Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:23 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 933 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32533
Not Guardian, should be though:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2018 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14360
Location: XPAT CUNT
It's not bad advice, even if the reason for such advice is poor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2018 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32533
Zakar wrote:
It's not bad advice, even if the reason for such advice is poor.


Now that I think about it, it's damn sensible advice. Not a good idea to be rude to our future omnipotent overlords.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2018 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 3654
Location: Newport, Gwent
BBC getting in on the commentisfree act! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-3 ... ch-at-work


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2018 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 am
Posts: 3662
It is now officially impossible for any two human beings to interact socially without one of them being subject to an act of micro-aggression:

Quote:
People who ask to be addressed with they/them pronouns tend to identify as nonbinary, or outside of the gender binary. Agender, bigender, and gender-fluid people all technically fall under the “nonbinary” umbrella. As a result, nonbinary-identified people exist all over the spectrum of gender presentation. Yet the general assumption in progressive circles seems to be that nonbinary people are white, skinny, female, and gender nonconforming. This creates issues for any nonbinary people outside of those categories, as well as for people who meet those criteria but are not, in fact, nonbinary.


https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/05/using-gender-neutral-pronouns-could-actually-misgender-people.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23206
Silly Lily is back

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/ ... -115504227


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 9:12 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6926
And now they attack eachother ...................

Quote:
How white women use strategic tears to avoid accountability
Ruby Hamad
The legitimate grievances of brown and black women are no match for the accusations of a white damsel in distress


‘Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her’

That the voices of “women of colour” are getting louder and more influential is a testament less to the accommodations made by the dominant white culture and more to their own grit in a society that implicitly – and sometimes explicitly – wants them to fail.

At the Sydney writers’ festival on Sunday, editor of Djed Press, Hella Ibrahim, relayed the final minutes of a panel on diversity featuring writers from the western Sydney Sweatshop collective. One of the panellists, Winnie Dunn, in answering a question about the harm caused by good intentions, had used the words “white people” and “shit” in the same sentence. This raised the ire of a self-identified white woman in the audience who interrogated the panellists as to “what they think they have to gain” by insulting people who “want to read their stories.”

In other words, the woman saw a personal attack where there wasn’t one and decided to remind the panellists that as a member of the white majority she ultimately has their fate in her hands.

“I walked out of that panel frustrated,” Ibrahim wrote. “Because yet again, a good convo was derailed, white people centred themselves, and a POC panel was told to police it’s [sic] tone to make their message palatable to a white audience.”

Trauma assails brown and black women from all directions. There is the initial pain of being subjected to gendered racism and discrimination, there is the additional distress of not being believed or supported, and of having your words and your bravery seemingly credited to others.

And then there is a type of trauma inflicted on women of colour that many of us find among the hardest to disclose, the one that few seem willing to admit really happens because it is so thoroughly normalised most people refuse to see it.

It is what that writers’ festival audience member was demonstrating, and what blogger and author Luvvie Ajayi called the “weary weaponising of white women’s tears”.

To put it less poetically, it is the trauma caused by the tactic many white women employ to muster sympathy and avoid accountability, by turning the tables and accusing their accuser.

Almost every BW (black woman) I know has a story about a time in a professional setting in which she attempted to have a talk with a WW about her behavior & it has ended with the WW (white woman) crying,” one black woman wrote on Twitter. “The WW wasn’t crying because she felt sorry and was deeply remorseful. The WW was crying because she felt “bullied” and/or that the BW was being too harsh with her.”

When I shared these tweets on my Facebook page asking brown and black women if this had ever happened to them, I was taken by how deeply this resonated, prompting one Arab woman to share this story:

A WW kept touching my hair. Pulling my curls to watch them bounce back. Rubbing the top. Smelling it. So when I told her to stop and complained to HR and my supervisor, she complained that I wasn’t a people person or team member and I had to leave that position for being ‘threatening’ to a coworker.”

For the doubters, here is a mild version of this sleight-of-hand in action:

Notice it is the white woman – Jeanne Beker – who first interrupts the black woman – Jully Black – who takes the interruption in her stride. Black continues to speak passionately and confidently, which Beker interprets as a personal attack on her even though Black is clearly talking in general terms (just as Winnie Dunn was). Beker then attempts to shut Black down by essentially branding her a bully.

Had Jully Black not stopped and repeated Jeanne Beker’s words back at her – “Why are you attacking me?” – they would have passed largely unnoticed, just another woman of colour smeared as an aggressor for daring to continue speaking when a white woman wanted her to stop.

It doesn’t usually end this way. “White women tears are especially potent … because they are attached to the symbol of femininity,” Ajayi explains. “These tears are pouring out from the eyes of the one chosen to be the prototype of womanhood; the woman who has been painted as helpless against the whims of the world. The one who gets the most protection in a world that does a shitty job overall of cherishing women.”

As I look back over my adult life a pattern emerges. Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her. My confidence diminished and second-guessing myself, I either flare up in frustration at not being heard (which only seems to prove her point) or I back down immediately, apologising and consoling the very person causing me harm.

It is not weakness or guilt that compels me to capitulate. Rather, as I recently wrote, it is the manufactured reputation Arabs have for being threatening and aggressive that follows us everywhere. In a society that routinely places imaginary “wide-eyed, angry and Middle Eastern” people at the scenes of violent crimes they did not commit, having a legitimate grievance is no match for the strategic tears of a white damsel in distress whose innocence is taken for granted.

“We talk about toxic masculinity,” Ajayi warns, “but there is (also) toxicity in wielding femininity in this way.” Brown and black women know we are, as musician Miss Blanks writes, “imperfect victims”. That doesn’t mean we are always in the right but it does mean we know that against a white woman’s accusations, our perspectives will almost always go unheard either way.

Whether angry or calm, shouting or pleading, we are still perceived as the aggressors.

Likewise, white women are equally aware their race privileges them as surely as ours condemns us. In this context, their tearful displays are a form of emotional and psychological violence that reinforce the very system of white dominance that many white women claim to oppose.

• Ruby Hamad is a journalist and PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... untability


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14218
Location: Coalfalls
Lacrobat wrote:
It is now officially impossible for any two human beings to interact socially without one of them being subject to an act of micro-aggression:

Quote:
People who ask to be addressed with they/them pronouns tend to identify as nonbinary, or outside of the gender binary. Agender, bigender, and gender-fluid people all technically fall under the “nonbinary” umbrella. As a result, nonbinary-identified people exist all over the spectrum of gender presentation. Yet the general assumption in progressive circles seems to be that nonbinary people are white, skinny, female, and gender nonconforming. This creates issues for any nonbinary people outside of those categories, as well as for people who meet those criteria but are not, in fact, nonbinary.


https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/05/using-gender-neutral-pronouns-could-actually-misgender-people.html

Folk who wish to be 'addressed' by any form of third person pronoun need to go back to fúcken school. The word you are looking for is, ummmm, you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15177
Location: Auckland, NZ, Earth
I think in the future we will find out all those people were just trolling for comments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6537
_fatprop wrote:
And now they attack eachother ...................
Spoiler: show
Quote:
How white women use strategic tears to avoid accountability
Ruby Hamad
The legitimate grievances of brown and black women are no match for the accusations of a white damsel in distress


‘Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her’

That the voices of “women of colour” are getting louder and more influential is a testament less to the accommodations made by the dominant white culture and more to their own grit in a society that implicitly – and sometimes explicitly – wants them to fail.

At the Sydney writers’ festival on Sunday, editor of Djed Press, Hella Ibrahim, relayed the final minutes of a panel on diversity featuring writers from the western Sydney Sweatshop collective. One of the panellists, Winnie Dunn, in answering a question about the harm caused by good intentions, had used the words “white people” and “shit” in the same sentence. This raised the ire of a self-identified white woman in the audience who interrogated the panellists as to “what they think they have to gain” by insulting people who “want to read their stories.”

In other words, the woman saw a personal attack where there wasn’t one and decided to remind the panellists that as a member of the white majority she ultimately has their fate in her hands.

“I walked out of that panel frustrated,” Ibrahim wrote. “Because yet again, a good convo was derailed, white people centred themselves, and a POC panel was told to police it’s [sic] tone to make their message palatable to a white audience.”

Trauma assails brown and black women from all directions. There is the initial pain of being subjected to gendered racism and discrimination, there is the additional distress of not being believed or supported, and of having your words and your bravery seemingly credited to others.

And then there is a type of trauma inflicted on women of colour that many of us find among the hardest to disclose, the one that few seem willing to admit really happens because it is so thoroughly normalised most people refuse to see it.

It is what that writers’ festival audience member was demonstrating, and what blogger and author Luvvie Ajayi called the “weary weaponising of white women’s tears”.

To put it less poetically, it is the trauma caused by the tactic many white women employ to muster sympathy and avoid accountability, by turning the tables and accusing their accuser.

Almost every BW (black woman) I know has a story about a time in a professional setting in which she attempted to have a talk with a WW about her behavior & it has ended with the WW (white woman) crying,” one black woman wrote on Twitter. “The WW wasn’t crying because she felt sorry and was deeply remorseful. The WW was crying because she felt “bullied” and/or that the BW was being too harsh with her.”

When I shared these tweets on my Facebook page asking brown and black women if this had ever happened to them, I was taken by how deeply this resonated, prompting one Arab woman to share this story:

A WW kept touching my hair. Pulling my curls to watch them bounce back. Rubbing the top. Smelling it. So when I told her to stop and complained to HR and my supervisor, she complained that I wasn’t a people person or team member and I had to leave that position for being ‘threatening’ to a coworker.”

For the doubters, here is a mild version of this sleight-of-hand in action:

Notice it is the white woman – Jeanne Beker – who first interrupts the black woman – Jully Black – who takes the interruption in her stride. Black continues to speak passionately and confidently, which Beker interprets as a personal attack on her even though Black is clearly talking in general terms (just as Winnie Dunn was). Beker then attempts to shut Black down by essentially branding her a bully.

Had Jully Black not stopped and repeated Jeanne Beker’s words back at her – “Why are you attacking me?” – they would have passed largely unnoticed, just another woman of colour smeared as an aggressor for daring to continue speaking when a white woman wanted her to stop.

It doesn’t usually end this way. “White women tears are especially potent … because they are attached to the symbol of femininity,” Ajayi explains. “These tears are pouring out from the eyes of the one chosen to be the prototype of womanhood; the woman who has been painted as helpless against the whims of the world. The one who gets the most protection in a world that does a shitty job overall of cherishing women.”

As I look back over my adult life a pattern emerges. Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her. My confidence diminished and second-guessing myself, I either flare up in frustration at not being heard (which only seems to prove her point) or I back down immediately, apologising and consoling the very person causing me harm.

It is not weakness or guilt that compels me to capitulate. Rather, as I recently wrote, it is the manufactured reputation Arabs have for being threatening and aggressive that follows us everywhere. In a society that routinely places imaginary “wide-eyed, angry and Middle Eastern” people at the scenes of violent crimes they did not commit, having a legitimate grievance is no match for the strategic tears of a white damsel in distress whose innocence is taken for granted.

“We talk about toxic masculinity,” Ajayi warns, “but there is (also) toxicity in wielding femininity in this way.” Brown and black women know we are, as musician Miss Blanks writes, “imperfect victims”. That doesn’t mean we are always in the right but it does mean we know that against a white woman’s accusations, our perspectives will almost always go unheard either way.

Whether angry or calm, shouting or pleading, we are still perceived as the aggressors.

Likewise, white women are equally aware their race privileges them as surely as ours condemns us. In this context, their tearful displays are a form of emotional and psychological violence that reinforce the very system of white dominance that many white women claim to oppose.

• Ruby Hamad is a journalist and PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... untability


Jordan Peterson identified this early on that with identity politics its easy to split any way to attack anyone. Its a fatal flaw and they will turn on each other in the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:22 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6926
kiwinoz wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
And now they attack eachother ...................
Spoiler: show
Quote:
How white women use strategic tears to avoid accountability
Ruby Hamad
The legitimate grievances of brown and black women are no match for the accusations of a white damsel in distress


‘Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her’

That the voices of “women of colour” are getting louder and more influential is a testament less to the accommodations made by the dominant white culture and more to their own grit in a society that implicitly – and sometimes explicitly – wants them to fail.

At the Sydney writers’ festival on Sunday, editor of Djed Press, Hella Ibrahim, relayed the final minutes of a panel on diversity featuring writers from the western Sydney Sweatshop collective. One of the panellists, Winnie Dunn, in answering a question about the harm caused by good intentions, had used the words “white people” and “shit” in the same sentence. This raised the ire of a self-identified white woman in the audience who interrogated the panellists as to “what they think they have to gain” by insulting people who “want to read their stories.”

In other words, the woman saw a personal attack where there wasn’t one and decided to remind the panellists that as a member of the white majority she ultimately has their fate in her hands.

“I walked out of that panel frustrated,” Ibrahim wrote. “Because yet again, a good convo was derailed, white people centred themselves, and a POC panel was told to police it’s [sic] tone to make their message palatable to a white audience.”

Trauma assails brown and black women from all directions. There is the initial pain of being subjected to gendered racism and discrimination, there is the additional distress of not being believed or supported, and of having your words and your bravery seemingly credited to others.

And then there is a type of trauma inflicted on women of colour that many of us find among the hardest to disclose, the one that few seem willing to admit really happens because it is so thoroughly normalised most people refuse to see it.

It is what that writers’ festival audience member was demonstrating, and what blogger and author Luvvie Ajayi called the “weary weaponising of white women’s tears”.

To put it less poetically, it is the trauma caused by the tactic many white women employ to muster sympathy and avoid accountability, by turning the tables and accusing their accuser.

Almost every BW (black woman) I know has a story about a time in a professional setting in which she attempted to have a talk with a WW about her behavior & it has ended with the WW (white woman) crying,” one black woman wrote on Twitter. “The WW wasn’t crying because she felt sorry and was deeply remorseful. The WW was crying because she felt “bullied” and/or that the BW was being too harsh with her.”

When I shared these tweets on my Facebook page asking brown and black women if this had ever happened to them, I was taken by how deeply this resonated, prompting one Arab woman to share this story:

A WW kept touching my hair. Pulling my curls to watch them bounce back. Rubbing the top. Smelling it. So when I told her to stop and complained to HR and my supervisor, she complained that I wasn’t a people person or team member and I had to leave that position for being ‘threatening’ to a coworker.”

For the doubters, here is a mild version of this sleight-of-hand in action:

Notice it is the white woman – Jeanne Beker – who first interrupts the black woman – Jully Black – who takes the interruption in her stride. Black continues to speak passionately and confidently, which Beker interprets as a personal attack on her even though Black is clearly talking in general terms (just as Winnie Dunn was). Beker then attempts to shut Black down by essentially branding her a bully.

Had Jully Black not stopped and repeated Jeanne Beker’s words back at her – “Why are you attacking me?” – they would have passed largely unnoticed, just another woman of colour smeared as an aggressor for daring to continue speaking when a white woman wanted her to stop.

It doesn’t usually end this way. “White women tears are especially potent … because they are attached to the symbol of femininity,” Ajayi explains. “These tears are pouring out from the eyes of the one chosen to be the prototype of womanhood; the woman who has been painted as helpless against the whims of the world. The one who gets the most protection in a world that does a shitty job overall of cherishing women.”

As I look back over my adult life a pattern emerges. Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her. My confidence diminished and second-guessing myself, I either flare up in frustration at not being heard (which only seems to prove her point) or I back down immediately, apologising and consoling the very person causing me harm.

It is not weakness or guilt that compels me to capitulate. Rather, as I recently wrote, it is the manufactured reputation Arabs have for being threatening and aggressive that follows us everywhere. In a society that routinely places imaginary “wide-eyed, angry and Middle Eastern” people at the scenes of violent crimes they did not commit, having a legitimate grievance is no match for the strategic tears of a white damsel in distress whose innocence is taken for granted.

“We talk about toxic masculinity,” Ajayi warns, “but there is (also) toxicity in wielding femininity in this way.” Brown and black women know we are, as musician Miss Blanks writes, “imperfect victims”. That doesn’t mean we are always in the right but it does mean we know that against a white woman’s accusations, our perspectives will almost always go unheard either way.

Whether angry or calm, shouting or pleading, we are still perceived as the aggressors.

Likewise, white women are equally aware their race privileges them as surely as ours condemns us. In this context, their tearful displays are a form of emotional and psychological violence that reinforce the very system of white dominance that many white women claim to oppose.

• Ruby Hamad is a journalist and PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... untability


Jordan Peterson identified this early on that with identity politics its easy to split any way to attack anyone. Its a fatal flaw and they will turn on each other in the end.



Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20840
kiwinoz wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
And now they attack eachother ...................


Jordan Peterson identified this early on that with identity politics its easy to split any way to attack anyone. Its a fatal flaw and they will turn on each other in the end.



Basically SJWs will always turn on each other. It has always been the case.

What else will happen when you are programmed that there is always unfairness and a boogie-man oppressor is always holding you down because you aren't top of the ladder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1341
MungoMan wrote:
Lacrobat wrote:
It is now officially impossible for any two human beings to interact socially without one of them being subject to an act of micro-aggression:

Quote:
People who ask to be addressed with they/them pronouns tend to identify as nonbinary, or outside of the gender binary. Agender, bigender, and gender-fluid people all technically fall under the “nonbinary” umbrella. As a result, nonbinary-identified people exist all over the spectrum of gender presentation. Yet the general assumption in progressive circles seems to be that nonbinary people are white, skinny, female, and gender nonconforming. This creates issues for any nonbinary people outside of those categories, as well as for people who meet those criteria but are not, in fact, nonbinary.


https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/05/using-gender-neutral-pronouns-could-actually-misgender-people.html

Folk who wish to be 'addressed' by any form of third person pronoun need to go back to fúcken school. The word you are looking for is, ummmm, you.

Usted debe comprender que esto es normal en Argentina y Alemania por ejemplo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14218
Location: Coalfalls
shereblue wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
Lacrobat wrote:
It is now officially impossible for any two human beings to interact socially without one of them being subject to an act of micro-aggression:

Quote:
People who ask to be addressed with they/them pronouns tend to identify as nonbinary, or outside of the gender binary. Agender, bigender, and gender-fluid people all technically fall under the “nonbinary” umbrella. As a result, nonbinary-identified people exist all over the spectrum of gender presentation. Yet the general assumption in progressive circles seems to be that nonbinary people are white, skinny, female, and gender nonconforming. This creates issues for any nonbinary people outside of those categories, as well as for people who meet those criteria but are not, in fact, nonbinary.


https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/05/using-gender-neutral-pronouns-could-actually-misgender-people.html

Folk who wish to be 'addressed' by any form of third person pronoun need to go back to fúcken school. The word you are looking for is, ummmm, you.

Usted debe comprender que esto es normal en Argentina y Alemania por ejemplo.

Both of which use two versions of first person, singular in any case, don’t they?

People are adressed by their name, their title or whatever first person pronoun is appropriate. In English there is a choice of one for the latter, and it’s non- gendered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 51406
MungoMan wrote:
shereblue wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
Lacrobat wrote:
It is now officially impossible for any two human beings to interact socially without one of them being subject to an act of micro-aggression:

Quote:
People who ask to be addressed with they/them pronouns tend to identify as nonbinary, or outside of the gender binary. Agender, bigender, and gender-fluid people all technically fall under the “nonbinary” umbrella. As a result, nonbinary-identified people exist all over the spectrum of gender presentation. Yet the general assumption in progressive circles seems to be that nonbinary people are white, skinny, female, and gender nonconforming. This creates issues for any nonbinary people outside of those categories, as well as for people who meet those criteria but are not, in fact, nonbinary.


https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/05/using-gender-neutral-pronouns-could-actually-misgender-people.html

Folk who wish to be 'addressed' by any form of third person pronoun need to go back to fúcken school. The word you are looking for is, ummmm, you.

Usted debe comprender que esto es normal en Argentina y Alemania por ejemplo.

Both of which use two versions of first person, singular in any case, don’t they?

People are adressed by their name, their title or whatever first person pronoun is appropriate. In English there is a choice of one for the latter, and it’s non- gendered.



Non gendered ? , you f ucking monster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14218
Location: Coalfalls
bimboman wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
shereblue wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
Folk who wish to be 'addressed' by any form of third person pronoun need to go back to fúcken school. The word you are looking for is, ummmm, you.

Usted debe comprender que esto es normal en Argentina y Alemania por ejemplo.

Both of which use two versions of first person, singular in any case, don’t they?

People are adressed by their name, their title or whatever first person pronoun is appropriate. In English there is a choice of one for the latter, and it’s non- gendered.



Non gendered , you f ucking monster.

Also, I should have said second person of course. I should quit while I’m not too far behind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 965
Spackman!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 51406
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssion=true

Loverly piece conflation of so many issues into one badly written piece.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15581
Race obsessed twat is at it again. Great headline as well -


Meghan Markle's wedding was a celebration of blackness


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -blackness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32533
fatcat wrote:
Race obsessed twat is at it again. Great headline as well -


Meghan Markle's wedding was a celebration of blackness


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -blackness


Blackey blackety blackety blackety blackety blackety black.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15581
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fatcat wrote:
Race obsessed twat is at it again. Great headline as well -


Meghan Markle's wedding was a celebration of blackness


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -blackness


Blackey blackety blackety blackety blackety blackety black.


Oh yes. This line is magnificent -

"Markle used her wedding to introduce her new peers to blackness."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 10:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23206
fatcat wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fatcat wrote:
Race obsessed twat is at it again. Great headline as well -


Meghan Markle's wedding was a celebration of blackness


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -blackness


Blackey blackety blackety blackety blackety blackety black.


Oh yes. This line is magnificent -

"Markle used her wedding to introduce her new peers to blackness."


Hirsch's hair is a disgraceful mess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2746
fatcat wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fatcat wrote:
Race obsessed twat is at it again. Great headline as well -


Meghan Markle's wedding was a celebration of blackness


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -blackness


Blackey blackety blackety blackety blackety blackety black.


Oh yes. This line is magnificent -

"Markle used her wedding to introduce her new peers to blackness."

Did I miss seeing a Haka?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20840
fatcat wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fatcat wrote:
Race obsessed twat is at it again. Great headline as well -


Meghan Markle's wedding was a celebration of blackness


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -blackness


Blackey blackety blackety blackety blackety blackety black.


Oh yes. This line is magnificent -

"Markle used her wedding to introduce her new peers to blackness."


Obviously when Prince Harry promoted the heroism of Victoria Cross winner Johnson Beharry to the press and his multiple visits to Africa he had never encountered blackness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 4:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 965
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/22/gove-identitarian-speech-us-identity-politics
Nesrine Malik achieves the impossible by getting Guardian readers rallying in support of Michael Gove. Getting flayed alive in the comments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10860
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dlines-say


Editorial getting a kicking

From 1,000 to 19,000 pa moped crimes. Christ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:38 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6926
This is pretty fantastic

Quote:
Why can’t we hate men?

By Suzanna Danuta Walters
June 8
Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.

It’s not that Eric Schneiderman (the now-former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before live-streaming sexual assaults and red pill men’s groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.

Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half.

But, of course, the criticisms of this blanket condemnation of men — from transnational feminists who decry such glib universalism to U.S. women of color who demand an intersectional perspective — are mostly on the mark. These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies. Growing movements to challenge a masculinity built on domination and violence and to engage boys and men in feminism are both gratifying and necessary.

But this recognition of the complexity of male domination (how different it can be in different parts of the world, how racism shapes it) should not — must not — mean we forget some universal facts.

Pretty much everywhere in the world, this is true: Women experience sexual violence, and the threat of that violence permeates our choices big and small. In addition, male violence is not restricted to intimate-partner attacks or sexual assault but plagues us in the form of terrorism and mass gun violence. Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs, local and federal government, business, educational leadership, etc.; wage inequality continues to permeate every economy and almost every industry; women continue to provide far higher rates of unpaid labor in the home (e.g., child care, elder care, care for disabled individuals, housework and food provision); women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels; women have lower rates of property ownership.

The list goes on. It varies by country, but these global realities — of women’s economic, political, social and sexual vulnerabilities — are, well, real. Indeed, the nations in which these inequities have been radically minimized (e.g., Iceland) are those in which deliberate effort has been made to both own up to gender disparities and to address them directly and concretely.


So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? For all the power of #MeToo and #TimesUp and the women’s marches, only a relatively few men have been called to task, and I’ve yet to see a mass wave of prosecutions or even serious recognition of wrongdoing. On the contrary, cries of “witch hunt” and the plotted resurrection of celebrity offenders came quick on the heels of the outcry over endemic sexual harassment and violence. But we’re not supposed to hate them because . . . #NotAllMen. I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman, but when they have gone low for all of human history, maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.

The world has little place for feminist anger. Women are supposed to support, not condemn, offer succor not dismissal. We’re supposed to feel more empathy for your fear of being called a harasser than we are for the women harassed. We are told he’s with us and #NotHim. But, truly, if he were with us, wouldn’t this all have ended a long time ago? If he really were with us, wouldn’t he reckon that one good way to change structural violence and inequity would be to refuse the power that comes with it?

So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ost&wpmm=1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15177
Location: Auckland, NZ, Earth
I don't hate anyone except Suzanna Danuta Walters


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6537
She can hate men all she wants. Just don't complain about the inevitable consequences.

These people are the neo cons of the culture war. Until there is one they won't be happy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6542
kiwinoz wrote:
She can hate men all she wants. Just don't complain about the inevitable consequences.

These people are the neo cons of the culture war. Until there is one they won't be happy.


I suspect that the neocons are the neocons of the culture war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15177
Location: Auckland, NZ, Earth
Regardless, it's a terrible article. Quite frightening really that someone can harbour such hatred and feel justified enough to publish it in such a well known newspaper. Kinda weird for WashPost to publish it actually.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6542
True Blue wrote:
Regardless, it's a terrible article. Quite frightening really that someone can harbour such hatred and feel justified enough to publish it in such a well known newspaper. Kinda weird for WashPost to publish it actually.


Or, not weird at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19435
Location: Wandering around Europe
seems quite reasonable, as an avid mumsnet reader i see worse all the time

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rig ... s=100&pg=1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32533
Santa wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Regardless, it's a terrible article. Quite frightening really that someone can harbour such hatred and feel justified enough to publish it in such a well known newspaper. Kinda weird for WashPost to publish it actually.


Or, not weird at all.


The editorial team have got a bigger kicking than the writer over this. It's amazing to see the decline of the Washington Post and NY times in the past few years. Collapsing faster and further than even the telegraph.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15177
Location: Auckland, NZ, Earth
Santa wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Regardless, it's a terrible article. Quite frightening really that someone can harbour such hatred and feel justified enough to publish it in such a well known newspaper. Kinda weird for WashPost to publish it actually.


Or, not weird at all.


What do you mean? The article is hate speech, there is no redeeming quality to it. Perhaps they think it's healthy to get these attitudes out in the open rather than fester, but all this article does is help to confirm that gender studies is just a harem of misandry. No one wants that (well apart from a few militant feminists). This lady needs help not empowerment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32533
Akkerman wrote:
seems quite reasonable, as an avid mumsnet reader i see worse all the time

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rig ... s=100&pg=1


Interesting thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 6542
True Blue wrote:
Santa wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Regardless, it's a terrible article. Quite frightening really that someone can harbour such hatred and feel justified enough to publish it in such a well known newspaper. Kinda weird for WashPost to publish it actually.


Or, not weird at all.


What do you mean? The article is hate speech, there is no redeeming quality to it. Perhaps they think it's healthy to get these attitudes out in the open rather than fester, but all this article does is help to confirm that gender studies is just a harem of misandry. No one wants that (well apart from a few militant feminists). This lady needs help not empowerment.


It's not 'weird' in the sense that they often publish things like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10860
I found this stat the other day, no not made up, really surprised me.


What % of drunk drivers who kill someone whilst drunk behind a wheel are men?












94%

I know men drive more, I say pub culture but we don't really seem to have much of that like we used to.

Another reason to hate every last one of you. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2227
What does "lean out" mean in that article? I'm having trouble keeping up with all these neologisms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18716
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
I found this stat the other day, no not made up, really surprised me.


What % of drunk drivers who kill someone whilst drunk behind a wheel are men?












94%

I know men drive more, I say pub culture but we don't really seem to have much of that like we used to.

Another reason to hate every last one of you. :D


isnt' it something to do with women are shit drivers already and manage to crash BEFORE they get pissed ?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 933 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Farva, _fatprop, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, Jeff the Bear, koroke hangareka, Spyglass, Ted., UncleFB, usermame, Waka Nathan, WoodlandsRFC, Working Class Rugger and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group