There exist a video on the planes of the internet that is all I ever asked for. And it doesn’t even come from Buzzfeed! That’s a fucking surprise. So this wonderful video of a bunch of SJWs asking anti-SJWs questions is up and ripe to be responded to. It’s hopping on the bandwagon that died months ago, guys, come on. Step it up. Even so, this is going to be fun. Just a note: I started out trying to answer all of them, realized it was fourteen minutes long, said fuck it and skipped around after a while. Sue me.
Are you able to understand the irony of responding to the perceived political correctness of the left with exacerbated, reactionary, hyper-sensitivity of your own?
I guess I don’t, but that’s probably because I’m having a very difficult time coming up with examples of anti-SJWs engaging in the same reactionary, hyper-sensitivity as their SJW counterparts. The worst thing that I can think of is that anti-SJW commentators oftentimes hop on the bandwagon when it comes to responding to certain videos, so those videos then get lots of negative attention that, after it reaches some vague, undetermined threshold, could be considered cyberbullying.
How over-the-top their response video is generally depends on the YouTuber that you’re talking about–some are intentionally mean, some are intentionally ridiculous, others more levelheaded. And most of them don’t encourage bullying, that’s just a result of them having a platform with followers who can act of their own volition to go be mean to somebody who has come under their attention for whatever reason. This is honestly the worst thing that I can think of. It’s not the hyper-reactionary SJW tactic of “this person said something that I found unpleasant, so let’s get them fired from their fucking job.”
How do you define right-wing? Anti-SJWs often have an aversion to being labeled as right-wing, yet they regularly defend the right and bash the left. Therefore why is being right-wing a bad thing to you? And if it’s because “right-wing” is used as a pejorative, can you not see how labeling someone as an SJW or regressive is also pejorative?
I probably define “right-wing” the same way you do. It refers to people who hold political beliefs that fall mainly on the conservative side of the scale. I have an aversion to being called a right-winger because that is patently not what I am. I don’t think it’s an insult. I think it’s inaccurate. Most of my values are left-leaning. I am pro-choice. I like Planned Parenthood. I’m a pacifist. I’m against the death penalty. I’m okay with more regulations being put on gun ownership. I think social safety nets like welfare and food stamps are good. I’m ambivalent about illegal Mexican immigration, and the most salient complaints I have about it are concerned with the poor treatment of the illegal immigrants themselves. I think that we should not only end the war on drugs but decriminalize drugs entirely and let non-violent drug offenders out of prison. I think prostitution is fine. I think polygamous/polyandrous marriages between consenting, non-coerced adults should be legal. I think climate change is something that people should be far more concerned about than they are. I think corporations will build elementary schools out of broken glass and asbestos if no one is there to regulate the fuck out of them. I think our police are over-militarized and dangerous. I actively fight for prison reform. I am a liberal. Calling me right-wing does not make sense in the overwhelming majority of situations.
To be clear, I don’t think that calling someone a right-winger is an insult. It’s typically leftists who treat the term like it’s synonymous with bigot/racist and therefore act like calling someone right-wing makes a point about the other person’s character when they’ve really not done more than call someone a name. I also think many anti-SJWs throw around the terms “SJW” and “regressive” too regularly as though they’re just bad names and not descriptors of someone’s actions. It is annoying to me and I wish people would operate under a little more discretion on both sides of that argument.
That aforementioned “treating ‘right-wing’ as a synonym for bigot” tendency is one of the reasons why I defend the right, by the way. The right is currently the one being “marginalized.” I fucking hate that word. I’m talking about college Republican clubs having their invited speakers no-platformed or disrupted to the point of cancellation. I’m talking about speakers being kicked out of conferences because they have one opinion that doesn’t fall in line with the liberal notions of everyone else. It was once the feminists and the hippies whose speech needed protecting against right-wing moral authoritarians who wanted to determine what was “safe” for the public to hear. In 2016, the left has taken up the mantel of being the moral authoritarian group trying to tell everybody what is an isn’t acceptable. When it switches back around, you can bet that I’ll shit talk the right again. Until then, though, being right-wing does not make someone a fucking monster, and it doesn’t make them uneducated, and it doesn’t make them automatically wrong. So I will defend them even if I don’t agree with them on most things because there actually is a conversation worth having there in many cases.
Rather than telling the people you disagree with to drink bleach, wouldn’t it be more productive for you to actually have a conversation about the issues that you feel matter? Or is it just easier to do the bleach thing?
I’m actually very confused here. The “drink bleach” thing is a suicide joke. “Oh, watching this is going to be awful, good thing I have my drinking-bleach ready!” That kind of thing. It’s not a “go kill yourself” joke. If someone is telling you to go drink bleach, they are not using that meme correctly. That’s all I have to say on this subject. They’re wrong.
You claim to be proponents of rational, logical, evidence-based argumentation. That’s great. That’s entirely laudable. But when I look at your online activity, when I look at your Twitter feed, for example, that’s often not what I see. How do you reconcile this claim to be evidence-based and rational and logical against stuff like “Oh, I was just trolling you,” “Oh, I was just shit-posting,” or “TLDR”?
Very easily. You kind of answered your own question. There’s rational argumentation with the intention of actually expressing an idea in a persuasive fashion . . . and then there is shit-posting and trolling for fun. Indulging in one does not mean that you can never indulge in the other lest you render yourself irrelevant. These aren’t mutually exclusive things. The typical SJW isn’t the smartest, nicest, most eloquent person in the world either, if you’re going to look at social media activity and judge solely based on that. And you’re really using Twitter as your example here? No one is smart on Twitter and everyone‘s a sociopath. That’s why I don’t have one.
Are you aware that the ridiculous buzzwords you helped to popularize like “SJW” and “cuck” and “regressive” have all lost any meaning that they once had and now only serve as pejoratives and insults used to derail any meaningful conversation.
Sure, I’ll give you this one. Tell you what, you stop calling people racist, misogynist, Islamophobic, transphobic, rape-enabling bigots every time they look at you the wrong way; and I’ll stop using the term “regressive.” I never liked the term anyway. We have a deal?
In videos and in comment sections, anti-feminists often take up the most extreme or the weakest feminist position they can find, or they just straight up misrepresent what the feminist position is. Instead, why not take up the strongest, most robust feminist argument you can find and really challenge yourself?
I don’t know what this means. I honestly don’t. I can only speak for myself, but I go after two kinds of feminism: pop-feminism of the Buzzfeed and HuffPost variety and academic feminism. You could argue that Buzzfeed feminism is low-hanging fruit. I’ve called it that myself, but that is ultimately the kind of feminism that is mainstream, the kind that most people are familiar with and most publications indulge in. So are you saying that I should ignore feminism as it actually is in its most popular and culturally relevant form because that’s not “true” feminism?
I also tackle academic feminism at its most basic concepts. The definitions that I talk about (“rape culture,” “patriarchy,” etc.) are taken from official sites that use agreed-upon nomenclature in feminist academia. So how is looking up define patriarchy; feminist theory on the internet and tackling the idea based on its foundation, the thing it needs to support any further complexities, going after a position that is too extreme or too weak? I don’t think that you are admitting here that the foundational theories of feminism can’t hold up on their own under any amount of scrutiny or that they are too extreme to be taken seriously. If that assumption is right, than I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say I should talk about more robust feminist arguments. I’m am looking at the most basic feminist ideas that all other feminist theory is built around. If those don’t hold up, I doubt the rest will. Please point me in the direction of some feminist text that you think represents feminism at its strongest if you think the examples I choose from aren’t good enough.
I am deeply concerned with male addiction rates, suicide rates, and abuse rates, because I have worked with these issues in the real world. Would you be willing as anti-feminists to put your differences aside for the greater good of addressing these issues, especially as the kinds of solutions needed are not necessarily gendered. If so, we could get something done if we work together.
Good for you. You seem nice. I’m not explicitly anti-feminist. I don’t like the ideas of feminism, at their very core in some cases, but that doesn’t mean that I define myself and my values as simply being opposed to a movement or idea. It’s simply that the feminist movement actively puts itself in opposition to my own values many a time. In situations where this is not the case, I will and already have gladly worked with people who call themselves feminists.
Also, I have a question for you: Why are you defending feminism here? Honestly? If you understand that many issues are not inherently gender-issues and that they don’t require gendered solutions, why are you aligning yourself with the one group that actively insists on making things all about gender and coming up with nothing but gendered solutions? Feminists are the ones who paint domestic violence like a male-on-female issue, to the point of actively going against the establishment of men’s abuse hotlines and shelters, for just a single example, and they’ve proven time and time again that men’s rights are an afterthought that they’ll address only when it piggybacks on the “more important” issue of sexism against women, yet you’re still aligning yourself with that movement in the fight for gender rights? I’m confused for you.
What is third-wave feminism? Because I’ve often heard you folks insist that you have no objection to feminism in general but that it is specifically third-wave feminism that you have a problem with. So what is third-wave feminism specifically?And what, specifically, about third-wave feminism do you have such a problem with?
Well, according to the internet, there are four waves of feminism now. When did that happen? To answer your question: third-wave feminism started in the 1980s/1990s as an off-shoot of the recently popularized academic feminism. This differentiated it from the first two waves because, whereas first-and-second-wave feminism were political movements based around civil rights, third-wave feminism became a social theory. I can only assume that fourth-wave feminism is what we have now, and that is also a social theory.
Whenever a movement turns into a social theory, that is a bad thing. That’s what happened with black civil rights and its mutation into the critical race theory we all know and love. Movements have concrete goals and concrete reasons for existing, and they exist in one place in time and then stop when their goals are completed. When you turn a movement into a social theory, it extends far beyond the bounds of when and where it was necessary and continues to hold ideas about the world that it had during its conception even though the world is constantly changing and their views may or may not have even been accurate to begin with. For something that you may latch onto better, McCarthyism is a perfect example of this. It started out as a political tactic arisen from a very specific problem at a very specific time, and it overstayed its welcome by making itself a social code synonymous with “the American way of life” long after the Commies were no longer an issue. Movements turning into social theories is bad. That is what happened to feminism, and that is why I do not like modern feminism. I don’t even like first-and-second-wave feminism all that much, and those actually had goals, unlike “fight the patriarchy,” which is not a goal. It’s a credo.
Why am I continually asked to answer for the views of feminists if I agree with feminism’s overall aims but don’t agree with those particular feminists? Does that mean that I can ask you to answer for the actions of anyone who labels themselves similarly to you, even if you don’t agree much?
Yes, yes you can ask that of me. Because that is how labels work.
Now, if someone who labels themself similar to you does or says some totally unrelated nonsense, it’s not your job to step in, of course. But if they undergo that nonsense under the pretense of being under your shared label, that is where you should say something. Someone who just happens to be a feminist doing something bad is not your problem, but someone doing something bad and using feminism as their excuse for it is your problem.
I’m going to tell you the same thing I tell Muslims: You chose this. You chose the belief system. You chose the label. You chose to align yourself with other people who share that label. You chose to let it be known to the world that you have enough things in common with the people who have that label to take on the label for yourself. You gave up the right to be pissed off about guilt-by-association the second you decided to willingly and overtly make that association. You have to speak for your own beliefs. You have to defend your own beliefs. And if you’ve decided to attach your beliefs onto a specific label, you have now taken it upon yourself to defend that label as well. You have taken it upon yourself to weed out the crazies and explain to everyone else how they don’t represent you. You announced to the world “I agree with these people!” by giving yourself that label in the first place, and it’s not the world’s fault for assuming that you agree with the crazy shit they do. If that annoys you, either ditch the label and stop implicitly associating yourself with every insane Tumblrite or learn to grin and bear it. Those are your options.
If SJWs are bad because they spend to much time whining and don’t talk about ‘real problems,’ then why aren’t you talking about those problems instead of just whining about the other people over and over and over, for literally years. On the scale of priories, that has to be even lower, right? You’ve got ‘real problems,’ you’ve got the things that feminists worry about, then you’ve got you whining about whining forver, for a living, that’s healthy.
So does that mean that this video, which is you whining about whining about whining, is totally fucking usesless? Seriously, guys. Fuck this Hanson-looking motherfucker. I’m not usually one to pick out individual people who I fucking hate, I usually just focus on their ideas since those tend to be a shared feature. That being said, this video really awakened a fiery, burning dislike of this guy and Kristie Winters, or however the fuck you spell her name. They are . . . the most punchable human beings that I have ever encountered. I have argued with white supremacist neo-Nazis who I didn’t despise as much as these two, and they just keep getting more and more condescending the longer this video goes on. That is ridiculous.
Just so you know, his helpful on-screen queues listed “things feminists care about” as sexual assault and racism. Which I clearly, as a black woman, do not care about or have any stakes in whatsoever. I’m pretty much just a sociopath. Here is the issue with your condescension, you MmmmBop bastard, the things SJWs group under “sexual assault” and “racism” are overtly harmful and cheapen actual accounts of sexual assault and racism. So I am sorry for complaining about you promoting a social system where we tar-and-feather people as racists just because a black person says they are and where we go on witch hunts for rapists who may or may not even exists. I’m sorry for thinking that just believing someone and taking what they have to say wholesale with no questions because they have the right skin tone and/or genitals is a bad idea. I am sorry. I guess I’m just a Debbie Downer that way. I’m sorry for trying to point out that ideological systems that paint entire demographic groups as inherently morally inferior are bad. But I’m just whining, guys! I’m a whiner! Ignore the fact that I talk about ‘real problems’ all the time, and just focus on the fact that I whine about ideas that I think are overtly harming society, which has no value whatsoever. Don’t apply this to what he does though! He doesn’t whine about anything, ever.
I’m just going to go ahead and mention that he proceeds to talk down to people who dare question feminist studies about sexual assault. Because trying to stop the rape-hysteria caused by the still-circulating “1 in 5 women will be raped in college” statistic that is so wrong it’s almost hilarious makes me a bad person who clearly just hates rape victims.
You can fuck right the fuck off.
Dear God, this guy is making me so irrationally angry.
If you’ve ever discussed or done a video about black on black crime, when are you going to do a video on white on white crime and what we, as white people, can do to solve the problems in our community?
I’m getting sick of this argument. We talk about black on black crime because it is an actual, disproportionately huge issue while white on white crime is not. The majority of murder victims in the US are black men, the overwhelming majority. And the overwhelming majority of the ones who killed them are black men. This doesn’t seem too bad until you realize that black people aren’t even 15% of the population but they make up the majority of murder victims because they’re killing each other at such high rates. This is in contrast to white people, who are also killed mainly by other white people, but not nearly as much. Last year, around the same number of white on white murders happened as black on black murders. This is 60% of the population versus less than 15% of the population, and there is an equal number of murders happening among them.
Are you not cluing in to why one of these is more of a problem than the other? Do you not realize how these are different?! This is actually really disgusting to me, the more I think about it. Winters is sitting there being condescending as fuck, probably thinking that she’s finally backed us into a corner. She’s so goddamn smug, because she gets to use people being murdered as a talking point to prove how much better she is than you. That is what this is to her. It’s just something to prove that she is better than you. She gives no fucks about the amount of black people dying every year. She doesn’t care. Yeah, she’ll probably get up-in-arms about the statistically improbable event of someone getting killed by a cop and act like its a sign of a fucking epidemic in order to virtue signal about what a good person she is, but the thing that is actually killing black people in epidemic-level droves she doesn’t give two fucks about. She will make fun of you if you bring it up because that’s not the ‘relevant’ thing to care about. She will give you a smug fucking grin and lean back, content in the knowledge that she totally stumped you with her “why don’t you care about white on white crime?” line. Fuck this bitch, guys.
Oh my God. I am so angry. I am so angry it is ridiculous.
Do you understand basic English syntax? If I say “This cat is pretty,” I don’t mean that all other cats aren’t pretty? But do you really not get why saying All Lives Matter in response to Black Lives Matter is not only racially insensitive but just patently ridiculous?
I’m gonna be honest here, guys. This is the question that made me want to respond to this video. I have been chomping at the bit to do this, because boy-oh-boy did this guy choose the wrong thing to be a condescending asshole about. Guess who just got done writing a thesis paper on language cognition? This girl! Guess who is going to tear this example to shreds now? This girl.
In linguistics/psycho-linguistics, there are these things called conversational implicatures (coined by Grice, I believe). The original paper is considered a crucial work for the field and is pretty short and very informative. You can find it online, and I highly recommend it. The key idea to take away from conversational implicatures is this: When people are conversing, they enter into a mutual contract, an understanding that each person participating in the conversation is following certain rules. It is this understanding that allows for the conversation to actually happen with no confusion. The contract is one that promises that you will abide by the rules of conversational implicatures–you will say the most informative things based upon the knowledge that you have, no more or less informative than need be.
So let’s look at your cat example. It holds true to a certain point. If you and I were to walk into a room and we saw a single cat and you pointed at it and said, “That cat it pretty,” there would be no misunderstanding. Both of us are in the room. We have the same knowledge of the setting, and both of us know that the other has that same knowledge. Both of us see that there is a single cat. So I can understand that you think this single cat is pretty and that you are not making any judgments about cats in general because we both have a mutual knowledge of what the sample size in question (the single cat) is.
This doesn’t really work with races, though, because there isn’t just one cat in the room in that situation. There are multiple races, so there have to be multiple cats in order for this to be an equivalent example. Let’s say that the two of us walked into a room with five cats, then. If you were to then point to one of them and say, “That cat is pretty,” you would, by the rules of conversational implicatures, not only be making a direct statement about the cat you pointed at but an indirect statement about all the other cats. You would be breaking those rules, violating that conversational contract, if you said, “This cat is pretty,” even if you thought that all the cats were pretty. The rules say that you should make statements that give as much information as possible, therefore if you only pick out one cat as being pretty, I am going to assume that that is the only cat you think is pretty. Because if you thought all the cats were pretty, the more informative statement to make would be, “All the cats are pretty.”
No, saying “This one cat is pretty,” does not technically exclude the idea that you also think the other cats look nice. But this is technical. Our brains, our inherent understanding of language, do not work this way. It’s the inclusive-or of language. For those who find that confusing, the “inclusive-or” is a logical term referring to the spot on a logic chart where the or symbol is being used but none of the options are excluded even though that is what our linguistic understanding of the word or is.
Saying “This cat is pretty,” when you really think all the cats are pretty is the cat-based equivalent of saying “Some elephants are mammals.” Yes, logistically there is nothing wrong with that sentence. It is perfectly correct in every way. Some elephants are indeed mammals. Some can technically include all. But if you don’t like the sentence “Some elephants are mammals,” even though there’s technically nothing wrong with it, I think that should help you wrap your mind around why people don’t like Black Lives Matter as a saying. It’s pretty much like saying Some Lives Matter. Technically correct and not logically excluding anyone, but not nearly as informative as it could be. Our basest instincts, our primal understanding of language, tells us that if someone means all, then they will say all. Using a weird linguistic loophole as the foundation of your movement and then getting mad at people for not liking your use of a linguistic loophole is your own damn fault. You could have avoided this entirely by saying Black Lives Matter Too, but you had to make an under-informative slogan and then get angry when your inherently confusing statement confused people.
But, hey, maybe you’re perfectly okay with “Some elephants are mammals.” Maybe that doesn’t bother you at all. How would I know?
* * *
There are way more questions than the ones I answered, and if you want me to answer more you can tell me. I’ll probably do it. I’m an attention whore that way. But here are the answers I actually felt like writing! I hope you enjoyed them.