Community > Society and History
Worst of Social Justice III
Kanzenkankaku:
--- Quote from: Murdin on March 10, 2019, 06:15:30 pm ---
--- Quote from: Chaos Undivided on March 06, 2019, 12:52:20 pm ---Now the Twitter mobs have turned on Terry Crews for... talking about the importance of having a father figure.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/03/01/deadpool-2s-terry-crews-accused-of-misogyny-after-comments-on-the-importance-of-fatherhood/
https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/03/04/after-accusations-of-misogyny-brooklyn-nine-nine-actor-terry-crews-defends-himself-against-accusations-of-homophobia-from-woke-twitter/
--- End quote ---
I can't believe people are STILL falling for that shit, if you know what I mean, but here we go again.
The first article is the one that's actually about Terry Crews talking about the importance of having a father figure. From the underwhelming nature of the exposed tweets and my inability to find any other reference to this particular "controversy", I am inclined to believe that this website, that appears to be specialized in SJW-related clickbait and features all of our "favorite" lolcows... was, in fact, making a mountain out of a molehill. Shocking, I know.
The second article is the one that's actually about the Twitter mobs turning on Terry Crews. For stating that the children of single or same-sex parents are emotionally malnourished, that is. While some of you probably share this opinion, and I know many people do, you have to admit that it is decidedly more controversial and inflammatory than advertised by our new buddy Chaos Undivided.
As usual, the worst behavior seems to come from the so-called influencers that spearheaded the outrage: Nerdist "journalist" and professional shit-stirrer Rachel Heine, and Instagram model Emily Sears. Passive-aggressive insults, using other people as shields, ad hominem attacks, talking past a point by misrepresenting or outright ignoring it, the usual bad faith debating tactics. There is a bit of a catch, however, in that the article puts a lot of positive spin on Crews' tweets, and once you look past it... there are times where he really wasn't acting any better in those regards. For those who wants to play "spot the fallacy", all the relevant quotes are right there in the article.
To Crews' credit, not only did he delete the incriminating tweet for being "hurtful and poorly worded", he later issued a vague apology for his own behavior throughout the ensuing drama. Not sure how many of his most fervent opponents and defenders will display the same ability for self-reflection. It's almost as if the so-called "rational" and "socially conscious" sides are feeding each other's toxicity with their snappy hot takes, at the expense of both ideals. Oh, well, what do I know.
As silly as this one particular nontroversy really is, this trend of misrepresentation has always been a problem in SocJus threads. It personally worries me how much we tend to internalize the noxious inanity that pervades Internet culture, but if that's you folks really want... keep on with those topics, I guess.
--- End quote ---
I personally think we should keep being critical of people ostensibly on our own side in topics like this one, but I'm glad you were here to clarify that Chaos wasn't being entirely accurate. I'm just glad Crews can still take a step back, we all need that ability ourselves. Nuance is good.
What do you think CU?
Chaos Undivided:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Murdin. To start, Terry's "severely malnourished" tweet was in response to this:
--- Quote from: rach ---love is not gendered. a child will not starve with only one gender loving them
--- End quote ---
He wasn't throwing shade at single mothers or same-sex couples, he was saying that a child needs both maternal and paternal love. Neither one necessarily has to come from a literal parent.
Now, let's talk about the fallacies Terry supposedly committed. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what Murdin's talking about. The only thing I could find was a rather blatant play of the race card, which, taken in a vacuum, certainly doesn't make him look good. But again, context is important. I'd say it's likely he was trying to shame the people dogpiling him into backing off and being less hostile.
That being said, I'm willing to concede that he might have a point about the articles having inaccuracies.
P.S. Sorry about the short response, I'm not feeling too well right now.
Murdin:
While context can totally change the meaning of a statement, I don't see how that's the case here ; if anything, it makes it clearer that the discussion was indeed, in part, about same-sex parents. It explains how Crews went from point A to point B, but it doesn't really change what he actually said or why people were getting outraged over it. At worst, people could take his tweet out of context in order to misconstrue his intentions as homophobic, but not even the "influencers" stooped to that level.
Some left-wingers, who are not prejudiced against Jewish people in general, tend to slip into antisemitic rhetoric whenever topics like Israeli imperialism or the banking system are brought up. Does the context justify their behavior? I don't think so.
As for the fallacies... *sigh* here we go. I'm only picking one example from each "side", so this is not intended to be an exhaustive list.
* Passive-aggressive insults: Sears' whole "toxic masculinity" tweet vs Crews calling Sears "dear" and "ma'am".
* Using other people as shields: Shamia (by Sears) vs random black kids who grew up without paternal love.
* Ad hominem attacks: Sears calling Crews an abusive person vs Crews accusing Gray of "speaking for black people".
* Talking past a point by misrepresenting or outright ignoring it: Heine bringing up child-free women vs Crews' entire "conversation" with Gray, but especially his dramatic "fatherhood is not toxic".
As an aside, I am in no way endorsing callout culture. Even indulged in a bit of bothsame in order to express some of my feelings about it, and "hot take culture" in general.
Chaos Undivided:
--- Quote ---@ white girls ask ur self how many white girls you’re friends with, then ask yourself how many women of colour you’re friends with. then, make an effort.
--- End quote ---
Who the fuck chooses their friends based on skin color?
dpareja:
--- Quote from: Chaos Undivided on March 28, 2019, 12:23:41 pm ---
--- Quote ---@ white girls ask ur self how many white girls you’re friends with, then ask yourself how many women of colour you’re friends with. then, make an effort.
--- End quote ---
Who the fuck chooses their friends based on skin color?
--- End quote ---
True, as far as it goes, but the post can be read as being addressed to white women who just haven't met very many non-white women, and is urging them to make an effort to meet non-white women, with whom they might then become friends.
It could have been phrased better, and the unspoken assumption is aggravating and condescending, but I don't think it's intended to be as bad as "you should choose your friends based on skin colour".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version