The Other Forums Thread for 90's Kids ONLY

[HardcoreRetro]

I need Cindi's hot take on the words "gender creative". Thanks in advance. 

[HaughtyFrank]

Am I gender creative if I LARPed as a 19 y/o girl on the internet? 

19 year old girl? That's not very creative.

[Raist]

"Gender creative", huh?

[Leadbelly]

Being fair, there is a lot genuine scumbags in those groups and assholes like Spencer are "faces" to a more way more vile underside.

I just dont think is good that some people alude to "You can be Captain America if you punch Nazis regardless of what they are doing at the moment because violance is moraly justifcated if you are good guy."

I dont mind people punching Spencer on camera or beating a Nazi that was harassing a minority, but lets not pretend that violence is a healty solution to social problems.

Whether they are scumbags or just a directionless youth, trying to create an environment where there is only one correct way of thinking and everything else should be suppressed is inevitably going to compound the issue. And speaking about fascism, that in itself is fascistic.

[etiolate]

Roseanne has admitted to feeling overlooked by the gay community for what her show did to include them as characters. She has a bit of resentment, feeling owed a bigger nod from LGBT.

So I have a small suspicion her gender creative character may be a set up to take a piss on the whole thing.

[Himu]

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3510019/

Roseanne Revival to Include “Gender Creative” Non-Binary Child

(Image removed from quote.)

The usual people are throwing histrionics because they think it's just going to be non-stop cheeseburger jokes.  Yeah, a major network is going to have a primetime sit-com where they shit on a transgender child.

I'm not saying the character isn't trans, but just because you're non-binary doesn't mean you're trans, dammit.

Roseanne hasn't been much of an ally to trans people, though. So caution makes sense, but non-binary does not mean "trans" and as a particular kind of feminist, Roseanne is very into the idea of the gender being a social construct. So the kid might be non-binary, but not necessarily T but I haven't followed up on the show and this is my first time reading this.

[thisismyusername]

Am I gender creative if I LARPed as a 19 y/o girl on the internet? 

Depends, do you main Mercy?

[Leadbelly]

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3510019/

Roseanne Revival to Include “Gender Creative” Non-Binary Child

(Image removed from quote.)

The usual people are throwing histrionics because they think it's just going to be non-stop cheeseburger jokes.  Yeah, a major network is going to have a primetime sit-com where they shit on a transgender child.

(Image removed from quote.)

I'm not saying the character isn't trans, but just because you're non-binary doesn't mean you're trans, dammit.

Roseanne hasn't been much of an ally to trans people, though. So caution makes sense, but non-binary does not mean "trans" and as a particular kind of feminist, Roseanne is very into the idea of the gender being a social construct. So the kid might be non-binary, but not necessarily T but I haven't followed up on the show and this is my first time reading this.

Yeah. It does come across as the more postmodern view of gender. That being essentially that the categories that define race, gender, or whatever have changed over time, therefore ultimately they are nothing more than social constructs. All truth claims are ultimately suspect; we once thought the sun revolved around the earth for instance. All categories, all the ways in which we have measured reality, all truth claims are ever changing. There is no such thing as objective truth. Truth is purely what you make it. As Oprah said in her speech, "your truth".

The point being there is essentially no such thing as gender in postmodernist thought because the categories that define it are ever changing and essentially a social construct. You are free to be whatever you want to be.

Now of course there is some truth to that, but the problem occurs when you try to defend it as a complete philosophical world view. Watching a debate on postmodernism is like watching someone on acid. Quite literally. It is just surreal. You could ask a postmodernist if gravity exists, and they will not commit to a definitive answer. In fact they would spend all the time arguing why gravity might not exist. Seriously, it is the most useless philosophy ever created.

[Boredfrom]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

[Leadbelly]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

I think that is probably the case. You have to be a madman to truly believe some of the things that come out of their mouth. The problem is when the humanities, gender studies, etc are dominated or at least influenced by this way of thinking. It is convenient to basically view gender and behaviour as essentially nothing more than a social construct. It is also useful to treat all truth claims as suspect. So when Steven Pinker for instance claims we're not a 'blank slate' you can just dismiss it.

[Boredfrom]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

I think that is probably the case. You have to be a madman to truly believe some of the things that come out of their mouth. The problem is when the humanities, gender studies, etc are dominated or at least influenced by this way of thinking. It is convenient to basically view gender and behaviour as essentially nothing more than a social construct. It is also useful to treat all truth claims as suspect. So when Steven Pinker for instance claims we're not a 'blank slate' you can just dismiss it.

That a gross simplification. As someone that was in university whose specialty was humanities, no every single profesor or student was on that form of relativism. Some female teachers actually disliked how ideological (and US centric) were gender studies.

[agrajag]

complaining about this thread 
beating this dead horse about punching people 
huelen's messianic complex 
just being chill and laughing at peeps

Constantly reminding everyone about your one claim to fame of being a Reee moderator for a week 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I still love u tho 

[close]

[Boredfrom]

Naomi Osaka’s post tennis match interview was so pure and charming.

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3546084/

Malyse objectives a female athlete.

[Leadbelly]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

I think that is probably the case. You have to be a madman to truly believe some of the things that come out of their mouth. The problem is when the humanities, gender studies, etc are dominated or at least influenced by this way of thinking. It is convenient to basically view gender and behaviour as essentially nothing more than a social construct. It is also useful to treat all truth claims as suspect. So when Steven Pinker for instance claims we're not a 'blank slate' you can just dismiss it.

That a gross simplification. As someone that was in university whose specialty was humanities, no every single profesor or student was on that form of relativism. Some female teachers actually disliked how ideological (and US centric) were gender studies.

Sure. Not everyone in those fields are raving ideologues or postmodernists. Although, saying some female teachers disliking how ideological gender studies is, kind of proves the point that gender studies is filled with ideologues. That said, it doesn't mean everyone in those fields are postmodernist or ideologues in some sense. social constructivist and post structuralist thought obviously dominates though.

[samfish]

It’s way too depressing to follow politics 24/7. I used to wake up and read all new PoliGAF pages before I started work, along with most of the front page of r/politics. Can’t do that shit anymore.

Even center left posters are becoming radicalized these days.

I pretty much gave up entirely on discussing politics about a year and a half ago. It’s ridiculous. I’ll never understand how so many people have a beef to insulate themselves in such an impenetrable bubble and reject outside viewpoints.

[Boredfrom]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

I think that is probably the case. You have to be a madman to truly believe some of the things that come out of their mouth. The problem is when the humanities, gender studies, etc are dominated or at least influenced by this way of thinking. It is convenient to basically view gender and behaviour as essentially nothing more than a social construct. It is also useful to treat all truth claims as suspect. So when Steven Pinker for instance claims we're not a 'blank slate' you can just dismiss it.

That a gross simplification. As someone that was in university whose specialty was humanities, no every single profesor or student was on that form of relativism. Some female teachers actually disliked how ideological (and US centric) were gender studies.

Sure. Not everyone in those fields are raving ideologues or postmodernists. Although, saying some female teachers disliking how ideological gender studies is, kind of proves the point that gender studies is filled with ideologues. That said, it doesn't mean everyone in those fields are postmodernist even if they were ideologues in some sense. That said, social constructivist and post structuralist thought obviously dominates.

The whole point of post structuralism is to counteract structures, dude. I think you are confusing what post structuralism with relativism.

[Assimilate]

The Beak's participation in this thread has gone up significantly......

It's turning me on 

[agrajag]

Constantly reminding everyone about your one claim to fame of being a Reee moderator for a week 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I still love u tho 

[close]

i try to play it off but truthfully i'm broken inside. it was my identity. i spent upwards of 25 hours a week moderating, in addition to having an IT job. and i did it for free, even though, you know, a fruit basket would have been nice.

You know, that whole fruit basket thing never made sense to me. I just can't think of Besada as a fruit guy.

[Leadbelly]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

I think that is probably the case. You have to be a madman to truly believe some of the things that come out of their mouth. The problem is when the humanities, gender studies, etc are dominated or at least influenced by this way of thinking. It is convenient to basically view gender and behaviour as essentially nothing more than a social construct. It is also useful to treat all truth claims as suspect. So when Steven Pinker for instance claims we're not a 'blank slate' you can just dismiss it.

That a gross simplification. As someone that was in university whose specialty was humanities, no every single profesor or student was on that form of relativism. Some female teachers actually disliked how ideological (and US centric) were gender studies.

Sure. Not everyone in those fields are raving ideologues or postmodernists. Although, saying some female teachers disliking how ideological gender studies is, kind of proves the point that gender studies is filled with ideologues. That said, it doesn't mean everyone in those fields are postmodernist even if they were ideologues in some sense. That said, social constructivist and post structuralist thought obviously dominates.

The whole point of post structuralism is to counteract structures, dude. I think you are confusing what post structuralism with relativism.

Well, post structuralism would be in opposition to structuralsim as post modernisn is in opposition to modernism. The two terms come out of philosophical thought that originates in France. So for example Foucault and Derrida are viewed as post structuralist philosophers. However, they are also considered post-modernist philosophers. And so there is some overlap and also definition confusion when seperating the two. Ultimately this leads to the two getting lumped together.

I wasn't trying to get into a debate about what differentiates the two, only casually naming certain disciplines that dominate those fields. In any case one could ask what is the difference between social contructivism and post modernism or post structuralism and ultimately it doesn't matter all that much in any essential manner.

[agrajag]

yo, too much careposting ritenow

[Boredfrom]

Is weird that some of the people that hate Moe decide to create or participate in a thread in how cute and pure is an Athlete...

[Nintex]

Trump had no clue what the fuck he was doing. But his supporters said: "You know this guy is fucking right! Mexicans should pay for walls and the Clintons should be in jail" and he said: "Yeah, I'm right, I'm totally right, I'll double down on all the dumb things"

So Conway told him: "You can still win this" and he said: "Whatever you say honey" (literal quote from aboard Trump force one)

And then about 1 million Americans walked in in the voting booth thinking: "Yeah, I'm voting for Donald Fucking Trump, I loved that rally"
59 million more walked in and thought: "Wait, what the fuck, Donald Motherfucking Trump is actually on the ballot. Am I dreaming lol. What the fuck would happen if I vote for this nutjob, you know what, let's find out."

Seriously, voting Donald J. Trump, celebrity blowhard, Twitter Troll in chief into the highest office of government. The illuminati wouldn't let that slide.
So Trump walked into the office, stunned to see his underpaid employees there. "Congrats, Mr. President". "Wait wtf, happend to the Illuminati, like Morgan Freeman in a robe telling me what to do, the deep state and all that"
"Well they don't really exist." "WAIT WAT? WE have to do THIS now?" "IVANKA!! jARED!!!"

1 year later he managed to somehow get the show in the road, much thanks to John Kelly and his own lucky charm.

Yet, Resetera/CNN still freaks at every Tweet/phrase/rally/idea the man completely out of his element can muster.

[agrajag]

You know, that whole fruit basket thing never made sense to me. I just can't think of Besada as a fruit guy.

Do you remember that post he made while he was on a trip to New Orleans? The man's into chocolate.

me too, that's the one thing that unifies me with besada, and it makes me sick to my stomach. At least I don't have to wolf down a tub of mac n cheese and a bucket of fried shrimp to ogle at ladies.

[TVC15]

You know, that whole fruit basket thing never made sense to me. I just can't think of Besada as a fruit guy.

Do you remember that post he made while he was on a trip to New Orleans? The man's into chocolate.

because

[Boredfrom]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

I think that is probably the case. You have to be a madman to truly believe some of the things that come out of their mouth. The problem is when the humanities, gender studies, etc are dominated or at least influenced by this way of thinking. It is convenient to basically view gender and behaviour as essentially nothing more than a social construct. It is also useful to treat all truth claims as suspect. So when Steven Pinker for instance claims we're not a 'blank slate' you can just dismiss it.

That a gross simplification. As someone that was in university whose specialty was humanities, no every single profesor or student was on that form of relativism. Some female teachers actually disliked how ideological (and US centric) were gender studies.

Sure. Not everyone in those fields are raving ideologues or postmodernists. Although, saying some female teachers disliking how ideological gender studies is, kind of proves the point that gender studies is filled with ideologues. That said, it doesn't mean everyone in those fields are postmodernist even if they were ideologues in some sense. That said, social constructivist and post structuralist thought obviously dominates.

The whole point of post structuralism is to counteract structures, dude. I think you are confusing what post structuralism with relativism.

Well, post structuralism would be in opposition to structuralsim as post modernisn is in opposition to modernism. The two terms come out of philosophical thought that originates in France. So for example Foucault and Derrida are viewed as post structuralist philosophers. However, they are also considered post-modernist philosophers. And so there is some overlap and also definition confusion when seperating the two. Ultimately this leads to the two getting lumped together.

I wasn't trying to get into a debate about what differentiates the two, only casually naming certain disciplines that dominate those fields. In any case one could ask what is the difference between social contructivism and post modernism or post structuralism and ultimately it doesn't matter all that much in any essential manner.

I think both of us are confusing here (structuralism and modernism). I will say, at least in my time in college, I never hear anybody using post modernism thinking to justify social ideology outside of art or philosophy (an art is kind of tongue of cheek and philosophy is... well philosophy). Of course there are a lot of SJWs in humanities, students and teachers, but this is more political motivated than any kind of academic imperative.

[Leadbelly]

Being fair, postmodernists dont take seriously postmodernism. That is part of the point.

I think that is probably the case. You have to be a madman to truly believe some of the things that come out of their mouth. The problem is when the humanities, gender studies, etc are dominated or at least influenced by this way of thinking. It is convenient to basically view gender and behaviour as essentially nothing more than a social construct. It is also useful to treat all truth claims as suspect. So when Steven Pinker for instance claims we're not a 'blank slate' you can just dismiss it.

That a gross simplification. As someone that was in university whose specialty was humanities, no every single profesor or student was on that form of relativism. Some female teachers actually disliked how ideological (and US centric) were gender studies.

Sure. Not everyone in those fields are raving ideologues or postmodernists. Although, saying some female teachers disliking how ideological gender studies is, kind of proves the point that gender studies is filled with ideologues. That said, it doesn't mean everyone in those fields are postmodernist even if they were ideologues in some sense. That said, social constructivist and post structuralist thought obviously dominates.

The whole point of post structuralism is to counteract structures, dude. I think you are confusing what post structuralism with relativism.

Well, post structuralism would be in opposition to structuralsim as post modernisn is in opposition to modernism. The two terms come out of philosophical thought that originates in France. So for example Foucault and Derrida are viewed as post structuralist philosophers. However, they are also considered post-modernist philosophers. And so there is some overlap and also definition confusion when seperating the two. Ultimately this leads to the two getting lumped together.

I wasn't trying to get into a debate about what differentiates the two, only casually naming certain disciplines that dominate those fields. In any case one could ask what is the difference between social contructivism and post modernism or post structuralism and ultimately it doesn't matter all that much in any essential manner.

I think both of us are confusing here (structuralism and modernism). I will say, at least in my time in college, I never hear anybody using post modernism thinking to justify social ideology outside of art or philosophy (an art is kind of tongue of cheek and philosophy is... well philosophy). Of course there are a lot of Social Studies Warriors in humanities, students and teachers, but this is more political motivated than any kind of academic imperative.

Well, it doesn't help that the term 'postmodernism' has different meanings.

I will give you an example of why it doesn't matter in any essential manner to the lay person anyway.

What is the post-structuralist feminist view of gender?

Poststructural feminism is a branch of feminism that engages with insights from post-structuralist thought. Poststructural feminism emphasizes "the contingent and discursive nature of all identities",[1] and in particular the social construction of gendered subjectivities.[2] An important contribution of this branch was to establish that there is no universal single category of "woman" or "man" and to identify the intersectionality of sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, nationality, to name only a few.[3

Basically, kind of how I described the 'postmodern' view of gender.

What would be the social constructivist view of gender? It is essentially the same right?

It doesn't matter all that much because essentially no matter how they label themself, it would still be negating any other field of enquiry when it comes to gender.

[Boredfrom]

I dunno, I didn’t study gender studies or sociology. I’m just saying that my college we didn’t have a mandatory class dedicated to Derrida or post modernism, and I feel that you are confusing political demagoguery, social activism and actual academic work.

[Leadbelly]

I dunno, I didn’t study gender studies or sociology. I’m just saying that my college we didn’t have a mandatory class dedicated to Derrida or post modernism, and I feel that you are confusing political demagoguery, social activism and actual academic work.

I actually think we've moved past my original point and intended meaning. It was actually about how gender is viewed. As I stated, it is a view that gender doesn't really exist in any objective manner and that it is purely a social construct. And this leads to the idea that you can be male or female interchangeably. I laid out some of the philosophy behind that assumption.

Personally I don't agree with this notion of gender, although, I believe there are elements of truth in it. I don't believe we're a blank slate. I do believe genetics and biological imperatives also play a role in shaping gender and behaviour. Not in any deterministic fashion, but nevertheless, have an influence on.

You seem to have got caught up on the definitions and what they mean to you. One thing I will say though is, I'm not entirely describing these terms as some kind of 'pure' discipline, but rather how these views have influenced the notion of gender.

[etiolate]

I took a mandatory class that was taught by a student of Derrida and featured Derrida, Foucalt, etc. Read Limited Inc for the class.

Derrida has some applications and there is a much more generous reading of him than his critics give, but at my university critical theory was the standard and complete academic jargon vomit was a big point getter. (Which Derrida is full of himself, but I always read him as trolling everyone by being needlessly hard to read while arguing for how much effort is required for understanding others via language.)

Not every humanities and liberal arts professor was into this, but some were knee deep into it. This also had a lot of shift over time. When I first began college, it was just at the edge of many subjects, but once critical thinking was replaced by critical theory as a mandating subject matter then the nonsense permeated throughout the campus and those that oppose the approach never speak up.

[Huff]

If you mod me, I will ban or fix all careposts in this thread

#HuffMe2020

[Boredfrom]

I dunno, I didn’t study gender studies or sociology. I’m just saying that my college we didn’t have a mandatory class dedicated to Derrida or post modernism, and I feel that you are confusing political demagoguery, social activism and actual academic work.

I actually think we've moved past my original point and intended meaning. It was actually about how gender is viewed. As I stated, it is a view that gender doesn't really exist in any objective manner and that it is purely a social construct. And this leads to the idea that you can be male or female interchangeably. I laid out some of the philosophy behind that assumption.

Personally I don't agree with this notion of gender, although, I believe there are elements of truth in it. I don't believe we're a blank slate. I do believe genetics and biological imperatives also play a role in shaping gender and behaviour. Not in any deterministic fashion, but nevertheless, have an influence on.

You seem to have got caught up on the definitions and what they mean to you. One thing I will say though is, I'm not entirely describing these terms as some kind of 'pure' discipline, but rather how these views have influenced the notion of gender.

And that is really independent of how this views were originally thought (aka, Derrida trolling others).

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Violence against Nazis is ok in my book. As long as guys like Cream get to dictate who is and isn't a nazi I don't see the downside.

Openly dis the 2016 Ghostbusters? Maybe there should be repercussions for that.

[samfish]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/new-neogaf-moderator-intro-social.1460639/#post-253164246

I can’t shake the feeling that all of these new mods are just EviLore engaging in some sock puppet theater. They all “sound” the same.

[EightBitNate]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/new-neogaf-moderator-intro-social.1460639/#post-253164246

I can’t shake the feeling that all of these new mods are just EviLore engaging in some sock puppet theater. They all “sound” the same.

[etiolate]

A WARN



why would you copy the shittiest thing added to Reset?

[REDPILLALPH ABIGCOCK]

A WARN



why would you copy the shittiest thing added to Reset?

Shower goblin has probably deluded himself into believing these new features are why everyone left gaf

[benjipwns]

re: trolling, the presidency, hysterics about the dark night of fascism 101 upon us, "we never could have expected trolling in politics", etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Freneau

Jefferson hired Freneau as a translator at the State Department back when it had like six employees. Even though he didn't really read or write French well. This was cover to pay him for a paper that would attack Hamilton and the Washington Administration that Jefferson was part of. And later, Adams.

George Washington read all the newspapers of the time, Republican claims that he was as secret monarchist or a dunce controlled by secret monarchist Hamilton particularly got under his skin. He would often send letters to Freneau to cancel his subscription to The National Gazette, every time he did, Freneau added another copy to the number Washington was to receive each publication.

Ultimately Washington brought up his subscription issues with Secretary of State Jefferson and even suggested it was the primary reason he wanted Freneau fired from the State Department. (Hamilton was doing similar things out of the much larger Treasury.) A compromise of sorts was eventually reached in which Freneau was mostly funded by other Republicans so he could leave the State Department.

And he only sent Washington three copies of every issue until Washington's death.

[etiolate]

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3552267/

yo i can't even

the #resistance is full of useful idiots for the establishment

[benjipwns]

Upon his return as Vice President, Jefferson's second foray into hired newspaper hitman eventually led to the first sourcing of the Sally Hemings story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Callender

[benjipwns]

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3552267/

yo i can't even

the #resistance is full of useful idiots for the establishment

Lmao the dumb motherfuckers on Chapo stanned for her.

That podcast has been a confirmed fraud so many times over now.

Even in the best case scenario it shows once again that she's not fit to be a senator.

Confirmed immature possibly narcissistic agitator looking for attention everywhere.

Please leave Maryland.

[etiolate]

Thanks for telling us stories of late 1800s hjinx.

[benjipwns]

I disagree. I think you underestimate the overlap between the "Brocialist" types and the Alt-Right types and I can explain to you why with a few reasons off the top of my head.

1) First off, both groups LOVE their conspiracy theories. Even the ones involving Jews (Brocialists will just call them all "people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation")

2) The Alt-Right tends to not care much about economics so long as they get their ethnostate; meanwhile the Brocialists tend to not care about the social aspects so long as they get their economic leftism. See where there can EASILY be policy that appeals to BOTH?

3) Brocialists love to hate both parties. So do the Alt-Right.

4) Both are Isolationist on foreign intervention AND trade

5) Both love to claim that Hillary was more conservative than Trump

6) Both defend Bashar Al-Assad and Russia


Overall I agree that MOST of the left is not aligned with the Alt-Right, but the Brocialist, Bernie-or-Bust/JillStein types are absolutely closely aligned with the Alt-Right.

This.

I'm tired of giving them the time of day. Fuck them all and put them in the same pit as Trump supporters.

[benjipwns]

Thanks for telling us stories of late 1800s hjinx.

good job, only off by a century

[benjipwns]

Reaaaaaalllllly interested in how she's paying for her apartment and this senate run, now....

What pisses me off is she calls herself a Democrat. She isn't. I don't care about Cernovich or his disciples, they're all irrelivant, but I abhor liars.

[etiolate]

From my research there's a DaysofRage protest event going on right now and Cernovich's event is one of the areas effected.

 

[etiolate]

Thanks for telling us stories of late 1800s hjinx.

good job, only off by a century

fuck i meant 18th century but whatev

 

[benjipwns]

Chelsea Manning and Brocclists in the Green Party are just the latest proof of the unimpeachable Horseshoe Theory!

The Horseshoe Theory is best explained here:

[benjipwns]

Adolf Hitler: After spending time in jail, learned his lesson, and thereafter entered electoral politics and participated in multiple democratic elections until eventually being legally appointed Chancellor of Germany. Never owned a slave.

George Washington: Took up arms against his nations government, led militia into battles against the national army, worked with foreign nations to attack his nation and its armed forces, in secret disobeyed the orders of his legal government to draw up an entirely new form of government, suggested he would not become President of this new secessionist state unless the vote was unanimous in his favor. Owned hundreds of slaves.

THINK ABOUT IT

[etiolate]

Apparently the source of Reset's hysteria on this:

https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/945908592699469825

now to leave before Oblivion shows up

[Assimilate]

I can't believe that on a Saturday night this thread reaches peak intellectualism.

[etiolate]

Oh jebus #daysofrage is real

When I brought up that we went through this nonsense in the 70s, I didn't expect them to actually copy the name.

[sphagnum]

And of course it turns out Chelsea was legitimately there protesting. A dumb protest  but still.

[Jansen]

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3546123/

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3546753/

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3546824/

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3546922/

No fuck no. Let the artist do whatever they feel , imagine and create.

If i dont feel that inappropriate or stupid i will simply ignore product. This is not middle age which we censor, erase things we dont like.

FUCK THAT.

Game is fucking digital art nothing more then some pixel . So stop identifying them like they are actual girls. We.dont thats why we wrote these.


Also stop with defence force bullshit

Why not cover all japaneese characters in hijab then . Would you guys be happy ?

is raping in movies are not fine? it is and it will always be since it is part of the life.

only a one week ban?

[samfish]

Brocialism..?

[etiolate]

also


Yes, IcedBalckCoffee is insane.

Apparently, that Chelsea thread had a TAKE DOWN! post of how Assange truly is a nazi.

The post was from icedBlackCoffee, where he lists a series of tweets... that are just reset wrongthink. Nothing white supremacist. Nothing nazi. Just a series of anti-censorship tweets. Thus he is a nazi.

[etiolate]

Don't make me defend Derrida =|

He has a point, but there are complications and his lineage in thought is a disaster which reflects poorly on him.

I tent to point people to this: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/derrida/taylorderrida.html

[Averon]

IcedBlackCoffee gives me the impression that he is Amir0x 2.0. Like Amir0x, he is WAY too invested, and makes me think he's overcompensating due to the skeletons in his closet.

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Brocialism..?

If you care about economic equality but not about Link's gender, their is a pretty good chance your a super gross poopy brocialist.

[Leadbelly]

And that is really independent of how this views were originally thought (aka, Derrida trolling others).

The reason I bring this up anyway is I think it is useful to separate these two notions of transgender. This is kind of what cindi was getting at. There is what cindi considers 'trans' which is a genuine belief that your gender does not match your gender identity, and the dysphoria created by it, and the postmodern notion that gender does not exist. One is a condition that may have biological or genetic underpinnings, or in any case a psychological disturbance that has been observed, written about and extensively researched. The other notion is we're essentially a blank slate that is programmed into thinking of ourselves as male or female and the traits said gender may be associated with.

Someone in this thread a while back asked why Transgenderism had become such an issue of late when it only really affects a tiny fraction of the population. The response by some people was that, why should it matter if it only affects a small percentage of the population, it was still an issue. And that is a perfectly fine answer. Only, I don't actually think that is the reason. One thing Jordan Peterson pointed out was that what they have pushed into law isn't the protection of people with Gender Identity Disorder, it was the social constructivist version of gender.

In other words, what I think is happening is a concerted effort to change the culture and the culture around the notion of gender specifically. They don't actually think it is a minority issue, rather they think it is fundemental aspect of the human condition. Something they think can be 'fixed' inorder to create a fairer society. It means the destruction of toxic masculinity which ultimately means the destruction of the patriarchy.

[benjipwns]

Brocialism..?

It "exists" as a tiny strain, but you'd be convinced by the ResetEra Democratic Party fanatics that it's a major strain of socialist thought. That it's powerful on the left, and in American politics in general. And that it's not them inventing (or adopting) a new term for an old strain of the ideology.

It basically means "white male socialism" in the epithet form (Jill Stein is a white male by proxy due to sitting near Putin at a dinner once), but they're arguably trying to paint many currents of the left into it to tar them all with a single brush. Namely any current that doesn't seem to think interest group struggles should take priority over broader class struggle. Which is the main point of disagreement and has been for like a hundred years or more.

They're also doing the thing again where they follow the line of causation backwards. "Brocialists" would have supported Bernie Sanders (a self-proclaimed socalist/social democrat it seems needs to be pointed out yet again) and then didn't support Hillary for reasons like how she's not what they're looking for in a "socialist" right now. They reverse this causation for specific people to label anyone who supported Bernie but not Hillary as a "Brocialist" and cast them out in the gutter with the alt-right.

See also:

If you care about economic equality but not about Link's gender, their is a pretty good chance your a super gross poopy brocialist.