FWIS3

Meet Charles Clymer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/darlena-cu ... 75303.html

and Hugo Schwyzer:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/ ... .xwqLAAx8Q

I want to dismiss these guys as just being manipulative schmucks - seriously! - but I think that would be a stupid thing to do. That desire for praise and acceptance is ubiquitous in people; I see it in myself all the time. It's also profoundly toxic. I, or any of us, could turn out this way too if we're not careful.

(This, BTW, is part of the reason I dropped off of Twitter. At a certain point I realized I was basically seeking praise from famous people so that I could feel good about myself, rather than doing anything useful or empathic. There is a word for that: "manipulation.")

Also, stuff like this might be why I'm a tad bit skeptical of Joss Whedon...

Which is weird since Joss didn't have a twitter account for years and then got a private account.
There is a Joss Tweetin account but that's a fan boy.

***edited to add***
Looks like he finally got on to twitter then quit it recently.

Wait, what did Joss Whedon do?

I think what GJ is trying to say is that because these other two seemed to be the champions of feminism and did things that didn't agree with every aspect of that to every person, that they are hypocrites and as a result, Joss, who has been championing women's rights is also an untrustworthy hypocrite that has hidden agenda's to exploit little girls, or something like that. If he ever visited Thailand, he's GUILTY!!!!

Though I could argue: GJ, you've been a very prominent advocate of feminism, even the extreme kind, and by the principle of superposition, you can't be trusted either.

Mind you, they (the two in the op) were both men, so we could extrapolate that it's all men that are the problem. But, that's too broad a brush. Did they happen to be black? That way we can limit the scope of our paranoia to only black men which would clearly make much more sense. By the principle of symmetry, we can also then say that the majority of the Republican party are awesome guys who totally respect and want to give women all the rights they can because they seem to constantly be trying to remove their rights in public, so must therefore be really good guys we can trust to do the right thing in reality, because they too are hypocrites but inn a good awesome way.

Don't mind me, just trying to be a humorous ass.

vendic - you're correct. As a guy, I can't be trusted on this stuff.

Also I'm not saying Whedon is anywhere near as messed up as the guys I indicate above. For all I know his motives might be pristine. IDK.

Gullible Jones wrote:vendic - you're correct. As a guy, I can't be trusted on this stuff.

A beautiful example of a highly sexist statement that is the product of those who want sexism to be eradicated.
Oh the irony, the champions of equality pushing forth and supporting the concept that it is impossible to have equality, without persecuting some other group to get it.

Gullible Jones wrote:vendic - you're correct. As a guy, I can't be trusted on this stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean by "trusted". If you mean, since you are a guy you can't have an opinion about feminism... that's a crock. OK, maybe you can't have an opinion , but I'm not giving up my right to an opinion.

Do you further extrapolate that since I'm not black I can't have an opinion about race issues, or I'm an agnostic and so can't have an opinion about religion?

Fine, until you get a PhD in some science, please do not comment about any issue relating to science.

Gullible Jones wrote:vendic - you're correct. As a guy, I can't be trusted on this stuff.

so only a woman can? phyllis schlafly? sarah palin?

@vendic: not sexism, common sense. I've never lived as a woman, therefore I have no bloody idea what it's like.

@Swift: welllll, now that you mention it....

But seriously, we're all entitled to opinions, it's just that some opinions carry more weight than others. Your opinion on science-related stuff carries more weight than mine. Likewise, a woman's opinion on the social issues faced by women carries more weight than a man's.

(Would you trust an astronomer's opinion about how to perform heart surgery.)

@cm - beats me, I can't really claim to understand where people like Schlafly and Palin fit in. But I already distrust Palin on many, many things.

Gullible Jones wrote:@vendic: not sexism, common sense. I've never lived as a woman, therefore I have no bloody idea what it's like.

So, the only way you can understand another point of view is to literally be that person. I can have "no bloody idea" what it is like to be a woman unless I am one? I'm sorry, but that is entirely too extreme a point of view, in my opinion.

@Swift: welllll, now that you mention it....

But seriously, we're all entitled to opinions, it's just that some opinions carry more weight than others. Your opinion on science-related stuff carries more weight than mine. Likewise, a woman's opinion on the social issues faced by women carries more weight than a man's.

(Would you trust an astronomer's opinion about how to perform heart surgery.)

I was thinking about this the other day, and while there is some validity to some opinions should have more weight than others (surgeon versus astronomer on heart surgery being an excellent example), I also think there is a counter-example.

I think some people are too close to the problem to be able to understand it rationally, and an outside opinion may actually be more valuable. I can give one, possibly extreme example.

In the justice system in the US, we do not allow the victim, or the family of the victim, to serve on the jury for the trial of the person charged with the crime against that victim. We understand that they will have too much difficulty being emotionally detached from it to judge the case, and that the goal of our system is justice, not revenge.

I actually think that similar problems may on occassion happen with such issues as racism or sexism, and someone who has not been a victim of such problems may have insights into it that are at least as valuable as someone who is a victim of them.

I think the very notion that men can't understand equality is as retarded as saying women aren't as capable as men. Basically it's the exact same mentality.
Likewise it means that white men can't understand racism. Which implies that only non white people understand it, another way of saying that white men are inferior, which of course is breaking the fundamental rule of understanding equality.
For the record, be it anecdotal or not, I've met far more non-white people who are guilty of racism than white people, but, I read about far more white people being racist than non white people.
I've even had a an Asian woman tell me she can't be racist because, "look at me". A typically racist statement.

I could go on but whats the point.
If you can't address the inherent inequality in society without resorting to the notion that the majority are actually unequal to the minority you are defending, then you've become part of the problem along with anyone else that promotes that view because you are saying the same thing as the true racists/sexists are. The only difference is which side you are supporting.

To venedic/ the poster formerly known as Zee:

You're conflating bias and racism, which are not necessarily the same thing. Racism in modern sociology tends to refer to the system that supports the belief that white people are better than non-white people, ie what gives you crap like Ferguson and Baltimore. As such, per that definition black people have never been in the position of systematically oppressing white people, so it's kind of dumb to say they are racist.

Bias, on the other hand, applies to everyone, and everyone is biased, some definitely more than others. Your Asian woman in your example doesn't sound racist to me, but she's sure as hell biased and in ways she doesn't acknowledge to herself.

I mention all this btw just because I think throwing around "you're racist!", "no I'm not!" is usually not very productive because of the implication of the word and its history in describing systematic injustice, but bias is a bit more subtle and it tends to lead to more constructive conversation when you call such behaviors out for what they are.

That said, the idea that men can't understand equality is dumb GJ. As I said, everyone has biases- even women!- so the trick is recognizing what yours are and not allowing them to influence you. That definitely doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on something about equality just for being male- being a prig who doesn't recognize reality, on the other hand, will probably mean you don't hold my attention for long.

Rommie wrote:... Racism in modern sociology tends to refer to the system that supports the belief that white people are better than non-white people, ie what gives you crap like Ferguson and Baltimore. As such, per that definition black people have never been in the position of systematically oppressing white people, so it's kind of dumb to say they are racist....

I'm not sure I agree. Sure, the most detrimental effects of racism devolve primarily on the minority population but I think it's wrong to say that minorities can't be racist. They can and are. It's just that their racism doesn't tend to translate into intolerant laws and law enforcement because minorities lack the power to oppress.

I think bias is different. Racism is a subset of bias characterized by an animosity towards different people based on unsubstantiated perceptions. Bias does not have to have that unsubstantiated perception component.