This is really the reason why the tumblr SJ thing bothers me: otherkin-ism and whatnot saturates the LGBT cause with childish nonsense and then people who are transgender get grouped together with people who think that they are dragons, or cats, or inanimate objects, or like five different people at the same time.
This is really the reason why the tumblr SJ thing bothers me: otherkin-ism and whatnot saturates the LGBT cause with childish nonsense and then people who are transgender get grouped together with people who think that they are dragons, or cats, or inanimate objects, or like five different people at the same time.
this.
and this is proof that tolerance for every fucking thing that people come up with is not a good thing
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
My understanding, from some of the poking around I've done when I'm incredibly bored:
Otherkin = animal
Fictive = fictional character
Multiples = two or more distinct people sharing a body, but don't call it DID because that's offensive
who gives a shit about skin color, really, but as it turns out the entire world does
solution: keep fucking each other (which we do, we're good at that) until we're all the same shade
Unfortunately (in my opinion, because people of mixed race are both good for humanity and tend to be very attractive) I think this was recently proved somehow impossible. I forget the details, tho.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
One day I was at my sergeant's place right before I was due to finish my term with the Marine Corps, she's a hispanic female. The conversation was about racist terms we've all heard and we finally got around to the term "spic" and us wondering where it came from, thinking maybe the etymology of it was related to the word "hispanic." So we looked it up online and as it turns out it was a term invented in the early 1900's, from the limited US involvement in the Mexican revolutionary stuff -- by US Marines.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I wonder Redd a.k.a. Reddisredd and Riley a.k.a. Crackerhell think of Obama. They might think he's a racist because he's white too.
I know that was meant as a snarky quip, but that's one thing I was never really clear on: what is the predominant SJ blogger stance on people of mixed race? It seems like all too often they literally see it as a matter of black and white.
And honestly, I find it hard to figure out where I stand on their arguments when I can't tell if they're counting me as "white oppressor" or "person of color"
I don't know offhand what you look like, CA, but they'll probably label you white if you claim to be of mixed descent. Maybe not, idk. These people seem rather loony to me.
I maintain that I should not be held accountable for things my ancestors have done.
I know that was meant as a snarky quip, but that's one thing I was never really clear on: what is the predominant SJ blogger stance on people of mixed race? It seems like all too often they literally see it as a matter of black and white.
And honestly, I find it hard to figure out where I stand on their arguments when I can't tell if they're counting me as "white oppressor" or "person of color"
My bet is that their take on the mixed-race issue is not much different than how Plessy vs. Ferguson was handled -- that is, the varying degrees of ethnicity defines your "privilege", except in this day and age it's justified by 2012 bullshit rhetoric and not 1896 bullshit rhetoric.
Yep, and this is exactly why all this shit pisses me off so much. It's the exact same stupid bullshit from 100 and 50 years ago repackaged with the same meanings, just different a way of wording them.
How are multiples or the headmate-tagged posts really different from otherkin-ism?
how are they really the same, a level of crazy-ass-ness aside.
I thought "multiple systems" were just otherkin who instead of picking just the one personality claimed to have several?
I thought that all otherkin were multiples, multiple being a relatively new term with less "baggage" attached to it.
No
Otherkin are people who identify as animals or, in the case of otakukin (*Shudder*) fictional characters.
Otherkin can (*rarely*) be ok people craziness aside, but i've never ran across an otakukin who wasn't like completely batshit insane
I thought that otherkin could have anime headmates? Ah.
Oh um and a response to the post about how people with DID weren't delusional or whatever: I've dated two women with diagnosed dissociative identity disorder (the disorder formerly known as multiple personality disorder). I don't think that all people with DID are crazy, but both of these women were heroin addicts, cutters, drinkers, chronic cheaters, and highly manipulative. I was a bit skeptical about the legitimacy of their mental issues at first, and both eventually confessed to me that they were exaggerating or making up a large amount of their illness so that they could have bad habits but blame it on something. I'm ranting again but I don't know what I'm ranting about...
Yep, and this is exactly why all this shit pisses me off so much. It's the exact same stupid bullshit from 100 and 50 years ago repackaged with the same meanings, just different a way of wording them.
Except "privilege" and related terminology were largely coined and popularized by oppressed minorities in the 20th century, and do not have a history of being used to oppress and dehumanize people.
Oh they can totally overlap, you can totally have "otherkin" with "multiples" and shit.
But like 99.9% of all of it is just people going LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
at the expense of people with legit issues and shit
Except "privilege" and related terminology were largely coined and popularized by oppressed minorities in the 20th century, and do not have a history of being used to oppress and dehumanize people.
Well, I was comparing what CA was talking about (how these SJW types handle the mixed-race issue and how they handled it back in the Jim Crow days) which is drawing a comparison between two simply broken ideals. That's not to say the concept you're discussing, which is from the same period, is any worse for it. Far from it.
I think one of the things that makes the entire privilege concept so easy to dismiss is that it doesn't seem to really do anything.
I mean, I can be aware all I like that being white puts me in a social station slightly higher than most minorities through no direct fault of my own. But I am not entirely sure what I am supposed to do about that fact beyond being aware of it. What exactly is "checking" one's privilege?
Sure, activism exists. But I have seen people insist that being an activist is "not enough". The entire cycle here is legitimately confusing to a lot of people I think, and it really doesn't help that there's not a consensus on the vast majority of it.
^^^ Well, as I understand the concept of privilege, people of mixed race have suffered some of the worst oppression in recent history and could not by any stretch be claimed to have "white privilege".
That's not to say it would surprise me if somebody on tumblr made that claim, but I haven't seen anyone say that. I haven't purposefully looked, though.
^ The idea is that privilege is reinforced by biases and traditions which we aren't always totally aware of. "Checking your privilege" is then examining your own behaviour to refrain from problematic actions, in order to avoid causing offence, inadvertantly propogating problematic ideas or forming judgements based on unconscious biases.
It is not a substitute for activism, nor is it "more than" activism. Most people who talk about checking your privilege regard it as the bare minimum you need to do.
^^^ Well, as I understand the concept of privilege, people of mixed race have suffered some of the worst oppression in recent history and could not by any stretch be claimed to have "white privilege".
That's not to say it would surprise me if somebody on tumblr made that claim, but I haven't seen anyone say that. I haven't purposefully looked, though.
To clarify what I was getting at, I was saying that I wouldn't be surprised if the prevailing SJW attitude is that "privilege" can be proportionally determined by lineage, which is exactly how they determined if a person can sit in a whites-only train car in Louisiana in 1896.
^^ Yes, I know what you mean. I'm saying I haven't seen that attitude, and it's not one that makes any kind of sense (in the context of privilege as a theory or in practice).
Which is not to say that said attitude doesn't exist, because the Internet is full of stupid things. Just that it doesn't follow that that's what social justice bloggers believe.
^ The idea is that privilege is reinforced by biases and traditions which we aren't always totally aware of. "Checking your privilege" is then examining your own behaviour to refrain from problematic actions, in order to avoid causing offence, inadvertantly propogating problematic ideas or forming judgements based on unconscious biases.
Where I come from this is called "being a decent and rational human being". I'm not sure why it needs to be condensed into a short catch-phrase. I suppose it's easier to remember that way, but it's also a lot easier to twist around, which is what a lot of these people do to it.
Being aware of your own biases is a basic part of living. It's not some radial concept that needs a new name, nor do I think it should be particularly tied to any specific kind of rights issue. You should examine your own (for example) scientific and philosophical biases too.
Basically I'm afraid that this kind of marketing-like approach to activism is going to discourage people from doing basic things like examining their own biases.
I also don't get how all this ties into "I am going to call you a cracker to deliberately offend you."
It is not a substitute for activism, nor is it "more than" activism. Most people who talk about checking your privilege regard it as the bare minimum you need to do.
Then I am going to humbly posit that most of the people who say "check your privilege" and similar in seriousness do not know what the term is supposed to mean. Or else are deliberately attempting to change its meaning.
^^ Yes, I know what you mean. I'm saying I haven't seen that attitude, and it's not one that makes any kind of sense (in the context of privilege as a theory or in practice).
Which is not to say that said attitude doesn't exist, because the Internet is full of stupid things. Just that it doesn't follow that that's what social justice bloggers believe.
He like, just quoted an example of exactly that opinion being expressed though. :|
Where I come from this is called "being a decent and rational human being". I'm not sure why it needs to be condensed into a short catch-phrase. I suppose it's easier to remember that way, but it's also a lot easier to twist around, which is what a lot of these people do to it.
Being aware of your own biases is a basic part of living. It's not some radial concept that needs a new name, nor do I think it should be particularly tied to any specific kind of rights issue. You should examine your own (for example) scientific and philosophical biases too.
Basically I'm afraid that this kind of marketing-like approach to activism is going to discourage people from doing basic things like examining their own biases.
You might well be right.
As I learned it, it's a product of a trend in 1960s academia where people became increasingly sceptical about how much we're actually aware of, and so it's supposed to draw people's attention to things they otherwise would overlook.
Then I am going to humbly posit that most of the people who say "check your privilege" and similar in seriousness do not know what the term is supposed to mean. Or else are deliberately attempting to change its meaning.
From what I've seen of the stuff on tumblr that is exactly what seems to be happening, yes.
As I learned it, it's a product of a trend in 1960s academia where people became increasingly sceptical about how much we're actually aware of, and so it's supposed to draw people's attention to things they otherwise would overlook.
Maybe it's just because the 60s were a long time ago, but I think most people examine their own biases and in general, their shortcomings to some extent. I mean, that's the entire reason I'm not still a wannabe schizophrenic spending my time talking with my imaginary older sister.
From what I've seen of the stuff on tumblr that is exactly what seems to be happening, yes.
I would also agree with that, and would subsequently propose that trying to use the phrase "check your privilege" seriously in the correct context is probably an exercise in futility at this point. Because then you have to explain what you mean, at which point you might as well have just given them the long version in the first place.
Comments
James Hetfield and his headmate Lou Reed are tablekin
Euphemism treadmill, I guess? I can't keep track of this nonsense.
As far as sheer insensitivity goes I think "transethnicity" takes the cake.
Otherkin are people who identify as animals or, in the case of otakukin (*Shudder*) fictional characters.
Otherkin can (*rarely*) be ok people craziness aside, but i've never ran across an otakukin who wasn't like completely batshit insane
Every white person ever = colonizers
..The fuck...?
The "does Hispanic = white" question, I mean.
because i mean if they did this on a forum it'd be shot down
I'm Dutch.
CHECK YO NOT FORMERLY OPPRESSED BY THE SPANISH PRIV
I know that was meant as a snarky quip, but that's one thing I was never really clear on: what is the predominant SJ blogger stance on people of mixed race? It seems like all too often they literally see it as a matter of black and white.
I don't know offhand what you look like, CA, but they'll probably label you white if you claim to be of mixed descent. Maybe not, idk. These people seem rather loony to me.
I maintain that I should not be held accountable for things my ancestors have done.
Oh um and a response to the post about how people with DID weren't delusional or whatever: I've dated two women with diagnosed dissociative identity disorder (the disorder formerly known as multiple personality disorder). I don't think that all people with DID are crazy, but both of these women were heroin addicts, cutters, drinkers, chronic cheaters, and highly manipulative. I was a bit skeptical about the legitimacy of their mental issues at first, and both eventually confessed to me that they were exaggerating or making up a large amount of their illness so that they could have bad habits but blame it on something. I'm ranting again but I don't know what I'm ranting about...
Except "privilege" and related terminology were largely coined and popularized by oppressed minorities in the 20th century, and do not have a history of being used to oppress and dehumanize people.
But like 99.9% of all of it is just people going LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
at the expense of people with legit issues and shit
oh wait
I think one of the things that makes the entire privilege concept so easy to dismiss is that it doesn't seem to really do anything.
I mean, I can be aware all I like that being white puts me in a social station slightly higher than most minorities through no direct fault of my own. But I am not entirely sure what I am supposed to do about that fact beyond being aware of it. What exactly is "checking" one's privilege?
Sure, activism exists. But I have seen people insist that being an activist is "not enough". The entire cycle here is legitimately confusing to a lot of people I think, and it really doesn't help that there's not a consensus on the vast majority of it.
That's not to say it would surprise me if somebody on tumblr made that claim, but I haven't seen anyone say that. I haven't purposefully looked, though.
^ The idea is that privilege is reinforced by biases and traditions which we aren't always totally aware of. "Checking your privilege" is then examining your own behaviour to refrain from problematic actions, in order to avoid causing offence, inadvertantly propogating problematic ideas or forming judgements based on unconscious biases.
It is not a substitute for activism, nor is it "more than" activism. Most people who talk about checking your privilege regard it as the bare minimum you need to do.
I desire deep down to be asleep and you should respect that.
Which is not to say that said attitude doesn't exist, because the Internet is full of stupid things. Just that it doesn't follow that that's what social justice bloggers believe.
Where I come from this is called "being a decent and rational human being". I'm not sure why it needs to be condensed into a short catch-phrase. I suppose it's easier to remember that way, but it's also a lot easier to twist around, which is what a lot of these people do to it.
Being aware of your own biases is a basic part of living. It's not some radial concept that needs a new name, nor do I think it should be particularly tied to any specific kind of rights issue. You should examine your own (for example) scientific and philosophical biases too.
Basically I'm afraid that this kind of marketing-like approach to activism is going to discourage people from doing basic things like examining their own biases.
I also don't get how all this ties into "I am going to call you a cracker to deliberately offend you."
Then I am going to humbly posit that most of the people who say "check your privilege" and similar in seriousness do not know what the term is supposed to mean. Or else are deliberately attempting to change its meaning. He like, just quoted an example of exactly that opinion being expressed though. :|why it couldn't it be a trans autistic otherkin snowwomyn?!
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
As I learned it, it's a product of a trend in 1960s academia where people became increasingly sceptical about how much we're actually aware of, and so it's supposed to draw people's attention to things they otherwise would overlook. No, that's just being a racist. From what I've seen of the stuff on tumblr that is exactly what seems to be happening, yes. By modern social justice bloggers? If so I must have overlooked it, but I don't see it.
Maybe it's just because the 60s were a long time ago, but I think most people examine their own biases and in general, their shortcomings to some extent. I mean, that's the entire reason I'm not still a wannabe schizophrenic spending my time talking with my imaginary older sister.
I would agree with that.
I would also agree with that, and would subsequently propose that trying to use the phrase "check your privilege" seriously in the correct context is probably an exercise in futility at this point. Because then you have to explain what you mean, at which point you might as well have just given them the long version in the first place.
Not all of them at once, but he did post that picture of the person calling that half-white Chilean dude a cracker, yeah.