Tumblr: Ask Me Anything

[Witchyjoshy]

No, that's a case of you reading what you want to read.  Of course, you more or less proved this when you skimmed past "Western society" in the very same post you were touting as proof of your perception.

They were explaining what it was for the context of social justice advocate discussions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You want to find a quote that says they accept the common definition of racism everywhere but their social justice blogs? Assuming you know what you're talking about, there should be several in this very thread.

I've actually talked with them.  You know, made an effort to understand where they're coming from.

In other words, "no". Though I feel I should mention that just because the whole "racism = power + prejudice" idea applies to other races when they dominate society, it does not make it any less flawed, or does it mean that it's in face not the widely accepted definition in the internet social justice crowd.

The burden of proof lies with you, not me.

In other words, you don't have any evidence that the social justice crowd is trying to redefine all racism as institutional racism.

Take your own advice and provide me with some evidence that isn't simply you reading what you want to read out of something.

@Fpqxz

Fallacy: Argument by Authority.

[Fpqxz]

@Fpqxz

Fallacy: Argument by Authority.

Nope.  Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.

[Witchyjoshy]

@Fpqxz

Fallacy: Argument by Authority.

Nope.  Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.

By whose standards?  Yours, obviously.  But who else's?

Just because someone has authority doesn't make them always right or free from prejudice.  You can't just say "This person is legitimate authority therefore what he says is TRUEFACTS!" because that doesn't work.

And quite honestly, I doubt you are unbiased about this whole thing.

[Fpqxz]

@Fpqxz

Fallacy: Argument by Authority.

Nope.  Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.

By whose standards?  Yours, obviously.  But who else's?

Just because someone has authority doesn't make them always right or free from prejudice.  You can't just say "This person is legitimate authority therefore what he says is TRUEFACTS!" because that doesn't work.

And quite honestly, I doubt you are unbiased about this whole thing.

Chomsky is a public intellectual who has studied many fields, including the one we are discussing.  In fact, I highly recommend his works.  Bear in mind that I don't agree with everything he says, but he is damn good at explaining himself plainly.

Again, if you read my previous posts in this thread, you would understand that the fallacies which you and Wykked invoked are simply inapplicable here.

[Art Vandelay]

Take your own advice and provide me with some evidence that isn't simply you reading what you want to read out of something.

As you wish.

Social justice bloggers operate off of the definition that racism = power + prejudice. Racism is simply bigotry and prejudice with the overwhelming institutional power to back it up. This does mean that, in Western society,  only white people can be racist, but people of color can still be bigoted or prejudiced. In common usage, all these words mean the same thing, but in social justice circles, "racism" has different connotations.

There's one.

The first one, yes. Most sources that I've seen define racism as being a societal structure rather than just bullying, and that it's firmly ingrained in things like media and stereotypes rather than simply acts of violence. The way I've seen it put is this: a black kid can beat up a white kid for being white. That's bullying. But there isn't a system telling him that it's OK to do that. A system where "flesh toned" means "white" and everyone on TV is white and people still think it's OK to wear blackface is skewed in favor of white people. It's very Western-world centered because almost everyone on Tumblr lives in the west, but hypothetically, if there were a place where the same sort of system applied to white people, then it would also be racism. It's not so much "you can't be racist against white people" as it is "you can't be racist against white people in America considering our current societal structure."

And two.

Both of these quotes from the first page of this thread and both confirm that yes, the "racism = power + prejudice" definition is the commonly accepted definition with internet social justice circles (as in, accepted by the majority, not just some insane minority). While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.

[Witchyjoshy]

While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.

And it doesn't say that they don't, either.  So it's still not proof supporting your cause.

@Fpqxz

Fallacy: Argument by Authority.

Nope.  Chomsky is, in fact, a legitimate authority on this issue.

By whose standards?  Yours, obviously.  But who else's?

Just because someone has authority doesn't make them always right or free from prejudice.  You can't just say "This person is legitimate authority therefore what he says is TRUEFACTS!" because that doesn't work.

And quite honestly, I doubt you are unbiased about this whole thing.

Chomsky is a public intellectual who has studied many fields, including the one we are discussing.  In fact, I highly recommend his works.  Bear in mind that I don't agree with everything he says, but he is damn good at explaining himself plainly.

Again, if you read my previous posts in this thread, you would understand that the fallacies which you and Wykked invoked are simply inapplicable here.

Ah, so there's room to disagree with him after all.  I guess what he says isn't necessarily truefacts then.

That's my point.  Touting something he says as true simply because you agree with it is fallacious.

And if you agree with him, good for you!  It's great to come to your own conclusions about things.  However, here's the thing.

This topic is about information.  Clearing up misconceptions about social justice advocates as well as answering questions.  However, both you and Art came into this thread for your own agendas.  That's pretty obvious right from the very first posts.  As such, forgive me for saying this, but I really am not inclined to think of you two are anything more than troublemakers in this instance.

This topic is not here for you to prove a point.  This topic is here for information and clearing up misconceptions.  The forum members are not targets for your personal shooting grounds.  You don't have to agree with Smurfette or Wykked.  But if you are not here to learn, and are instead here to grandstand about how all social justice advocates are inferior to you personally, then you have come here for the wrong reason.

Back off.

[Art Vandelay]

While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.

And it doesn't say that they don't, either.  So it's still not proof supporting your cause.

If you tout your own personal redefinition of a word, it follows that you don't have a second definition that you adhere to in other instances unless stated otherwise. This is pretty basic stuff Zach, why exactly does this need to be explained to you in such great detail?

This topic is about information.  Clearing up misconceptions about social justice advocates as well as answering questions.  However, both you and Art came into this thread for your own agendas.  That's pretty obvious right from the very first posts.  As such, forgive me for saying this, but I really am not inclined to think of you two are anything more than troublemakers in this instance.

Nice ad hom you have there. Simply brilliant.

[Fpqxz]

You know Zach, I admire your attempts at even-handed moderation, and your attempt at playing devil's advocate, but I think you are being a bit unfair to Art and myself.  We may have come in here with our own opinions, but you are speaking as if we have come in here solely to stir up shit and done nothing but flame people in this thread.  We have not done so, and you will understand if we feel as passionate about the topic at hand as Smurfette and Wykked do.

You want to know the real reason I dislike the SJW culture so much?  Because it is my belief that these people are ruining the political Left.  Their rhetoric serves to do nothing but divide the working class (by race, by sexual orientation, etc.).  They are the best friends the Republicans/Tea Partiers/Tories have right now, but neither side realizes it (yet).  Keeping us fighting each other is exactly what they want us to do.  Divide and conquer, a tactic as old as Empire itself.

I'm all for racial equality, gay marriage, and so forth, but going around alienating the white working class is the worst possible way to accomplish such ends.  Not only does it accomplish absolutely zilch in the way of solving actual street-level problems, but it also pushes away the very people whose support you would need to do so.

You're not going to win hearts and minds by telling or even insinuating that white people that they are oppressors solely because they are white, or shouting things like "die cis scum".  If you want to call that "tone policing", so be it, but half of politics is about tailoring your message and forging coalitions.  That's why Clinton was so successful as a Democratic president, despite his political and personal foibles.

Furthermore, going around hating yourself for what you are is a guaranteed way to make sure that nobody respects you.  Again, telling/insinuating that people should be ashamed of their ethnic heritage isn't going to win you any friends, and it will only bring a hearty laugh of derision from people who actually do have some level of self-respect.  It's no better than suggesting that the son of a criminal receive a taste of the lash.

</rant>

[Witchyjoshy]

While one simply acknowledges that it's different to the common definition (as well as rather erroneously equating "racism", "prejudice" and "bigotry" and synonyms), it does not actually say that they agree with and support the common use of the term outside their social justice blogs rather than their own redefinition.

And it doesn't say that they don't, either.  So it's still not proof supporting your cause.

If you tout your own personal redefinition of a word, it follows that you don't have a second definition that you adhere to in other instances unless stated otherwise. This is pretty basic stuff Zach, why exactly does this need to be explained to you in such great detail?

No, it doesn't follow.  I'm quite frankly sick and tired of you touting your assumptions as fact.

@Fpqxz

Oh for crying out loud.

Again, this is why I keep repeating myself -- the people who are shown in the SJW thread are not indicative of the SJA movement as a whole.  Most of them are not like that.

I don't feel alienated.  I've actually listened to what's being said.  And the fact is, yes, privilege exists, and it's something that should be made aware of and compensated for when possible.

This doesn't mean I hate myself for it.  Hell no.  The fact that you assume I would hate myself for that is presumptuous as hell on your part.

(I hate myself for other reasons but that's another story for another topic)

Fact of the matter is, your post is pretty clear that you have a seriously warped view of SJAs.  You've only been exposed to the bad elements and haven't seen the message that they're actually trying to show.

Open your mind a bit.  Allow yourself to be wrong about something.  Ask questions.

Remember.  The SJWs are no more indicative of SJAs as a whole than fundies are indicative of religion as a whole.

As far as agendas go... honestly, you've given me plenty of reason to believe that you and Art are prejudiced about this issue and won't listen to anything that disagrees with you.  I've seen a lot of bullying on these forums directed towards Smurfette on this fact alone.  That's not good.

Stating your opinion is fine.  Being a dick about it is not.  You both are pretty much dicks about this.  It is quite possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it.

[Art Vandelay]

No, it doesn't follow.  I'm quite frankly sick and tired of you touting your assumptions as fact.

So If I were to redefine a word, you would assume that I have other definitions that I use in other circumstances unless stated otherwise?

Makes perfect sense.

As far as agendas go... honestly, you've given me plenty of reason to believe that you and Art are prejudiced about this issue and won't listen to anything that disagrees with you.  I've seen a lot of bullying on these forums directed towards Smurfette on this fact alone.  That's not good.

When the fuck has Smurfette ever been bullied on this forum over her social justice activities? I want links and solid reasoning that what you're linking to is actual bullying, not just a "it totally happens, for reals".

[Witchyjoshy]

No, it doesn't follow.  I'm quite frankly sick and tired of you touting your assumptions as fact.

So If I were to redefine a word, you would assume that I have other definitions that I use in other circumstances unless stated otherwise?

Makes perfect sense.

If you were to say "In this context, this is how I use this word", I would assume that outside of that context, you would use the word in other ways.

Kinda like how male and female mean different things when it comes to electronics than when it comes to gender or sex.

[Art Vandelay]

If you were to say "In this context, this is how I use this word", I would assume that outside of that context, you would use the word in other ways.

Kinda like how male and female mean different things when it comes to electronics than when it comes to gender or sex.

But if I said "as a [ideology], I define [y] as [z], even though it deviates from the common definition", you would not assume I adhere to any other definition unless specifically stated otherwise, no?

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Getting back to the "Ask me Anything" bit:

1) What's your take on the whole "white dreadlocks = misappropriation" thing that's been going around on Tumblr lately? How about bindis?

2) Are there any trends that have come up in the general SJ community on Tumblr that you disagree with? Popular opinions that you don't share, memes/catchphrases you find questionable, popular SJ bloggers you're not fond of, etc.

3) What is it that draws you to the community?

4) Any SJ blogs you'd recommend checking out?

[Smurfette Principle]

When the fuck has Smurfette ever been bullied on this forum over her social justice activities? I want links and solid reasoning that what you're linking to is actual bullying, not just a "it totally happens, for reals".

Going to pop in and say that I haven't felt very comfortable here for a while. I've stayed on because I have friends here, and I don't want to ragequit and be mocked, but there have been times when I've felt ganged up on. The reason I started this thread was to help with that, but it's gotten derailed over and over again. This is not a thread for me to justify my beliefs, this is a thread to explain how social justice activism on Tumblr is, and I am really sick of people disparaging "Tumblr social justice activism" when I'm a social justice activist on Tumblr, especially because, seeing these sorts of things on my dash all the time, I know that a lot of what people are posting are Poes, except they're not aware of that because, hey, guess what, you're not on Tumblr.

When people say "Tumblr social justice," and don't bother to clarify that they are talking about the assholes, they're attacking me, they're attacking Wykked, and they're attacking Gyeonghwa, and it's not very cool, to be perfectly honest.

Getting back to the "Ask me Anything" bit:

1) What's your take on the whole "white dreadlocks = misappropriation" thing that's been going around on Tumblr lately? How about bindis?

2) Are there any trends that have come up in the general SJ community on Tumblr that you disagree with? Popular opinions that you don't share, memes/catchphrases you find questionable, etc.

3) What is it that draws you to the community?

4) Any SJ blogs you'd recommend checking out?

1. Since both dreadlocks and bindis have religious significance, I'm uncomfortable with it. I feel similarly uncomfortable with wearing crosses as fashion statements.

2. Quite a lot of people say that they don't like identifying as feminists because, according to them, feminism is solely about straight white cis women. I personally think that while different organizations run it that way, feminism the ideal is about all women and everyone who cares about women should identify as feminists.

3. I've cared about social activism since before I was out of middle school. My parents are feminists (growing up, I was the only kid whose mom worked and whose dad voluntarily stayed at home to take care of the kids), I started getting into gay rights when I was thirteen, and slowly over time I've gotten to the point where I don't want to be really, truly mean to anyone unless they are actively hurting other people. Then I want to kick their asses. It's part of why I want to be a civil rights lawyer.

4. Oh, gosh. Let's see. There's this one and this one and this one. That last one isn't strictly about social justice, but when people talk about wanting more diversity and representation in body positive art? This person does that really fucking well.

[MaybeNever]

4. Oh, gosh. Let's see. There's this one

This is a really good blog. Social justice to all, and to all a good night.