FANDOM

An anonymous contributor
  Loading editor
  • -Honestly, I'm asking out of couriosity, but has Trump attacked the rights of queer people, up to this point?

    Yes. He rolled back Obama-era protections for LGBT rights, including advisory notes for schools to prevent discrimination. One of his appointees, Betsy DeVos, has outright said that her department would no longer intervene in cases of discrimination against LGBT students. He's had a rather public, albeit inept, attempt to ban transgender soldiers from the military. Though he claimed he did this on "advice from his top generals & strategists," every official that's commented on it has said that they didn't give Trump this advice, & it's probably a bad idea. He removed the White House LGBT information, & to my knowledge, has never reinstated it. That's just as far as I know.

    - As far as I can tell, she doesn't promote anything, she doesn't dictate rules one should live their lifes according to, she doesn't promote an ideology. I'm pretty sure propaganda has to include an own message-

    She's antifeminist, anti black lives matter, & overall one of those people who are anti-progressive, despite ironically claiming to be progressives. I can't recommend that Rational Wiki article enough.

    - Extremists exist within every movement and should never be ignored. I have met people I would definitely classify as what is commonly described as SJW.

    Rational Wiki has another good article about why this argument has serious flaws beneath the surface. Really, I just recommend Rational Wiki in general, & especially on subjects related to debunking antifeminist "skeptics."

    Speaking of, excuse my skepticism, but when people say that they've "met SJWs," it usually can't be verified, & often when it can, the person actually isn't that unreasonable, & has simply been the victim of smears. In fact, being the frequent target of "SJW" accusations, implicitly or otherwise, I have no real sympathy for these claims whatsoever.

    Ever heard about Monika Ebeling?

    You can refer to the nutpicking article for why I don't research every rando that's cited to me. Often times, they're either not actually as crazy as they're made out to be, or there's not enough information on them, particularly when they come from a foreign country, like this person. It's also a waste of time, because there is no Win Condition: If I debunk the example then another can just be rotated in their place, & if I fail to debunk them, they'll be treated as an example of a wider problem, even though that hasn't actually been established.

    if you want to debate wether a random YouTuber I used to make a point that I think supported your arguement, I'd be delighted to do this somewhere else where we won't be in eventual danger of being banned for reaching off-topic levels that shouldn't be possible),

    I'd really rather not, both because of that, & because I cut myself off from the "skeptic" community specifically to get away from these people. While I've occasionally brought my let's call it expertise to bear for situations like Mythicist Milwaukee, overall I'd prefer if they all just fell into a bottomless pit & everyone forgot they ever existed.

    you can't just deny someone their se*uality because you think their opinion is stupid. Imagine if they forced me to be gay because I'm not fitting into the straight Main Stream. And that's my whole point I wanted to make

    Which I agree with.

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • Geez, there's so much wrong there that I have to break it into sections.

      Antifeminism & Antiprogressivism

      I already gave you the quotes where she HERSELF says she's against feminism, not a specific kind of feminism, not a specific feminist, literally feminism as a general rule. And I guarantee you I could easily find quotes like that for virtually anyone whom you describe as "making fun of feminists," because the reason they're always portraying feminists as idiots & mocking them (or, let's be honest, us, because I call myself a feminist & therefore am in the group they're attacking) is because they are antifeminists. It's really not that complicated.

      That alone, by the definition you've already acknowledged, would make these people anti-progressive without even getting into their stances on race relations which have a similarly wrongheaded "it's not a problem anymore" tone, their promotion of reactionary figures like Blaire White or Milo Yiannopolous, their justifications of sweeping anti-immigrant rhetoric, & other backwards stances that they tend to share to varying degrees.

      Oh, & before you even say it, yes I know that she (& others) also describes herself as "egalitarian" & "not part of any social movement," but that's because these people ideologically want to see themselves as neutral critics, & that's why they don't see the cognitive dissonance in claiming that, but then turning around & saying things like "feminism is cancer." The whole talk of "mocking bad ideas" is just putting lipstick on the pig that is their own reactionary beliefs, & that's why they tend to pretend that rebuttals of their own arguments don't exist. It was never about rational argument, they just say it is, because it makes them feel smart.

      Same goes for why they call themselves progressives. There's an adage that says that "today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals." E.g. young people (who are mostly left-leaning) don't just abandon all of their beliefs when they grow up, instead they draw a line in the sand & say they only support progressive causes up to a certain point, while some of their friends continue supporting more left-wing causes. Those who become modern day conservatives are progressive only relative to the old conservatives, but not to the present day progressive movement. But the YouTube "Skeptic" community has been identifying as "left wing" for so long, it's such a big part of their identity, that many still insist on viewing themselves that way. What's especially funny is when they try to adopt the label "classical liberal," even though this refers to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Meaning_of_the_term old schools of liberal thought that are now more in-line with conservatives.]

      Toxic ideology

      Oh, & speaking of definitions, I understand her "point" just fine, what YOU need to understand is that it's a deflection tactic. For starters, you're ignoring the importance of her wording. She calls the definition "pretty wrapping paper" that simply "covers the toxic shit." In other words, she is not saying "some feminist ideas are bad," she's saying it's rotten to the core, & any talk of "equality" is just to make it look good. Aside from being deliciously ironic given what I said above, it's yet another case where she displays her anti-feminist beliefs which you SOMEHOW don't see.

      Besides that, the Christanity example doesn't work because (A) you cited specifically fundamentalist Christianity, but June insinuates that her arguments are applicable to feminism as a general rule, (B) "you need to beat your kids" is the actual argument being made, it's not like taking something Anita said about representation & going, "Aha, this one example she gave is maybe not perfect, that invalidates the whole concept!" & (C) June & I are atheists, we DO believe that Christianity itself is wrong, not just specific parts of it. Oh, & of course, that's all just assuming you actually DID abuse your kids, as opposed to how June often just makes shit up that nobody actually said & calls it "parody," i.e. "And if you're not a feminist, you're pro-rape!"

      A better analogy is a fundamentalist listing what they claim are atheists who have done bad things & saying that represents atheism more than the actual definition. It changes the subject from the actual arguments to a poison the well tactic, & it can't actually be refuted, because as long as the person doesn't show how they allegedly know their examples are representative, their claim cannot be disproved.

      Alternative facts

      If you won't accept even the basic reality that June is an antifeminist & this is an antiprogressive stance by your own reasoning, I can't "debate" you into it, & I'm not going to waste time trying. My advice, once again, is to read Rational Wiki. Firstly, don't give me that pathetic excuse about them being "biased" when you have no problem watching YouTubers with a clear agenda. What they & you call "bias" is simply providing the refutations to their crappy arguments. Secondly, if you want an endless parade of debunks, that's what they're there for.

      The reason I keep directing you to them is because they explain all this shit--the ways Anita is misrepresented, the arguments against "good feminist" Laci Green, the nutpicking & other fallacious tactics common to the call-themselves-rationalist-but-are-really-antifeminist movement--in much more detail than I ever could. Leading directly to thirdly, if you're not going to listen to the people who lay this out in excruciating detail along with citations, you're sure as Hell not going to listen to me, especially since I draw heavily from them as a source, so this whole thing is pointless anyway.

      Aside from Rational Wiki, there happens to be a growing list of other YouTubers who counter these reactionary narratives. I can personally attest to Hbomberguy, Shaun_Jen, Innunedo Studios, ContraPoints, & Hell why not Anita's & McIntosh's own YouTube pages, respectively Feminist Frequency & Pop Culture Detective. Seeing their original arguments is a good way of seeing just how much antifeminists distort & cut out when doing their so-called "rebuttals."

      The TL;DR here is that I'm done explaining this stuff, if you actually want to hear the explanations, seek out any of these sources, since it actually IS their job to explain it.

        Loading editor
    • If you're done explaining/proposing your stance go me, that's fine by me. Believe it or not, I have read numerous pages on the Rational Wiki, including those concerning Shoe0nhead, Laci Green and Anita Sarkeesian, and I have considered the information. And I find I don't agree with the position the Rational Wiki takes. Not always. If you say that is a cheap excuse to justify that I am a moronic marionette or evil, well, that's a stance I will have and manage to live with. I just wanted to point out that it's not like I say "Well, I've only listened to one side and completely ignored the other, and yet I have only heard the side I listened to, weird, huh? The other side must be wrong."

      But I'd still like to know that anti-progressive views "those people" have displayed.

      As far as I understood your reasoning, "Antifeminist" equals "Antiprogressive" by default. Which is something I can't agree to. Let's say they generalize feminism, due to ignorance, as a bunch of nutcases, using singular, isolated cases of idiots and morons they make fun of while they claim they represent the movement as a whole.

      My problem with your point is, that what they oppose is not feminism, the movement, not feminism, the ideology, but feminism, the phrase, the label, which they attribute to people that are, by textbook-definition, not "true feminists". 

      I have never felt they opposed any view that such a "true feminist" would typically present. They have never claimed any of these views to be wrong, as far as I know.

      Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, if June, Chris Ray Gun and all the others (Well, not all of them, I disagree with many points people from the skeptic-community make, usually they seem to come from Blair White and this Sargon-guy that is, apparently, a big deal? Idk.) were so anti-progressive, wouldn't, as someone who usually takes their stance in an arguement, also be anti-progressive, technically speaking? Because during the debates in the forums, whenever political and society-based discussions arise, I feel like you and me are usually on the same side, which led me to believe we are in pretty much the same space of the political spectrum? 

      Which, again, leads me to suspect, this debate is basically not even about splitting hairs. More like "Has this hair been split?" And there may not even be a hair.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • I just realized something... Why the hell is your profile picture different on discussion board threads and other places? That's kind of disturbing...

      Loading editor
  • Fong welcomes Team Avatar

    Welcome to Avatar Wiki! Thanks for your edit to Thread:1226666#10|About Korra losing her conncection with the Avatars, and for joining our community! There's a lot to do around here, so we hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

    Wiki Activity is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing.
    Questions? Need help? Don't know what to do? See if S.O.S. editing can help you, or just leave me a message!
    Have an opinion? Read the latest blog posts and meet other knowledgeable fans. Discuss the series and the movie to a depth that you'd have never imagined.
    Like fan fiction? Visit our fanon portal. You can read the quality works of others. You can even write your own, and share your stories with all the readers here.
    Follow our policies, to make sure that all of us get along harmoniously.
    Sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognize you.
    Sign your comments by typing ~~~~ when posting on one of our forum threads. This adds your signature and the date, so we know who's talking!

    We're really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! Have fun!

      Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message