Re: Rants

[eselle28]

You're Belgian, but definitely from the French part gauging by the attitude.

<mod>Hey, BasedBuzzed, I won't pretend to have any sort of grasp on the identities involved, but this is certainly coming across like an ethnic/regional insult. Those are very not okay here. The Rants section isn't really here to be a document of your battles on other forums, and if you want your gripes to go here, I'm going to ask that you refresh yourself on the Forum Guidelines. The rule against insulting groups is one of the more firmly enforced rules, and anything further along those lines will be taken pretty seriously.</mod>

[BasedBuzzed]

True, part removed. Referred to the cultural stereotype of French snobbery, so not along any class/disempowered ethnicity lines if you're worried about that(and would probably be akin to a inter-state jabs in America), but not allowing haggling over this rule is probably a good thing.

For clarification, the more abstract rants aren't aimed at other forum battles, but meatspace folks, general damaging sentiments that keep popping up again or opinions of semi-prominent critics, article writers or other big figures to a point that being more concrete would invite fans or self-Googlers over here.

[Enail]

<mod>Please give the guidelines a reread. Attacks on groups in general are not okay here, and that includes regional groups.

And could you try to keep a bit of a closer watch on your rants in general? While we very much appreciate that you keep things vague so as not to invite outside interested parties in to debate (and would like you to keep doing so), it does mean that it's often unclear if a given rant might apply to topics or situations that have come up here or on the blog, or if a rant might be a roundabout violation of forum guidelines. So in the future, please limit your rants here to ones that can be ranted about without inviting fans and self-Googlers while still being clear enough that we don't struggle to figure out if it's about topics unsuitable for the Rants thread or not. Not all things a person might want to rant about belong in this forum's Rant thread.  Thanks! </mod>

[Enail]

No, stranger, coming up to me and saying "I was going to ask you something, but decided that would be rude" does not earn you a smiling answer to the question you claim to be too polite to ask. In fact, since the only difference between your comment and actually asking the question is that it proves you know perfectly well just how rude you are being, what it earns you is an extra helping of fuck you.

[Wondering]

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that should about cover it for everything I feel like ranting about today.

[Guest]

I took my laptop in for repair, and was given an estimate of two weeks, and assured that estimate included padding, just to be on the safe side.

It's now been 37 days, and I still have no clue when I'm going to get my laptop back.

[Izmuth]

Pagliacci, have you tried raising a polite ruckus?

Being polite but firm, with a hint of raising Hell always works well in my case.

Being polite makes people want to help you, being firmly aware that you're in the right makes it less easy for them to choose the easy path, and if you manage to give a deadline like "I'm patient, therefore I waited this long, but I expect that I can pick up my laptop next week or I'll be forced to take action" makes them actually want to finish by that deadline.

They probably just forgot to work on your laptop. Sadly a lot of people only work when you're the latest person to bother them about it.

[Enail]

When I filled out the anonymous feedback form, I knew it would be obvious who my rather scathing comments were from. But wow is it inappropriate for the person I was evaluating to call me to discuss my supposedly anonymous comments about them!

[Wondering]

Holy crap, enail!

It's partly why I hate "anonymous" forms. Any specific feedback you give, positive or negative, will totally make it non-anonymous.

[BasedBuzzed]

Taken into account that vague criticism of attitudes might be taken as a veiled personal attack and semi-prominent critics don't have the time to get into a tussle themselves, when now turn to a fisking, if mods allow it: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2015/09/melbournes-ormond-college-takes-bold-position-against-porn-s

>In what might be deemed a radical move, The University of Melbourne's largest residential >college banned access to pornography on campus. This means students at Ormond College >will be blocked from accessing "adult sites" on Wi-Fi networks.
The internet is 4/5 or so porn, good luck blocking all of it(also people will just download from the more obscure torrent sites, since obvious sites which actually lead to moolah for performers will be the first to go).
>The reason for this is straightforward.
Lol @ the straight part, because there's plenty of heteronormativity here.
>As college master Dr. Rufus Black stated, pornography is exploitative and "presents women >primarily as sex objects who are a means to the end of male pleasure."
Confirmed.
>Simple, right?
You mean the thesis or the speaker?
>Wrong!
>While Black told Jill Stark at The Age that "allowing the college's 400 students to access >porn on its network would be condoning the objectification of women," some students felt >the ban limited "freedom of expression."
You will not stop objectification with this, do you think men will suddenly fantasize themselves going "are you OK with this? Can I do X?" whenever they use their imagination now?
>Apparently, for men, facials are an art form.
longrantoneroticismandart.txt
No, let's just go with the fact that dudettes can also do a facial(best not ask what the pee/cum ratio is).
>But, in truth, it isn't "sexual expression" that's being banned (if that's the line of argument >we're going with), it's just men's "right" to access websites that sell female degradation. So >"expression" is not limited in the least. No one has banned masturbation and, of course, >men are still free to think about gang raping women or to sexualize "schoolgirls" inside >their own heads as always. Vive la liberté!
We get it, all men love to sexually abuse and degrade women, keep doing that Chinese Robber Fallacy gig.
>Luckily, male students angered by the ban have liberal feminism to fall back on, so they >don't need to defend their misogynist interests as such.
>Stark reports that first year law student Thibaut​ Clamart​, 24, "wrote a newsletter response >objecting to the ban, saying it was a 'moralizing statement' and that not all pornography >was demeaning."
>"We all agree there is an issue with the current state of mainstream porn but banning it is >not the answer. It won't educate people, it is condescending and paternalistic," he told her.
Look at this guy thinking men can be educated. I bet he's just parrotting talking points and using this letter as a circumspect way to pick up dudettes.
>Do "we all agree," Thibaut? Oh good. Good. I'm so glad to know "we all agree."
>Let's just quickly test that statement though... Just to be sure. We're all in this together, >right Thi?
How does this passage pass an editor? It says nothing and just makes the author sound like someone who has never made the effort to actually get good at passive-aggressiveness.
>He tells Stark, "If their argument is that it's about respecting women and enabling young >people to discover their sexuality without having the repressive influence of porn, that >makes the assumption that looking at porn is going to perpetuate those attitudes and you're >going to behave like a porn actor."
>Hmm... Seems like we may not all agree, after all. First, it's very clear that the media we >consume impacts our worldview.
Ergo, this is you binging Gail Dines, if you had any self-awareness.
>This is how advertising works, for example. Simply, we receive messages about products >which convince us we need to buy said products. It is through advertising (as well as other >forms of media, but ads were the first to do this) that we learn about supposed "flaws" we >must fix -- yellow teeth, perspiration, body hair, cellulite, visible pores, etc.
It's missing a link: advertising capitalizes on things humans already enforce as societal beauty standards.
>Media teaches us how we are supposed to look, what "sexy" means, which body parts we >are to sexualize, how thin we should aspire to be, and even, yes, appropriate ways men >should behave towards women. To pretend as though porn has no impact on our ideas about >sex, sexuality, women and men is silly.
longscreedonhowthoseinfluencesareadropintheoceancomparedtoxyz.txt
>We can simply look to culture at large to see that lessons about male entitlement are >widespread and ever-present in media. Anita Sarkeesian's recent video addresses the way >in which gamers learn, quite literally, that female bodies, affection, and sexuality are things >that are owed to them and that they will be rewarded with if they simply press the right >buttons. When men sexually harass, catcall, grope, or rape women, we see this entitlement >in action
Luckily this is evenly balanced with the propensity of video games to make men go on shooting sprees, so it will lead to sexist behaviour only half the time.
>Pornography very much exemplifies men's sense of entitlement to access female bodies at >any given moment. So much so that many see pornography and masturbation as >interchangeable. This is why men believe that attempts to limit porn use are, in fact, >attempts to limit "sex."
If I'm allowed a slippery slope too, you actually want to limit sex, ideally, because most sex is coercive and problematic in this type of worldview. You'd rally against enthusiastic consent as liberal feminism and applaud "teach men not to rape", to illustrate the distinction.
>Black, too, understands that the messages in porn are clear, arguing that his decision was >based on a "well-held view that pornography depicts women for the gratification of male >sexuality."
Fap material aimed at hetero men depicts sexualized women, more tautologies at eleven.
>Interestingly, Stark points out that back in the 90s, when Dr. Alan Gregory, former Master >of Ormond College, was accused of sexual harassment, he responded to the complainants >by accusing them of "puritan feminism." Sound familiar?
Chinese Robber Fallacy, sing it with me.
>Liberal feminism: the gift that keeps on giving. To misogynists.
I thought that was herpes.
>When we equate male entitlement to "sexual expression," women pay the price.
>Rachel Withers, president of the University of Melbourne Student Union, told Stark she >"would personally prefer to see colleges tackling issues around respect for women's bodies >and consent through educational programs and ensuring students receive comprehensive >information on consent as part of their college orientation."
Translation: now I also have to go to extra hassle whenever I'm randy.
>Now, that's a good idea too. A necessary part of changing attitudes is, I believe, real, good, >feminist education (sex education, as well as just regular old "woman are human" >education). But the problem with teaching "consent" within a context of liberalism is that, >when it comes to porn and prostitution, "consent" is used against us. I mean, how would >students who believe pornography equates to "freedom of expression" want consent to be >taught? Would they learn that simply agreeing to exchange sex for money is good enough -- >end of story? Or would they talk about larger contexts of male domination and financial need as things that limit or at least shape women's ability to "consent?"
Called it, you view sex itself as coercive, and your response is wanting to wrest the remote control from the patriarchy's hands instead of simply smashing it. Women have the ability to decide for themselves, and any cognitive bias that they might suffer from due to media imagery is not different than for example how skewed one's political judgements can get due to the news. It's a subtle distinction, but of vital importance.
>What's clear is that "consent" is not enough. People consent to unethical things all the time. >Technically, women have "consented" to abuse for eons. They marry abusers, they agree to >participate in rape porn, they go on second dates with men who've sexually assaulted them. >We know now that women's consent does not necessarily negate rape -- they can say "yes," >but what actually goes down after that may very well constitute assault.
Nobody consents to abuse, you nimrod. Someone who is gaslit in an abusive relationship cannot consent. Someone who participates in simulated rape can consent(you know nothing about kinksters, that's evident). Someone who goes on a second date with someone who assaulted them may just give the person a second chance(if a person slaps me on the first night we meet because he was drunk and he apologizes and makes amends and I hang out with him again, am I condoning abuse?).
>As Catharine MacKinnon wrote in her book, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State:
>"The unquestionable starting point has been that rape is defined as distinct from >intercourse, while for women it is difficult to distinguish the two under conditions of male >dominance."
>Our very understanding of what constitutes "sex" is rooted in notions of male domination >and female subordination. Therefore, teaching "consent" to men is insufficient so long as we >live in a rape culture and a porn culture.
Nein, nein, nein, here's how to do this right: https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/168/
>So please give me a break with this "men have a right to porn, we'll just teach them about >consent" garbage. Not only do men already feel entitled to jack off to abuse, but now >they've learned about "consent" from liberal feminists and are using that discourse to >defend their right to degrade, exploit, and oppress us. Because we "consented."
By that reasoning, your arguments are shit too because Xtians on a moral crusade nick them to try and take other rights away in order to protect women.
>Black's move is "radical" in a way, but only because we are so far gone, as a culture, we >can't even make the most obvious connections. The decision to ban access to porn on >college campuses -- places where rape and sexual harassment are ever-prevalent -- is one >that shouldn't even be up for debate. This is not about criminalizing porn users and it won't, >in truth, even prevent students from looking at porn. They can easily go off-campus to seek >out degrading images of women if they must. This is about teaching students what is right >and wrong. It is about sending a larger message.
They can also do it on campus, learn to interweb. And it's about educating without actually doing any of the legwork to teach, and empty symbolic gestures. Because that's all you'll ever have, really, because your theories twist reasonable ideas into unworkable, shoddy worldviews.
>Black said, "We're not in any way restricting their ability to do what they want with their >own personal resources but the college's Internet is a common resource therefore what it >gets used for is a question of community values."
>The message here is that misogyny is unacceptable on campus. And this is something we >truly should all be able to agree on.
Everybody already agrees on that, it's just quibbling over what counts as misogyny or not that will keep us busy for a few more centuries.

Verdict: this is apparently the same person who wrote that pathetic piece on why Laverne Cox's posing for a shoot was actually terribly objectifying, and in images the obligatory middle-finger selfie popped up. Take from that what you will.

As an aside, by far that biggest facilitator of violence, accidents, and sexual abuse is alcohol. And yet we tolerate that, with the only reform being a few halfhearted campaigns against substance abuse and simply taxing it. Yet with products of pop culture, people go bananas with the bans and the overwrought thinkpieces of why it induces bad behaviours. I just find it weird.

[Enail]

<mod> This last post is fine in terms of being clear that it's not potentially something about this forum or the blog, and thanks for taking care with that. But it's also both very long and your response brings up some subjects might make for interesting discussion here, so the Rants thread is not really a great place for it. If you're interested in opening it up for discussion about why pop culture tends to be a focus in combating things, or whether alcohol reforms would be a good idea or whether herpes is in fact the gift that keeps on giving or any of the other potential spin-off topics, let me know and I'll split it off into a thread of its own.

Otherwise, for next time, and for everyone: Rants is for short complaints that are unlikely to spark longer discussions. If it's long and/or discussable, please give it a thread instead.  Thanks! </mod>

[Barretts_Salt]

Aaannnnd, finally, I'm going to gripe about impatient drivers who can't understand why traffic moves so slowly and law-abidingly around them
-- when they're driving a large sedan almost the same pale metallic blue as the SPD traffic patrol cars.

Now about that tar and feathers you had on Prime ....

[Werel]

Listen, kid, if you're going to go with blatant plagiarism, which is a pretty damn bad idea, it's an even worse idea to lift an entire paragraph word-for-word from the sample paper I wrote to demonstrate the assignment for y'all.  

[litterature]

Listen, kid, if you're going to go with blatant plagiarism, which is a pretty damn bad idea, it's an even worse idea to lift an entire paragraph word-for-word from the sample paper I wrote to demonstrate the assignment for y'all.  

I'm going to guess they didn't have a favourite animal, haha!

[Guest]

Listen, kid, if you're going to go with blatant plagiarism, which is a pretty damn bad idea, it's an even worse idea to lift an entire paragraph word-for-word from the sample paper I wrote to demonstrate the assignment for y'all.  

It's called "learning from the best", geez

[Hirundo Bos]

The traffic lights were green in my head, but apparently not in the outside world, because suddenly I'm in the middle of the street, cars honking on all side, not to mention moving! The lights most definitely red, the guy in the car that stops to let me safely through making an unambiguous and quite justified what the hell-gesture, and yeah. Unharmed. Shook up. Affirmation that I'm probably right when I say that I'm not fit to drive a car myself.

[Robjection]

In case anyone's wondering why this Rants thread was locked, the moderation team has had a discussion about the thread in light of having had to issue several warnings to people about what is and is not appropriate Rants-thread material. As a result of this discussion, a new Rants thread has been created with rules in the first post outlining the sorts of things we do and don't expect to see in there. This should help y'all avoid prompting any of us to take action while still being able to rant in a healthy manner.

That is all. Happy venting!

[Sponsored content]