We need to stop being so paranoid about sex.

[rageaholic]

This shit is getting ridiculous.  Here is the latest story of a home schooled girl (17) kicked out of some prom because the dads couldn't stop staring.  Now I know this is homeschooled and most likely heavily religious, but this kind of shit is becoming all too common.  Where men are supposed to feel ashamed of the sexual thoughts they can't control and women are held responsible for "tempting" men. 

First of all, it's bullshit to blame women for the urges and actions of the men (and vice versa).  Even if you can argue that she dresses seductively, people are turned on by different things so to call something too "sexy" is quite subjective. 

Second of all, it's bullshit for men to feel ashamed for merely having urges.  Whether you're gay, straight, bi, or what ever, you're going to have urges.  And while some people can take their urges too far into sexual assault, merely having the urges shouldn't be such a sin.    And this is where the moral guardians will come in and mention that shes 17 and underage and that all the men lusting after her are creeps yada yada yada.  Well if we're talking about men actively trying to seduce her (or worse), than yes, that it creepy and by the law they would be held accountable.  But if we're just talking about "impure thoughts", what's the big deal?  They're fucking thoughts!

[Ultimate Paragon]

I agree, but attitudes don't change overnight.

[Old Viking]

Let's not be hasty.  If we can't be paranoid about sex, just what the hell can we be paranoid about?

[ironbite]

Bees and viking attacks.

[lord gibbon]

And Viking bee attacks.

[Lt. Fred]

Frankly I'm motivated largely by my own self-interest here. There seems to me to be something fundamentally wrong with asking people to be less sexy.

[Ironchew]

But if we're just talking about "impure thoughts", what's the big deal?  They're fucking thoughts!

Social justice would like to pull you aside for a moment and remind you that whitemancishet thoughts are oppressive and you should LITERALLY be celibate to pay reparations to sexual minorities.

[Witchyjoshy]

But if we're just talking about "impure thoughts", what's the big deal?  They're fucking thoughts!

Social justice warriors would like to pull you aside for a moment and remind you that whitemancishet thoughts are oppressive and you should LITERALLY be celibate to pay reparations to sexual minorities.

Fixed that for you.

[Ironchew]

But if we're just talking about "impure thoughts", what's the big deal?  They're fucking thoughts!

Social justice warriors would like to pull you aside for a moment and remind you that whitemancishet thoughts are oppressive and you should LITERALLY be celibate to pay reparations to sexual minorities.

Fixed that for you.

The social justice movement has the inbuilt tendency for purity wars and a natural result of that is fragmentation. Calling other SJ members "social justice warriors" is redundant and an exercise in the pot calling the kettle pot-of-color. Addressing social justice as "social justice" is short and to the point.

[Witchyjoshy]

Except that anyone in the interest of debate should always avoid the usage of broad terminology.  The problem with your statement is that it says all of the following simultaneously:

Gay Rights Activists/Feminists/Anti-Racists/Trans Activists/Secular Advocates/etc/ would like to pull you aside for a moment and remind you that whitemancishet thoughts are oppressive and you should LITERALLY be celibate to pay reparations to sexual minorities.

All of these things fall under "social justice", ranging from the kind people who are trying to spread awareness, to the outraged who know that kindness can't win everything, to the entitled, special snowflake dicks trying to put their pet causes on the bandwagon.

[Ironchew]

Except that anyone in the interest of debate should always avoid the usage of broad terminology.

Which is exactly why I don't like putting one label on members within a group that I don't like. For example, progressives are a diverse bunch and there are plenty of progressives I disagree with; I don't get to call them "progressive warriors" and hand-wave away any issues of arbitrary definition. I can criticize progressives as a group for giving cover to those loons and delve into specifics if necessary. The same applies with social justice.

"Social justice warrior" is arbitrary. The social justice movement facilitates an atmosphere where it's way too easy for special snowflakes to reinforce their attitudes and build an echo chamber. If you can't see how similar your so-called "warriors" are with the "true" social justice crowd, you're engaged in a purity war and you may be the pot calling the kettle black.

[R. U. Sirius]

"I'm having impure thoughts about a girl young enough to be my daughter! Remove her!" Ten minutes later, "Now I'm having impure thoughts about that girl over there! Remove her, too!" And before long, the prom is a complete sausage fest.

And then, the thoughts start coming up in relation to those guys there who are more slender and svelte...

[Witchyjoshy]

Except that anyone in the interest of debate should always avoid the usage of broad terminology.

Which is exactly why I don't like putting one label on members within a group that I don't like. For example, progressives are a diverse bunch and there are plenty of progressives I disagree with; I don't get to call them "progressive warriors" and hand-wave away any issues of arbitrary definition.

Except we do have a term for them, we call them "radicals".  Unfortunately, the reactionaries like to paint all liberals as "radicals".  So, forgive me for the comparison, but your actions strike me as very similar to the reactionaries.

I can criticize progressives as a group for giving cover to those loons and delve into specifics if necessary. The same applies with social justice.

Progressives and Social Justice Advocates do not get to choose who labels themselves progressives and social justice.  You cannot blame them for actions that are literally out of their control.

Also, "Social Justice Warrior" was a label that the extremists applied to themselves to give them a sense of superiority to the simple "advocates", if I understand correctly.

"Social justice warrior" is arbitrary. The social justice movement facilitates an atmosphere where it's way too easy for special snowflakes to reinforce their attitudes and build an echo chamber. If you can't see how similar your so-called "warriors" are with the "true" social justice crowd, you're engaged in a purity war and you may be the pot calling the kettle black.

This smells suspiciously of black and white thinking to me.  The fact is, there are differences between the two, and if you are unable to see them, perhaps it is simply because you have chosen not to.  Because they're rather clear as day.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Are you trying to be a confrontational idiot, Ironchump?

[Ironchew]

It wouldn't be the same without you, Ultie. Come on in while the flames are hot.