeal to worse problems is a really bad argument. People on all sides of this debate should know better than to use it.

While you are correct, you also moved the goal post from oppression to problems and I think there is a fair point in saying that indecent exposure being against the law doesn’t quite qualify as oppression, but rather as discrimination at best.

That’s not what “moving the goal posts” means. “Appeal to worse problems” is the common name for the logical fallacy, and it applies whether or not both cases qualify as oppression, one does and the other doesn’t, or both do not. If my example had mentioned an instance oppression as the other option, not murder, my point wouldn’t have changed. I’d still be pointing out the same fallacy. 

There’s a fair point in questioning whether having to wear shirts in public is rightly labelled “oppression”, but this is a question of whether the practice fits a defined set of criteria for the term, and not whether there are relatively worse practices occurring on the other side of the planet. The situation elsewhere has no bearing on whether or not a given practice meets a given definition.

You can agree with the opinion behind somebody’s rhetoric without also accepting the fallacy they use in that rhetoric. Both responses here only attacked the fallacy, and whether or not you agree that compulsory shirting is oppressive is therefore irrelevant to their commentary.

But surely whether or not not being allowed shirtless in public counts as oppression is at the very heart of this entire discussion? After all, Walugi didn’t actually say in their post that not being allowed to be shirtless wasn’t a problem, just that it was ridiculous to consider such an issue ‘oppression’, given the things that count as oppression in other parts of the world, which are undeniably far more severe. Walugi’s point, as far as I can make out, is that the idea of using the same word to describe problems such as not being able to walk topless in public and problems like not being allowed basic education is harmful and somewhat preposterous, given the massive disparity in severity between these two issues. They don’t even seem to be saying that the ban on toplessness isn’t an issue, at least as I can read it. Their whole point seems to be about what should and should not qualify as oppression. 

As I have literally just explained, nobody is claiming that. Nobody is accusing Waluigi of claiming that the topless ban double-standard isn’t an issue, and criticising them for that. Nobody is defending the idea that this situation is oppression, or even weighing in on that discussion. The responses merely chide Waluigi for using a relative rather than an absolute measurement in coming to that conclusion.

There will always be much more brutal instances of oppression, but their existence is completely irrelevant to whether the situation you are assessing counts as oppression. That is a matter of facts and definitions.

Whether or not the Atlantic slave trade occurred, the arrest of political dissidents in Korea is still oppression. If the entire population of Brazil was slaughtered next week in the most brutal genocide the world had ever seen, other instances of oppression would continue to be oppression. If every country in the world became a pleasant liberal democracy tomorrow, me disagreeing with you on Tumblr still wouldn’t count as oppression.

These are questions of facts and definitions, whether criteria are met in a specific case, and whether or not they are met in a different case is completely irrelevant. There will always be more and less severe examples under the same label, but you mention this like it is reason to exclude the least severe example. Do that and you’ll have the same situation, just with one fewer case, and by the same logic you’ll have to again exclude the least severe. Soon enough, you’ll be left with just one case under the definition, despite the fact that the criteria were fairly general and intended to cover a wide variety of cases.

Just as the existence of worse problems elsewhere does not stop something being a problem, the existence of worse oppression does not stop something being oppression. Whether or not we agree that the topless ban is oppression is completely irrelevant to our ability to recognise this argument as fallacious. 

(via pastelprincessish)

do computer clocks ever show the right time or is that another fairytale disney will attempt to subvert in cgi and give a one-word title

Anonymous What are your main issues with the RSJ movement here on tumblr tho?

radicalrascality:

Employing the same tactics — though stopping short of death threats, go-kill-yourselfs, and rape wishes — of “debate” that SJWs do.

Being equally and sometimes more closed-minded as/than SJWs are.

Being equally and sometimes more bigoted as/than SJWs are.

You know how SJWs refuse to believe that White cishet men never have any reason to complain? It’s exactly the same, except with a different target for “Man up and move on” sentiments.

The reluctance to call out group faves when they’re being shitheads because god forbid we upset each other right ooh am so ‘fraid. And the never-ending cock-sucking for brownie points. Well, maybe that should be asslicking then?

Rule # 12: Only three types of people tell the truth: kids, drunk people, and anyone who is pissed the fuck off.

— Richard Pryor (via bl-ossomed)

(Source: notesfromarmageddon, via kallisteii)

kitca:

teamheya:

'Girl picking up girls'

everyone needs to watch this!

I love the girl who says “Why the fuck not?”

(via queenqueercutie)

madeupmonkeyshit:

She’s a very freaky gurl, don’t bring her to mama

First you get her name, then you get her number

Then you get some brain in the front seat of the Hummer

(Source: ruinedchildhood, via queenqueercutie)

‘m Sw’d’n ‘n g’d l’ck try’n t’ ‘ndr’st’nd ‘nyth’n I s’y

— APH Sweden, every fanfic ever (via greed-the-dorkalicious)

expressions-of-nature:

Midwinter | CaveCanem42 on Deviant Art.

(via cosmicflavouredcupcake)

mineyen:

total-queer-move:

LOOK. IT’S EVERY SINGLE STEREOTYPE ABOUT MEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS PUT INTO ONE HANDY-DANDY DEMOGRAPHICS SURVEY SO IT CAN BE STATISTICALLY VALIDATED!! [x]

THANKS R/MENSRIGHTS!!

These results are beyond sketchy. Going through the survey you can see multiple instances of the exact same answers punched in mere seconds apart in succession:

An open survey like this is extremely easy to tamper with and I wouldn’t trust these results. Makes sense since MRA stereotypes are heavily based on their supposed demographics and flooding the results with bot-responses would be easy to validate these negative stereotypes.

Take a look at a similar demographics survey from a year ago.

The results are much more varied in all regards and are much more liberal. Even comparable to the current r/feminism survey. Though note that the r/feminism sample size is smaller at 213 than the 600 so from last year’s MRA survey, and much much smaller than the 3068 of the current.

Are we to believe that r/mensrights, with a subscriber count roughly 2.6 times greater than r/feminism’s (88,400~ / 33,400~), garnered a staggering 14.4 times more answers, almost all of which contrast heavily with last years results and fall in line almost perfectly with stereotypes and show signs of botting?

I call bullshit.

And it goes without saying that for both surveys, r/mensrights and r/feminism alike, that since the sample sizes are so puny within their populations, and are solely to one website, they’re barely any indication of either entire movement.

I’m neither MRA nor Feminist, but this unscientific and questionable survey is extremely susceptible to manipulation and sabotage that promotes negative stereotypes (that often aren’t even related to the topics at hand) that are used instead of actual discussion.

(via nietzschesghost)

Anonymous people should be able to marry who they want. regardless of race. not because they wish for the "destruction" of their culture but because they happen to love that person goddamnit

logicsomething:

general-westergaard:

If romantic love comes before your love of your people and your culture then you’re doing something wrong, friend. 

you’re of english and scottish descent, meaning that the precious “culture” you’re desperately trying to save from a non-existent threat is already a massively tainted combination of celtic, roman, anglo-saxon, viking and norman practices so you’re actually impure as heck and should stop trying to pull the MUH CULTURAL PURITY card and instead just flat-out say “i hate the darkies but don’t have a real excuse outside of immaturity and bigotry” thank you

Fixed. theme by Andrew McCarthy