>>5903720 I try to complain whenever someone openly acts stupidly, I'm sure it's something most people here do. And if you really want to know, no, I try to diversify my reading. It's healthy and I'm sure anyone who reads more than one or two books monthly does the same. Eventually your well of preconceived ideas run out and you're forced to face that people took time to develop quite interesting shit completely unrelated to your petty rivalries.
>>5903750 >And if you really want to know, no, I try to diversify my reading. It's healthy and I'm sure anyone who reads more than one or two books monthly does the same. Eventually your well of preconceived ideas run out and you're forced to face that people took time to develop quite interesting shit completely unrelated to your petty rivalries. Wow good thing this has nothing to do with the thread and OP is just looking for literature on a specific topic that he or she is interested in right now
He's actually pretty popular amongst certain types of disenfranchised people, but not because he argued that "group X should have these rights too!". He deconstructed this rights faggotry in itself, thereby on the one hand emancipating all kinds of freaks and on the other hand making a mockery of liberalist rhetoric about a right to freedom and preciousness. His approach is sort of a "might makes right", but in a pleasant and refreshing way.
>>5903775 lol Stirner is even more SJW than SJW, he's the worst and most radical leftist of all time, everyone is a fucking special snowflake, fuck society, it's all about individual expression, fuck the oppression lol
>>5903863 > Everyone is a fucking special snowflake Nope. Only I am. > it's all about individual expression It's all about -my- expression. > fuck the oppression I care not to be oppressed. I care not of the rest, though.
>>5903927 Yes, this is the ultimate point. It's all about you, fuck society, Stirner takes that to its logical conclusion and writes a book arguing for everyone to do that. He's modernism incarnate in its rawest form.
>>5903932 And that is not what SJWs are doing. They are spouting their humanist narrative about people being accepted as themselves by society and whatnot, and how they have universal rights and all that. Stirner doesn't care. To him, all verification comes from Ego, never from society. To protest for the rights of Gays is just a spook, unless it has a direct relationship to something pragmatic i.e legislation that would make your life more self-employable.
SJWs would dislike his perfidious selfishness as the ramblings of a dead white man who financed his philosophy with his wife's funds. Are they far off from the true Stirner? Who knows.
>cannot stop thinking about topics in terms of "X versus Y" >reads literature as a way to arm himself in future internet debates >suspiciously adopts any argument which aligns with his prejudices since he is incapable of reasoning out his own criticisms
So why do you dislike "SJWs", anyway? What are *your* reasons?
>>5903984 > it's about shitting all over society Do you have peer-reviewed sociology articles to prove this claim? > the dysfunctional snowflakes Surely if they were dysfunctional, they would not be able to sufficiently change the system and there would be no need for hate or opposition for them?
>>5903990 >Do you have peer-reviewed sociology articles to prove this claim? That SJW's care more about marginalized groups than the majority?
>Surely if they were dysfunctional, they would not be able to sufficiently change the system and there would be no need for hate or opposition for them? The snowflakes are dysfunctional, their advocates aren't necessarily.
>>5903995 >That SJW's care more about marginalized groups than the majority? No, that they're "shitting all over society".
> The snowflakes are dysfunctional, their advocates aren't necessarily. That's a rather abstract way of putting it. Who are, explicitly, these snowflakes, why do they dysfunction and who are their functional advocates then?
My original interest was in academic critiques of this modern SJW phenomenon.
I am left of center and some of my main concerns with the SJW types are the following:
1. They are anti freedom of expression. They promote censorship of anything that personally "offends" them. They are politically correct and attempt to censor what anyone can say, often on the pretenses of being "offended" or attempting to label something racist or sexist to cast a stigma on it, etc. Rarely will they ascribe to the (better) idea of open debate and survival of the fittest ideas, or allowing others to express themselves even if you vehemently disagree with them.
2. SJW's attempt to dictate what is right and wrong based on what race, gender, ability, or the social class someone is rather than having a universal even standard, which leads to them to using double standards everywhere (reverse racism, etc)
3. Their attempts to blame anyone but themselves for their problems in 2014 America. Whoever has it better off in society is to blame. This includes trying to transfer guilt of all things to whites and straight people.
4. Cultural appropriation, and the SJW's racist attempts to say that certain cultures own certain ideas. Or that people of certain races/cultures are not allowed to do x, y, or z.
5. I think what it may come down to is that SJW's are more authoritarian left, whereas I am more libertarian left.
SJW's want to control speech instead of making it free, they want equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities, they try to prioritize safety over freedom, and in their attempts to change inequality they over-correct and prescribe racism and sexism.
I wanted literature on the topic because perhaps other writers have covered this topic before but in a way that is more elegant, thorough, and well thought out. And perhaps those writers could introduce nuance into my thought. I've read plenty of SJW literature and I'm not impressed, but rarely have I seen anti-SJW lit.
>>5904120 Have you questioned your own use of "SJW" and how it seems to lump incredibly different types of people under a single "they" which you can then shadowbox against without fear of a response?
"SJW" isn't actually a formalized group of people who hold formal values. It's a catch-all. Therefore, when criticizing them, you have to be sure to avoid generalizing them. Nuance and particularity are very important. Many people might argue that they don't want censorship, they are simply voicing their opinions and companies respond by firing someone or putting out a statement due to negative publicity.
The idea of "a universal even standard" might be met with the criticism that certain groups of people are marginalized systemically and until that marginalization is accounted for and more balanced out, a universal standard would only keep people in their current classes.
It's not literature. The academy is toxic, remember? The ability to write shit down inevitably leads to the technology of affluence that makes people choose genders and roles for themselves that aren't purely survivalist. The only answer to SJWs is to return to the jungle and become an ape once again.
it is more of the tone of SJW that is the problem. The tone was exactly the same as the Moral Majority for america a couple decades ago. Both groups thought "if I point out the problem, I am the solution". So they complain vaguely about things they don't like, then act as if they are saviours.
You can tell this started to peak when they started to rebut any criticism with a claim they were being "tone policed". So not only could you not tell them their causes were dumb, but even the way they said their ideas.
>>5904143 The SJW/feminist attempt to control academia is incredibly dangerous. They use their institutional "success" to control thought and speech. Even the old style communist academics seem less inclined to do this.
>>5904123 They are not a Tumblr phenomenon. They are a social phenomenon that manifests on various social networks on the internet, and is distributed internationally in a number of institutions... like politics/government, law, advocacy, and education.
I've had professors that seriously & uncritically handed down 'SJW' ideology, terminology, and descriptions of the world as factual/truthful (eg. preaching feminism in a Critical Theory course, not in the specific weeks for feminism - and all of the other Theory was treated with detachment and the idea that these were 'notional', experimental ways of thinking and reading texts/culture). One of my professors used terms like patriarchy & mansplaining to explicitly encourage the majority female class to believe that they were 'under the thumb' of a patriarchal culture... without even defining these terms or making a clear argument for their real world existence - pretty much just making a political call to arms rather than a coherent description of culture. The same professor actually showed Feminist Frequency videos at the height of the Gamergate drama. From what I've seen and heard, I can't really conclude anything else but that there is a powerful current of academic social engineering and ideological priming/advertising occurring. Whether or not you agree with or believe in or are sympathetic to the thinking of this particular brand of feminism is besides the point, really. The point that should be absolutely, unequivocally clear is that this kind of thing is happening in colleges and universities all over the western world, and that it is important, influential, and dominant.
>>5903756 lol as if this is just a specific topic he's interested in, he's not reading about sjw he's reading stuff so he can parrot arguments so he doesnt have to feel like a racist pig when he goes to bed at night
>>5904451 i did 4 years of sociology and never encountered an SJW student or instructor. Feminism was always kept to the weeks it was covered. We only ever would consider a few articles of what a certain feminist would say, or what how feminst thought is on inequality. Just like we did with Marxism in its month, and Weberian in its and so forth.
I did find a few SJWs in the social work program though. Little do they realize they're studying how to control poor people so jokes on them.
>>5904230 The problem w sjws is that they're liberals, concerned with feelings and identity politics not the class conflict. They are excellent at identifying instances of oppression but awful at coming up with solutions because their addiction to Foucault has disabled them from thinking outside neoliberal categories.
>>5904519 if you think anyone in academia would take seriously (and seriously enough to infringe upon the academic freedom of a presumably tenured professor) an equivalence between 'mansplaining' and 'blacksplaining' you are kidding yourself.
>>5904120 u fuckin dumb liberal. time for the ~anarchist~ 2 talk.
when academics use the word "racist" they usually refer to contributing to racist institutions. not just saying mean things about because they look diffy. the autocracy of americas and western yurope is white supremacist AF. so a black fella can't can't be a "racist" (in the terms of academic vernacular).
I swear 2 god I like fascists better than liberals. because fascists atleast acknowledge and embrace their hierarchical shit
>>5904540 the racist police manifests itself in all institutions dumbo
there is a reason inner-schools are so shitty. plutocrats profit from it. uneducated kids grow up to be slaves in the prison, either that or shitty fathers and mothers. remember, boy-o, the govt doesn't allow anything to happen (on a domestic level) that it doesn't want.
blaming teachers and cops as individuals is dumb AF. but systems are create with a specific purpose. and the majority of institutions in murrica are 2 serve the upper-class fatso-s
“We are in the society of the teacher-judge, the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the social worker-judge[...]” (Foucault, 304)
>>5904540 Prison beds are built and distributed according to where there are the largest number of illiterate fifth-grades. Of course these areas are disproportionately black (and poor, of course - the real root). Either poor, black people are an intrinsically inferior race (which you'd need scientific evidence to prove, which there simply isn't any of), or these statistics are due to social institutions (wealth discrepancies).
Now it's up to you to decide whether the government sucks at doing its job (sucks at creating equity), or really good at it (oppression).
>>5904481 >So you're ok with academia getting fucked over so you can have your little moment of "haha u mad bro". Leftists already think academic discourse is totally controlled by bourgeoisie, so I don't see why they'd care.
>>5904593 yeah. academia is already a functionary of capitalism and just an ideological state apparatus, I don't care if the SJWs get their turn to make a sillier dumber capitalism full of transpride CEOs ordering around their workers. Nothing of much value will be lost
>>5904567 >either that or shitty fathers and mothers.
this is the one. if black kids in poor urban areas behaved well even the most poorly funded public schools could run just fine.
conservatives like to ignore broader social explanations but liberals often like to ignore personal explanations which are actually very important. many liberals seem to have the idea that minorities are being actively held back by something. not really. there are a lot of social problems that would take more than individual action to fix but the situation of say black people in america would be improved by like 80% if they just *acted better* with no involvement from anyone else.
that isnt a reasonable prescriptive solution but it's a fact and part of the equation that liberals ignore at great detriment to their credibility and ideological consistency.
>>5904611 mfw a black girl in a sociology lecture on child abuse said that white parents are too gentle with their kids and kids needed to be smacked, cause it is so much better in africa the way black kids treat parents with respect.
makes it pretty hard to care about the group when i continuously hear and read about black parents beating their kids in 2014.
that can easily be explained by a few factors. black people (regardless of socio-economic) are disproportionately superscribed the load of behavior issues rather than emotional issues. this makes perfect sense considering we have a fuckin depression and anxiety conundrum in highschools in america. a student with emotional issues is given treatment whereas a behavioral disordered student will merely be punished. an overwhelming majority of prisoners were diagnosed with behavioral disorders in school (not to mention are illiterate). additionally there's cultural determinism (which is too long to get into) too
Why not try to understand the issues before getting offended over them?
I think if most of /lit/ researched radical feminism (simone de beauvoir type, not tumblr's warped insanity) they would agree with most of it. It's very eye-opening. When did /lit/ become anti-intellectual?
>>5904611 >that isnt a reasonable prescriptive solution but it's a fact and part of the equation that liberals ignore at great detriment to their credibility and ideological consistency.
yeah, i agree. it's far fetched to expect some autonmous, african-american cultural revolution to establish a stronger family based framework. it would just be easier to abolish class (an autonmous social revolution, lol). then there would be no areas of minorities who are purposely given shit education
>>5904629 at this point im agnostic about racial iq differences. pro and con have reasonable arguments and i think there's a lot of noise that makes it harder to make sense of the data as you might think at first.
but this argument sure doesn't convince me. i mean if you look at those income vs. race iq scores. a black kid with 199,999 yearly income will score WORSE than a white kid with under 20,000 income. i mean you could follow those kids through their day to day lives and see that the black kid with 200k family income has an advantage in every single way, better home life, better educated parents, more opportunities in everything ... but somehow when they sit down to take a test invisible institutional oppression tumbles upon the black kid all at once? i dunno.
>>5904631 >Why not try to understand the issues before getting offended over them? Because these "issues" are based on perverse sophisms that corrupt public speech (the media, politics, universities, etc.) quite widely.
>When did /lit/ become anti-intellectual? The left doesn't have a monopoly on intelligence.
>>5904657 My experience with feminism has been that it is based very little on "arguments" and more so on observations. It involves removing your feelings from your observations, which is difficult for an oppressive group to do. Observing society (at least here in America) with an unbiased eye reveals pretty quickly many truths about feminism. I manage a pool in the summer and I'm always shocked at the difference between toddlers boys' and girls' swimsuits. It's a simple observation but it's extremely telling of gender socialization in America. It's not an "argument", it's something you'd have to be blind to deny.
>>5904567 >minorities have a shit time of it > >therfore the institutions that are responsible You see that empty space? That why your argument looks like shit. You can't just make huge jumps like that and then call other people dumb.
>fatsos You mean the minorities? Rich Americans (mainly whites and asians) tend to be skinnier.
>>5904686 do you seriously need me to explain how institutions affect people? I didn't think I would need to. In honesty, the Reagan area is mostly responsible for this. The drug war, destruction of public education and of labor unions. These all contribute to the mass incarceration of Black Americans.
>>5904703 I'm sorry? I gave you a pretty clear example of an observation that proves feminism's cause. With a critical eye a million more come into view. To deny them seems clouded by bias. The group speaking about their own experience provides anecdotal evidence
here, allow me to fill in the blank for you, since you are either too unwilling or too ignorant to do it yourself.
>minorities have a shit time of it >in what ways? >decades of racist housing policy (see: redlining, stacking) >police policies that target blacks and latinos at a disproportionately higher rate than anyone else, despite the fact that, for example, only 2% of blacks commit violence crimes >traumas, legacies, and residual effects of slavery, and Jim Crow laws manifest in ways too numerous to count >therefore those institutions (housing, police, lawmaking, criminal justice) are responsible
>>5904685 >I manage a pool in the summer and I'm always shocked at the difference between toddlers boys' and girls' swimsuits. It's a simple observation but it's extremely telling of gender socialization in America.
you are retard if you don't understand why female nudity has a stronger taboo than male one
men and women are different biochemically. female nudity is a significantly stronger stimulant for males than male nudity for females, therefore it shouldn't be treated equally.please don't remind that 'my body my rules' crap, imagine a guy who would walk and whisper lewd things to girls on the street, he doesn't touch them, it's his voice, his body, his rules and still you (and society) would find that behavior inappropriate and a sexual aggression, female nudity is basically the same kind of sexual aggression against men
feminists who ignore biology are fucking retarded and they dare to claim that they 'remove feelings from observations' and are objective
>>5904708 They are shared by everyone. There is no one who could feasibly argue that boys' and girls' swimsuits aren't different; with the boys being significantly less sexualized. >What is good
Maybe feminism, then; is women saying "this is NOT good. The reality is not beneficial or just". If the group it occurs to revolts against it, why defend it? I feel you'd have to be benefitting pretty extremely from the current state of affairs to deny a change to a group that begs for it. Do you benefit from the sexualization of toddlers, anon?
>>5904713 This is not a logical argument. You have essentially said african americans have had bad things happen to them so the institutions of government whose job it is to look after them are responsible for these bad things.
to add to this critical race narratology (which is the germinating seed from which the parasite of intersectonalism emerged) began this fucked up cavalcade of making up shit 4 black ppl 2 rally behind that will only address the symptomatic outcomes of whats actually fuccin them over n not the thing thats actually fuccin them over natch
u can look @ ppl who monetize "feminism" n "race relation" type shit n find that more than not they're intersectionalists b/c its the best label under which 2 filch money from reel fuccin fools of broken n lost ppl (rachel maddox, anita w/e the jew, etc. types bein the foremost promulgators of this form of "commerce")
yeah how about you go look up redlining, or Jim Crow, or the history of the terry stop yourself. i'd have to sit you down and hold your hand with an illustrated picture book to make you understand.
fuck, how people are so ignorant is astounding. decades and decades of research and statistical evidence is not enough for them. decades and decades of first-hand accounts is not enough. you really really just don't want to believe that racism exists. you're a coward.
>Female skin is as bad as men following and harassing women
>Female nudity is "aggression against men" Your statements prove the need for feminism. I don't think I could have asked for a better example. Also, we were discussing kids <5. If you truly find their nudity "aggressive", the world would be a far better place without you and it would benefit society if you died tonight.
>>5904739 >Jim Crow Ended a long time ago. It's your job to prove its ghost still haunts the black race in America. >decades of research hurr evidence There's a fine line between various interpretations of any given piece of data. >you're a coward ayy lmao
>>5904739 The statistics do not show that african americans are being opressed by racist institutions. They have benefited from government support, then they blame the government for not making their lives perfect.
damn 1 dumb ass fuckface goes back 2 social darwinism n u presume im gonna hop on the "black n white guilty af anthropology academics that knowingly tilt statistical evidence towards viewpoints they support" train n ride off into ur BBC pozzed sunset pined nigga dick dynasty ya demisexually striated freaka...nasty
sage for not fucking video games b/c /lit/ might as well consider itself the cyoa h-game version of /v/
>>5904730 I'm not saying you have!! I shouldn't need to write this out-- someone must, because the female swimsuits are way more sexualized than the males. The parents choose it, but why? It's a question worth thinking about without losing your shit.
>>5904758 >if you don't agree with me idk what to tell you I'm honestly open to your point of view. I've had this exact conversation a million times both with friends and on le 4chinz and every time it ends like this. "It's just common sense bro, don't be mean. Don't be uncool."
people were not just physically segregated for decades, but they were economically segregated for decades. and if you were to go to those segregated areas today (where they of course no longer are segregated), the economic legacy is still obvious. the white neighborhoods are still nice white neighborhoods, the segregated poor black neighborhoods are still poor and black. physical segregation ended, but the money didn't didn't. how do you think public schools are funded? with property taxes. you think it's a coincidence that the best public schools are almost always in affluent white neighborhoods? you think it's a coincidence that the worst public schools are always in depressed black neighborhoods? if you take two populations and give one all of the resources for decdes and deprive the other one for decades before saying "OK, you can play together now," you think everything will intermix and change automatically? especially when those who lived with economic and education advantages have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, law change or no?
>>5904768 Are you not an American? Girls suits are bikini style, pink tassled and glittery for fucking babies. They are simultaneously more "closed" and more sexualized. There's no reason a two-year-olds nipples should be taboo enough to make the kid uncomfortable while her brother plays, carefree.
This is insane. It is completely ignorant of what sex is and what aggression is. It's a ridiculous statement and I'm not going to copy paste the definition of aggression for someone this low-functioning.
>>5904778 >more sexualized >implying anyone actually thinks about it that way In the minds of normal people, babies don't even register as sexual beings. I think this whole fixation says more about you than anything.
i already explained you why female nudity always was and should be more tabooed
think for a moment, what's the difference between voice and looks in that example? sound waves vs light waves? intent? but one chooses their clothes by intent too. female nudity shouldn't be treated equally to male nudity, it's simply unfair for males, because, yes, it may be a slightly strong comparison but it's an aggression vs them, you see how aggression is possible without physical contact
also i'm beginning to suspect that you are a pedo with all these 'sexualized swimsuits' and desire to look at naked little girls
>>5904795 Because men and women "think differently". Pseudoscience
And please, it's literally everywhere. When I started to get into studio ghibli I was shocked by the lack of sexualization, not because I wanted it but because I'd grown up with Disney and it put it into perspective by comparison.
>>5904787 I was abused as a child so maybe I'm more sensitive to it; but it is very clear when you work around it every fucking day. We also had to call the cops on a man filming little girls with an ipad. Not that that's relevant. I've spiked my eggnog by now
no, that's the claim that they think identically is a wish-fulfilling pseudoscience
images affect males significantly stronger than females, it's a proven fact and it doesn't depend on society etc, it's not a type of social behavior, it's pure biology
if feminists respected biology more (and if they didn't tried to oppose real man and real women with their fantasies)... imo if you are interested of feminism and don't want to use it as a tool for personal gain, ditch it and consider to be a humanist instead
>>5904970 nobody spoke about violence against women due to them demonstrating their bodies, it's your own rape oddity or rather your following the trend of shaming men for 'rape culture' made you to bring this question despite the topic was about sexual aggression against men, not of sexual agression against women
significant disturbance which naked bodies of women commit to men should be respected regardless if it makes additional danger for women or not, actually even more in the latter case
>>5904230 Their tone and tactics are pretty awful, but I think that there is more to be concerned about than that. Their wanting to limit free speech and reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases is pretty scary, even if its mostly confined to the internet (for now)
I live right near where John Crawford was gunned down on sight by cops in a Wal-Mart and let me tell ya, the sheer volume of conservatives saying shit like "shoot the protesters", "why are we letting them protest", etc., is all I'm seeing around here. I'm not quite seeing SJWs trying to literally restrict free speech
>>5904997 I'm not saying worse about it, I'm saying literally attempting to restrict it. Most "SJWs" view things like anti-abortion rallies and what have you as disgusting and simply move on, whereas conservatives literally want to restrict the right to free speech and protest
>>5904983 This "significant disturbance" being......a tingle in your boner? If that really happens regularly for you on slight provocation, I pity you I guess; but it doesn't outweigh the "significant disturbance" women would face by dressing to avoid startling your dick 24/7. It's polite to dress modestly, it's considered in "good taste" even in 2014. But your dick doesn't deserve to set legislation.
bruh in a realpolitik sense the dick that has subjugated women will set legislation unless u turn the future generation of men obsequious 2 gay ass "morally correct" ideas regardless so *tha-whump* deal nerd :gunny:
>>5904970 You seem to believe that men and women are equal. They are not. The entirety of history demonstrates that men are superior and that women are only necessary for spawning children.
If an animal's behaviour drives a man to do something repugnant, it is the animal's behaviour that must change. Similarly, women must have their behaviour kept in line. It is objectively proven by history that not keeping their behaviour in line is just like letting any other animal free to ravage civilization as it pleases. The consequences are always negative and lead to the society being supplanted by more virile and manly cultures.
The more power and "freedom" women get, the more animalistic and dyscivic they become. Like any other type of livestock, they require training and care by men if they are to be useful and not a resource drain at best and actively destructive at worst.
so you turned into a personal attack now? that's rather pitiful on your part
why do you think that the right of women to dress as their want overweight the right of men not to be sexually attacked? [mind you men aren't even against to be attacked that way, lol, just don't complain that you are treated as a sexual object afterwards] the society is an agreement of people where everybody gives away some part of their freedom to serve others. men gave away quite a lot of their freedom (otherwise you simply wouldn't have the internet access, lol)
>>5905022 Using superior strength, the only area in which men are superior--( women being better intellectuals, nurturers, more creative, and better communicators) men were able to subjugate women and write a history that made them look good. Now that physical strength is irrelevant, women are making big strides in subjugating men. Men are bigger and dumber than women, statistically more violent, significantly less graceful or agile; and base and animalistic in their sexual desires and urges. They can be manipulated very easily through their base and uncomplicated sexualities. Any 6 who knows her way around a dick can wrap 99% of men around her little finger, because men really are that stupid. Men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, statistics don't lie --exhibiting their lack of self-control and violent nature. In terms of communication and creativity, the average man is a joke. He literally appears autistic next to a woman. The modern man spends his time watching other men bash into each other fighting over a ball. Men give this industry millions of dollars. Men leave their children more often than women, contributing to the primary degeneration of society. Men are true idiots, animalistic morons; and violent on top of it. They are being and will continue to be subdued for the ultimate benefit of society. Look I can do it too
Thread replies: 240 Thread images: 20
Thread DB ID: 28558
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.