The difference of isms.

[The-Traveling-Bard]

/ending this here

Haha, if you say so mate. You're unwilling to listen or learn, that's really not my problem, and your utter ignorance is sort of cute in a way. You're not a big picture person, I can dig it, but you could at least try. I love that I specifically said the relationship wasn't causal, yet your counter was "It's totally not causal!". Nice one. But apparently this discussion's over, and I can't say I haven't enjoyed it. When you get to university, take some sociology courses, it'll be good for you.

^-^ and you're also unwilling to listen to me.
So don't try to walk away from this completely holy.

I don't listen to people who don't listen to me.

The fact you just will not acknowledge that social media has little-to-no impact on the way people behavior in the real life.
And how we should be focusing on the *real* issues with social groups not shunning everyone into a hole just because you want to put on your Christ Armor and go to battle and act your like your some higher superior righteous moral good guy.

If society can't even draw a line between assholes being assholes and people beating other people to death .
I'm very sad about this. That we can't separate the assholes from the actual people who do horrible things to other people.

Because I seriously can not remember the last time I heard a fucking sammich joke and thought that I should go beat my fucking wife.


This like me arguing on the Anita thing. That no one wants to acknowledge how she is actually wrong 90% of the time and tries to see things when they aren't there.

Example: She thinks Christmas love songs are sexist because wanting to be with a person you love is sexist apparently. (Sadly I am not even joking)

 

[RowOfSaints03]

no, not all ism jokes are so bad, but they are still wrong and they are easaly offenceive to many people. It is my ferm unbies beleaf that people who say ism's and mean it should be shot in a major artery.

 

[ThreeName]

^-^ and you're also unwilling to listen to me.
So don't try to walk away from this completely holy.

I don't listen to people who don't listen to me.

The fact you just will not acknowledge that social media has little-to-no impact on the way people behavior in the real life.
And how we should be focusing on the *real* issues with social groups not shunning everyone into a hole just because you want to put on your Christ Armor and go to battle and act your like your some higher superior righteous moral good guy.

If society can't even draw a line between assholes being assholes and people beating other people to death .
I'm very sad about this. That we can't separate the assholes from the actual people who do horrible things to other people.

Because I seriously can not remember the last time I heard a fucking sammich joke and thought that I should go beat my fucking wife.


This like me arguing on the Anita thing. That no one wants to acknowledge how she is actually wrong 90% of the time and tries to see things when they aren't there.

Example: She thinks Christmas love songs are sexist because wanting to be with a person you love is sexist apparently. (Sadly I am not even joking)

You're seeing it all in binary mate. You're obsessed with "drawing a line" when it's all just shades. I've told you it's in damn degrees, you need to pay attention. I'm listening to you, telling you that you're wrong isn't the same as ignoring you. Actually, it's basically the opposite. I don't give a flying shit about morality; I'm here to argue for things I know to be true.

It appears you don't believe that homophobic language contributes to stigma. If that's false, then you don't believe stigma has any significant effect on the lives of the stigmatised. Which of these is the correct statement?

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

^-^ and you're also unwilling to listen to me.
So don't try to walk away from this completely holy.

I don't listen to people who don't listen to me.

The fact you just will not acknowledge that social media has little-to-no impact on the way people behavior in the real life.
And how we should be focusing on the *real* issues with social groups not shunning everyone into a hole just because you want to put on your Christ Armor and go to battle and act your like your some higher superior righteous moral good guy.

If society can't even draw a line between assholes being assholes and people beating other people to death .
I'm very sad about this. That we can't separate the assholes from the actual people who do horrible things to other people.

Because I seriously can not remember the last time I heard a fucking sammich joke and thought that I should go beat my fucking wife.


This like me arguing on the Anita thing. That no one wants to acknowledge how she is actually wrong 90% of the time and tries to see things when they aren't there.

Example: She thinks Christmas love songs are sexist because wanting to be with a person you love is sexist apparently. (Sadly I am not even joking)

You're seeing it all in binary mate. You're obsessed with "drawing a line" when it's all just shades. I've told you it's in damn degrees, you need to pay attention. I'm listening to you, telling you that you're wrong isn't the same as ignoring you. Actually, it's basically the opposite. I don't give a flying shit about morality; I'm here to argue for things I know to be true.

It appears you don't believe that homophobic language contributes to stigma. If that's false, then you don't believe stigma has any significant effect on the lives of the stigmatised. Which of these is the correct statement?

First define what stigma you're talking about.
And how is calling someone gay contributing to that stigma?

 

[maffro]

and people making ism jokes.

In fact.. my girlfriend actually just texted me this.
Me: Go cook it yourself.
Her: I can't! ;-;
Me: Why not? D:
Her: I like it on the grill. Grilling is a man's job!


... is she really being sexist, or is she just being a smartass?

Remember sexist COMES FROM A HATRED/ANGER TOWARDS THE OPPOSITE GENDER.
Did she say this out of hatred towards me?
No. She didn't.

You're confused, I think.

Sexist is a state of being. Someone who is sexist/racist tends to pigeonhole people based on these attributes, gender/race, usually through negative generalisation, though not even necessarily negative. You may assume all blacks can run super fast, which is a racist generalisation, even though many would believe it's a positive assumption and supported by the predominance of god-tier black sprinters. And this doesn't have to mean hatred/anger, by the way. Plenty of people think other people are great, as long as they stick to what they're made to do.

-Ism, on the other hand, is employing and communicating these techniques. No, your girlfriend wasn't being sexist, but she was employing sexism to communicate a point. My secondary school was very diverse and integrated racially, and no-one had an issue employing racism for humourous effect, based on the shared knowledge that no-one was actually racIST. If you're employing racism/sexism anonymously, there's no reason for people not to assume you're racist/sexist in turn.

Depending on context, there's nothing inherently wrong with racism and sexism, though I'd have to say there was with being racist and being sexist, which are very distinct.

 

[ThreeName]

First define what stigma you're talking about.
And how is calling someone gay contributing to that stigma?

Glad you asked. There's a concept called "hegemonic masculinity". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity). Hegemonic masculinity has always been anti-homosexual. It is, essentially, what feminists and LGBT people rally against. Homophobic language (i.e. using "gay" as a pejorative term) is equating the target as a homosexual and, thus, less of a man. It perpetuates the stereotype of homosexuality as a negative, that being gay makes you less of a man and indeed, less worthy of being a part of society.

There's been a link suggested between masculinity, homophobia and violence. Hell, Kimmel and Maher (2003) found that school shootings between 1983-2001 were often carried out in retaliation for use of homophobic language and threats to the perpetrator's manhood/s. Corbett (2001) suggests that the use of the word "******" in youth is actually a precursor to homophobic ideals later in life. Tomsen and Mason (2001) signal that violent acts against women and gay men are often due to the perception that the victim is situated outside gendered boundaries, usually for the "protection" of masculine identity. The use of homophobic language in youth is, again, used as a reference point for later attitudes (Plummer, 2001). In addition, stigma consciousness is a precursor to depression among homosexuals, those with more stigma consciousness reported more depressive symptoms(Lewis et. al., 2003). Use of homophobic lengauge is directly related to bullying among boys (Poteat and Rivers, 2010). Poteat, Kimmel and Wilchins (2010) found the association between masculine norms and aggressive behavior and homophobic behavior was strong among the same group.

*puffs* okay, there's like 10 minutes on Google Scholar. This shit's all related, bro.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

First define what stigma you're talking about.
And how is calling someone gay contributing to that stigma?

Glad you asked. There's a concept called "hegemonic masculinity". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity). Hegemonic masculinity has always been anti-homosexual. It is, essentially, what feminists and LGBT people rally against. Homophobic language (i.e. using "gay" as a pejorative term) is equating the target as a homosexual and, thus, less of a man. It perpetuates the stereotype of homosexuality as a negative, that being gay makes you less of a man and indeed, less worthy of being a part of society.

There's been a link suggested between masculinity, homophobia and violence. Hell, Kimmel and Maher (2003) found that school shootings between 1983-2001 were often carried out in retaliation for use of homophobic language and threats to the perpetrator's manhood/s. Corbett (2001) suggests that the use of the word "******" in youth is actually a precursor to homophobic ideals later in life. Tomsen and Mason (2001) signal that violent acts against women and gay men are often due to the perception that the victim is situated outside gendered boundaries, usually for the "protection" of masculine identity. The use of homophobic language in youth is, again, used as a reference point for later attitudes (Plummer, 2001). In addition, stigma consciousness is a precursor to depression among homosexuals, those with more stigma consciousness reported more depressive symptoms(Lewis et. al., 2003). Use of homophobic lengauge is directly related to bullying among boys (Poteat and Rivers, 2010). Poteat, Kimmel and Wilchins (2010) found the association between masculine norms and aggressive behavior and homophobic behavior was strong among the same group.

*puffs* okay, there's like 10 minutes on Google Scholar. This shit's all related, bro.

Lol! Google Scholar. c:< *Bows down*

A lot of the stuff I can just say .

... Well no shit. Derp. That shouldn't be news for anyone.

"suggests that the use of the word "******" in youth is actually a precursor to homophobic ideals later in life."
So is he suggesting it, or is he stating it as a fact?
I would like to call bullshit on this one as well because that may be completely different for this generation. Since you know. WE'RE IN A FUCKING GENERATION. Therefor how does he even know that? This generation isn't in their 30s yet.

also people suggest that violent video games cause violent behaviors.

I can suggest I am Jesus Christ himself.


As for the depression among homosexuals. Well fuck. I would be depressed too if people were beating me, denying me my rights, and not hiring me because I am gay. So no brainer there.

I still don't see how sammich jokes contributes to any of that.
I don't see how 300,000 16 year olds calling each other gay on psn/xbox live is contributing to that.

You can preach that shit until the sun goes down but there is still no REAL proof (at least not in your paragraph.) that boys on xbox live/psn is contributing to all that shit.

 

[ThreeName]

Lol! Google Scholar. c:< *Bows down*

A lot of the stuff I can just say .

... Well no shit. Derp. That shouldn't be news for anyone.

"suggests that the use of the word "******" in youth is actually a precursor to homophobic ideals later in life."
So is he suggesting it, or is he stating it as a fact?
I would like to call bullshit on this one as well because that may be completely different for this generation. Since you know. WE'RE IN A FUCKING GENERATION. Therefor how does he even know that? This generation isn't in their 30s yet.

also people suggest that violent video games cause violent behaviors.

I can suggest I am Jesus Christ himself.


As for the depression among homosexuals. Well fuck. I would be depressed too if people were beating me, denying me my rights, and not hiring me because I am gay. So no brainer there.

I still don't see how sammich jokes contributes to any of that.
I don't see how 300,000 16 year olds calling each other gay on psn/xbox live is contributing to that.

You can preach that shit until the sun goes down but there is still no REAL proof (at least not in your paragraph.) that boys on xbox live/psn is contributing to all that shit.

Oh God. You actually have no idea how this works, do you? You don't actually know how scholarship and academia function. Alright, that's it, I'm out. Man, honestly, I tried, but I feel like fucking Sisyphus here. For what it's worth: You're wrong, please educate yourself. That isn't opinion, that is fact. I'm just going to leave this conversation in the secure knowledge that I tried, and no one can expect anything more from me.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

Lol! Google Scholar. c:< *Bows down*

A lot of the stuff I can just say .

... Well no shit. Derp. That shouldn't be news for anyone.

"suggests that the use of the word "******" in youth is actually a precursor to homophobic ideals later in life."
So is he suggesting it, or is he stating it as a fact?
I would like to call bullshit on this one as well because that may be completely different for this generation. Since you know. WE'RE IN A FUCKING GENERATION. Therefor how does he even know that? This generation isn't in their 30s yet.

also people suggest that violent video games cause violent behaviors.

I can suggest I am Jesus Christ himself.


As for the depression among homosexuals. Well fuck. I would be depressed too if people were beating me, denying me my rights, and not hiring me because I am gay. So no brainer there.

I still don't see how sammich jokes contributes to any of that.
I don't see how 300,000 16 year olds calling each other gay on psn/xbox live is contributing to that.

You can preach that shit until the sun goes down but there is still no REAL proof (at least not in your paragraph.) that boys on xbox live/psn is contributing to all that shit.

Oh God. You actually have no idea how this works, do you? You don't actually know how scholarship and academia function. Alright, that's it, I'm out. Man, honestly, I tried, but I feel like fucking Sisyphus here. For what it's worth: You're wrong, please educate yourself. That isn't opinion, that is fact. I'm just going to leave this conversation in the secure knowledge that I tried, and no one can expect anything more from me.

You honestly have no idea how people work do you?
People will say almost anything if it proved their cause. So excuse me if I question what you posted. How awful of me. How DARE I question anything. I should just believe in it because lolz.

My grandmother preached up and down the damn hallways of this house saying that if you smoke while high on weed. You couldn't drive. ... Well a few weeks ago they actually did a test and yes people can drive while high and 100% better than a drunk person.

There have been plenty of scientist making bullshit claims on this and that.
And just because he suggests it. Doesn't mean it's a fact.
And the fact we are still in a generation. I will not believe until 40 years from now when I see this, THIS generation grow up.

There's plenty of scholars that have been fucking wrong.



You also don't answer my questions at all.

 

[repeating integers]

^-^ and you're also unwilling to listen to me.

I can't speak for him, but the reason I am unwilling to listen to you is because you have consistently proven across your forum posts that you are just not worth listening to. Take the more educated man's word for it and learn some things about academia and sociology before you try and debate about them.

 

[maffro]

Lol! Google Scholar. c:< *Bows down*


There's plenty of scholars that have been fucking wrong.

You also don't answer my questions at all.

That is worrying. You'd think after centuries of research and peer review they would have learnt how to fuck.

 

[EmilShmiengura]

I just glanced at this thread and decided I want no part in the discussion. While the original premise has some merit it is so awfully formulated that it can't lead to anything good. However on my way out I saw this little gem (I am not beeing sarcastic here) :

But the internet is not your friend.

Thank You, Sir! This little gem of truth should be a mandatory disclaimer every time someone gets an Internet connection!

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

^-^ and you're also unwilling to listen to me.

I can't speak for him, but the reason I am unwilling to listen to you is because you have consistently proven across your forum posts that you are just not worth listening to. Take the more educated man's word for it and learn some things about academia and sociology before you try and debate about them.

Doesn't matter what you study.
He still hasn't acknowledge exactly how 600,000 boys calling each other gay is directly impacting the beating/killing/etc of homosexuals.

 

[Realitycrash]

Edit: And by the way, I am Equalitarian. I say this now because I know this will turn into a Feminism-thread sooner or later.
As an Equalitarian, I believe in equal opportunity, positive-discrimination (though certain cases are gray areas and up for debate), equal treatment and equal support for both sexes. The guiding principle overall is to create a better, more equal society without violating basic principles of rights for either sex (unless they are covered by the gray-areas of positive discrimination).
If you believe the same, then please, call yourself an Equalitarian (a term I made up about a month ago), just so that when the next asshat silly person says 'Feminists are sexists and just hate men' you can tell them that you are indeed NOT a feminist and tell them to up the shut f*ck be quiet.

(Code of Equalitrianism may change over time if proper arguments are given, if so, you will all be noted. Thank you.)

Didn't you "make up" that term when you were having a whinge because people were judging feminists based on the actions of people who identify as feminists?

Also, like I said when you "made it up", it's called "egalitarianism" and it already exists, even sometimes actually called "equalitarianism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Well done coining a term that already exists, demonstrating your obviously capable knowledge on the subject.

-Chuckles- You're kinda missing the point here. What I'm doing is because I'm tired of people throwing definitions at each-other, so I made up my own with my own stipulation to show how tiresome it is when people have definition-wars on vague topics.
I made a very, very specific definition (Egalitarianism isn't that specific, for example, and can very depending on the subject), just so that we don't HAVE to have these silly discussions.
I pulled Equalitarianism out of my ass at that very moment, yeah. I've never heard it be called Equalitaliarism, though. But I can make it even more specific, without a problem. How is Equalimentalism for you?

 

[Legion]

If someone says something racist, they are being racist. It's not a leap to assume that this isn't the only time they are racist.

It doesn't mean they are very racist, but it means they are being at least somewhat racist.

Geh, okey, this is a tad too extreme of a conclusion. Should you keep your jokes to yourself in order to not hurt others you know will take offense? Yes.
Does a joke make you racist/sexist? No. It makes you a man with (at times) improper social-skills.

Well, in a sense if you make racist jokes it means you are not entirely against racism. It is kind of hypocritical otherwise.

Well no, because that's not how humour works. Somebody laughing at the Saw films, does not mean they enjoy the thought of torturing people. Finding something amusing does not say anything about what you think of it in reality.

Let's use stand-up comedians as an example. How often do you see a comedian mock their own race or gender? Does that mean anybody who laughs at those jokes thinks it's okay to be racist or sexist against them? No. No it does not.

OT: I get the point you are trying to make, but my God you have worded it terribly, and I can really see why some people are reacting to it so strongly.

The basic premise is this: Making a comment does not necessarily represent your true feelings on a matter. Making a comment that could be seen as racist, sexist or homophobic does not necessarily mean that you are racist, sexist or homophobic yourself.

Or in other words, it is possible to make a racist, sexist or homophobic comment but not have any racist, sexist or homophobic feelings (although if you are making them to people who aren't your friends you might want to learn social etiquette).

The problem as Phasmal correctly pointed out is that people are not psychic, and so they aren't going to simply assume that somebody making these comments "doesn't really mean it" and that it doesn't "represent their true feelings". Short of asking them whether or not they really think that way or are just an asshole, most people are going to assume that they are being racist, sexist or homophobic.

Spoiler: Although personally I find it much more logical to assume this:

Than everybody who acts in a certain way is representing true racist, sexist or homophobic views. Because in my experience, people will behave like assholes, regardless of the race, gender or sexuality of the person they are talking to.

 

[ThreeName]

-Chuckles- You're kinda missing the point here. What I'm doing is because I'm tired of people throwing definitions at each-other, so I made up my own with my own stipulation to show how tiresome it is when people have definition-wars on vague topics.
I made a very, very specific definition (Egalitarianism isn't that specific, for example, and can very depending on the subject), just so that we don't HAVE to have these silly discussions.
I pulled Equalitarianism out of my ass at that very moment, yeah. I've never heard it be called Equalitaliarism, though. But I can make it even more specific, without a problem. How is Equalimentalism for you?

At the end of the day you can't judge a group by it's creeds, only it's actions (hence why we shouldn't be letting fiddly priests off the hook). I do see why you did it, definition wars do suck, you probably just could have handled it better haha. And yeah, egalitarian is very open, but thats sort of it's strength; it's a big theory with a very definite goal, then it has subcategories that utilise different approaches. So it's simple to say you're an egalitarian in a broad sense to show that you don't believe in a split or hierarchical society or whatever, then you can go on to further define your specific beliefs. I think it'd be better to find a subcategory that suits you than to make a new definition.

Personally I'd love to use "equitarian" but apparently that is about horses, so bugger.

 

[ThreeName]

That is worrying. You'd think after centuries of research and peer review they would have learnt how to fuck.

I laughed more than I should have. Bravo, sir.

 

[Realitycrash]

-Chuckles- You're kinda missing the point here. What I'm doing is because I'm tired of people throwing definitions at each-other, so I made up my own with my own stipulation to show how tiresome it is when people have definition-wars on vague topics.
I made a very, very specific definition (Egalitarianism isn't that specific, for example, and can very depending on the subject), just so that we don't HAVE to have these silly discussions.
I pulled Equalitarianism out of my ass at that very moment, yeah. I've never heard it be called Equalitaliarism, though. But I can make it even more specific, without a problem. How is Equalimentalism for you?

At the end of the day you can't judge a group by it's creeds, only it's actions (hence why we shouldn't be letting fiddly priests off the hook). I do see why you did it, definition wars do suck, you probably just could have handled it better haha. And yeah, egalitarian is very open, but thats sort of it's strength; it's a big theory with a very definite goal, then it has subcategories that utilise different approaches. So it's simple to say you're an egalitarian in a broad sense to show that you don't believe in a split or hierarchical society or whatever, then you can go on to further define your specific beliefs. I think it'd be better to find a subcategory that suits you than to make a new definition.

Personally I'd love to use "equitarian" but apparently that is about horses, so bugger.

..To which we have people bickering about which sub-category is which, and which group represents the 'true' category and which do not, and so on. That's why I also claimed 'And any disputes are settled by me, and if you disagree, you are WRONG. Go found your own group'. Hey, I know almost anyone will accept these three claims (except those against positive-discrimination, but that doesn't necessarily make them sexist.), which was also my point.
In all honestly, I probably could have handled it better, true. It was late at night and I was being dramatic.

 

[Sunrider]

You're confused, I think.

Sexist is a state of being. Someone who is sexist/racist tends to pigeonhole people based on these attributes, gender/race, usually through negative generalisation, though not even necessarily negative. You may assume all blacks can run super fast, which is a racist generalisation, even though many would believe it's a positive assumption and supported by the predominance of god-tier black sprinters. And this doesn't have to mean hatred/anger, by the way. Plenty of people think other people are great, as long as they stick to what they're made to do.

-Ism, on the other hand, is employing and communicating these techniques. No, your girlfriend wasn't being sexist, but she was employing sexism to communicate a point. My secondary school was very diverse and integrated racially, and no-one had an issue employing racism for humourous effect, based on the shared knowledge that no-one was actually racIST. If you're employing racism/sexism anonymously, there's no reason for people not to assume you're racist/sexist in turn.

Depending on context, there's nothing inherently wrong with racism and sexism, though I'd have to say there was with being racist and being sexist, which are very distinct.

FINALLY, someone I can agree with who is not sitting on a high horse, looking down on people who don't agree with them. (This goes for both sides, just to be clear.)

You deserve a cookie. Which one do you want? Raspberry or blueberry?

 

[Jux]

After getting through this train wreck of a thread, all I can say is that no one is stopping you from being a dick, but that doesn't mean you're insulated from the consequences of your actions. That means people are going to criticize you, and rightfully so. As it was pointed out on page one, context is everything, and we're not psychics.

And, because I can't pass up the chance at some really low brow humor, I will end it with this:

Man, honestly, I tried, but I feel like fucking Sisyphus here.

Woah bro, woah. You're going to fuck some guy named Sisyphus? What is he, like, king of the sissies or something? /dudebrohighfives all around

Sorry, had to get that out my system.