• President Obama to meet with Black Lives Matter leaders and other activist, including Al Sharpton, a
    60 replies, posted
[quote]Civil rights activists, including members of protest groups like Black Lives Matter, will meet at the White House Thursday with President Barack Obama as part of the administration's marking of Black History Month. A senior administration official said the gathering would be a "first-of-its-kind (event) as the President will convene leaders who represent different generations of civil rights leaders." That includes young activists from groups formed in the wake of incidents of police violence in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore. A White House statement said Aislinn Pulley, a leader of Black Lives Matter Chicago, and Deshaunya Ware, a student leader of the University of Missouri protest group Concerned Student 1950, would attend the meeting. Other invited leaders include Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, NAACP President Cornell Brooks and National Urban League leader Marc Morial. The group will "discuss a range of issues including the administration's efforts on criminal justice reform, building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and the President's priorities during his final year in office," the official said, adding that Attorney General Loretta Lynch would also be present. Obama has defended the groups that sprung from high-profile incidents of police killings of unarmed black men. He said in October those communities' grievances must be taken seriously, and pushed back on the notion that organizations like Black Lives Matter are anti-police.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/obama-black-lives-matter/index.html[/url]
I'm happy with this. People can complain about the crazies in the #BLM movement but a lot of it stems from a good place and a lot of the craziness is just because the news wants to sensationalize the most obnoxious of the group. When the group has organized sanely in the past, they've come up with great ideas.
let's just hope the BLM movement has quality control and doesn't include the yelling not hearing brigade that's usually shown on videos having to do with them.
Boy I hope this SJW thing is over on a couple years and not just getting started [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wauterboi;49762828]I'm happy with this. People can complain about the crazies in the #BLM movement but a lot of it stems from a good place and a lot of the craziness is just because the news wants to sensationalize the most obnoxious of the group. When the group has organized sanely in the past, they've come up with great ideas.[/QUOTE] Like what?
Al Sharpton has done nothing good. But of course he's a part of this, so what else is new.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49762864]Boy I hope this SJW thing is over on a couple years and not just getting started [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] Like what?[/QUOTE] Yeah, how dare people care about social issues. I hope this whole "civil rights" bullshit just falls apart, it's so annoying and inconvenient, uppity blacks should just stay in their place. Cornell Brooks was invited. He's the head of the NAACP. He's a political science major and trained lawyer who's worked as an attorney for the Department of Justice and the FCC. He led a march after Ferguson - in Rosebud the march was stopped by a display in the road of fried chicken, watermelon, and a 40oz of beer. And then the back window of their bus got [I]shot out[/I]. Truly, racism is dead, and they had nothing to fear. Marc Morial, the past mayor of New Orleans who reinvigorated the city's tourism sector and left office with a 70% approval rating, was also invited. Must be some dumb SJW, though. This isn't Obama inviting Zoe Quinn to the White House. These are political leaders and major public figures being invited to discuss the [i]very real issue[/i] of police accountability. If you guys go "oh, Al Sharpton, this is stupid" without even paying attention to any of the other major figures invited, I don't know what to say. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SonicHitman;49762842]let's just hope the BLM movement has quality control and doesn't include the yelling not hearing brigade that's usually shown on videos having to do with them.[/QUOTE] It's a private meeting with the [i]president[/i]. Are people seriously so biased as to think that mayors and lawyers are going to march in and start yelling at the president? Christ.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49762925]Yeah, how dare people care about social issues. I hope this whole "civil rights" bullshit just falls apart, it's so annoying and inconvenient, uppity blacks should just stay in their place.[/quote] Well that's a lot to extrapolate from what I said. SJW has a specific connotation with it. I didn't say "I hope people voting for candidates who will represent them well ends soon", or "I hope people will soon stop becoming involved in local government and petitioning a list of grievances to their elected officials", or "I hope people will stop peacefully protesting what they perceive as injustices in a society built against them". I said "SJW". [quote]Cornell Brooks was invited. He's the head of the NAACP. He's a political science major and trained lawyer who's worked as an attorney for the Department of Justice and the FCC.[/quote] Well he seems like the kind of person who should be advocating for social change, not SJWs [quote]He led a march after Ferguson[/quote] Not really the best thing IMO since I think that the protesters were wrong about Ferguson and Michael Brown [quote] - in Rosebud the march was stopped by a display in the road of fried chicken, watermelon, and a 40oz of beer. And then the back window of their bus got [I]shot out[/I].[/quote] Wow that's fucked up [quote]Truly, racism is dead, and they had nothing to fear.[/quote] Right cause I said that, good eye there. [quote]Marc Morial, the past mayor of New Orleans who reinvigorated the city's tourism sector and left office with a 70% approval rating, was also invited. Must be some dumb SJW, though.[/quote] Well he seems like a good representative as well. But approval ratings mean nothing; Putin has like 80% approval and he's a terrible person [quote]This isn't Obama inviting Zoe Quinn to the White House.[/quote] idk who that is [quote]These are political leaders and major public figures being invited to discuss the [i]very real issue[/i] of police accountability.[/quote] Yeah like holding a cop accountable when he shoots in self defense after being attacked. [quote]If you guys go "oh, Al Sharpton, this is stupid" without even paying attention to any of the other major figures invited, I don't know what to say.[/QUOTE] I think black lives matter is a movement by young, politically uninformed college students who want to rage about something without having to think about what they're angry at. The end up doing that horseshoe thing where the radical leftists come back around and end up espousing the views or radical rightists, promoting racism, segregation, etc.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49762864]Like what?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.joincampaignzero.org[/url] [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;49762954]I think black lives matter is a movement by young, politically uninformed college students who want to rage about something without having to think about what they're angry at. The end up doing that horseshoe thing where the radical leftists come back around and end up espousing the views or radical rightists, promoting racism, segregation, etc.[/QUOTE] As long as it ends with you never having to take anything or anyone seriously by judging a group by the worst offenders, you'll never have to challenge yourself with anything. Is #BLM the problem, or some of the loud ones? And at that point, is the loudness due to anything else? Is there a reason the volume has reached this level? Are you sure that all or even a majority of #BLM advocates are what you're describing?
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49762990][url]http://www.joincampaignzero.org[/url][/QUOTE] That all seems pretty reasonable actually. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wauterboi;49762990][url]http://www.joincampaignzero.org[/url] [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] As long as it ends with you never having to take anything or anyone seriously by judging a group by the worst offenders, you'll never have to challenge yourself with anything. Is #BLM the problem, or some of the loud ones? And at that point, is the loudness due to anything else? Is there a reason the volume has reached this level? Are you sure that all or even a majority of #BLM advocates are what you're describing?[/QUOTE] I've never seen BLM do anything other than be loud. I have no problem with civil rights activists. I just think that BLM is something for a generation of kids who would rather shout at something than think about it. If you say "All lives matter" to these guys, they get angry with you and call you a racist.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763013]That all seems pretty reasonable actually.[/QUOTE] Right, this is the thing I'm talking about. I will eventually get off my lazy ass and finish my video about this problem, but people elect false representatives of each other all the time. #BLM is being represented by the debatably crazy ones (and even then I might debate against that), but it all boils down to people's distaste for their marketing. I'm not suggesting that you are a racist, but a lot of the distaste for #BLM and related movements boils down to, "I'm not suggesting that black people don't have a point. I'm just saying we shouldn't have to listen to the angry ones." And instead of giving the mouthpiece to people that matter, people want to sensationalize the group in a way so they don't ever have to take it seriously. This is the problem that has seriously affected feminism too. It bugs me.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763013]That all seems pretty reasonable actually. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] I've never seen BLM do anything other than be loud. I have no problem with civil rights activists. I just think that BLM is something for a generation of kids who would rather shout at something than think about it. If you say "All lives matter" to these guys, they get angry with you and call you a racist.[/QUOTE] well duh all lives matter but why aren't we allowed to focus on one specific group and the issues? do you go to race for the cure breast cancer runs and go "why can't you donate to [I]every[/I] cancer?" i'm sorry your exposure to BLM has been the worst parts of it.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763013]I've never seen BLM do anything other than be loud. I have no problem with civil rights activists. I just think that BLM is something for a generation of kids who would rather shout at something than think about it. If you say "All lives matter" to these guys, they get angry with you and call you a racist.[/QUOTE] The reason why you never see #BLM do anything other than be loud is: a.) You're watching news. The people running your news whether it's liberal or conservative-leaning wants sensation. Sensation is entertaining. It also gives people the opportunity to stroke their own ego, by saying, "Well at least I'm not crazy as that black person or feminist." b.) You're not interacting with #BLM advocates. You're creating your own concept of what it means to be a #BLM advocate, just as people are currently creating their own concept of what it means to be a Muslim, or what it means to be a feminist. There are rational ones out there, but it's more fun for people to create an enemy that they've never actually met. c.) "All lives matter" is a problem because as of right now, they're being swept under the rug and by not focusing on them they will forever be swept under the rug. It's like being in the 50's and saying "all men are equal" in response to people saying that they're being treated unequally. I'm not surprised that some black people literally feel like they are in constant danger, and I'm not surprised that people trying to downplay their efforts as well as misunderstand their intentions receive negative backlash.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49763030]Right, this is the thing I'm talking about. I will eventually get off my lazy ass and finish my video about this problem, but people elect false representatives of each other all the time. #BLM is being represented by the debatably crazy ones (and even then I might debate against that), but it all boils down to people's distaste for their marketing. I'm not suggesting that you are a racist, but a lot of the distaste for #BLM and related movements boils down to, "I'm not suggesting that black people don't have a point. I'm just saying we shouldn't have to listen to the angry ones." And instead of giving the mouthpiece to people that matter, people want to sensationalize the group in a way so they don't ever have to take it seriously. This is the problem that has seriously affected feminism too. It bugs me.[/QUOTE] I think that when you go from trying to do something constructive for your group, to trying to do something obstructive or even destructive to another, you've lost the proper goal. It's a growing trend among young leftists to try to exclude one's emancipatory movement from others (so-called "allies"). Saying "whites can't offer perspective on this issue", or "whites shouldn't talk about this issue" is fucked up. I know this isn't the majority, but BLM groups do say shit like this this tweet was retweeted by @dmvblacklives [media]https://twitter.com/ztsamudzi/status/699993243606364161[/media] recently a former marine was mugged by people shouting about black lives matter. BLM and BLMDMV have yet to denounce the attack, when people are unsure about the involvement of the group. I think there is a dangerous strain of leftism in today's college environment, left over from postmodern writers and philosophers from the 20th century who write on a load of "-isms" and it all boils down to trying to justify racism. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wauterboi;49763048]The reason why you never see #BLM do anything other than be loud is: a.) You're watching news. The people running your news whether it's liberal or conservative-leaning wants sensation. Sensation is entertaining. It also gives people the opportunity to stroke their own ego, by saying, "Well at least I'm not crazy as that black person or feminist." b.) You're not interacting with #BLM advocates. You're creating your own concept of what it means to be a #BLM advocate, just as people are currently creating their own concept of what it means to be a Muslim, or what it means to be a feminist. There are rational ones out there, but it's more fun for people to create an enemy that they've never actually met. c.) "All lives matter" is a problem because as of right now, they're being swept under the rug and by not focusing on them they will forever be swept under the rug. It's like being in the 50's and saying "all men are equal" in response to people saying that they're being treated unequally. I'm not surprised that some black people literally feel like they are in constant danger, and I'm not surprised that people trying to downplay their efforts as well as misunderstand their intentions receive negative backlash.[/QUOTE] a.) I'm not sure where I'm supposed to get information if not from the news. The only other option is from twitter or facebook (neither of which I have), and I wouln't trust anybody there either. The only hope you have is to diversify your news sources and critically think about what's true and what's not. b.) I don't interact with much of anyone. That aside, I think there's a huge difference between being a muslim, being a feminist, and being BLM. BLM is a group; feminism and islam are an ideology. Making claims about feminists or muslims on a broad scale is stupid because of the scope of those groups. BLM has its own website, twitter, etc. c.) I think that "all lives matter" is a statement about a wish for egalitarianism, while "Black Lives Matter" is a statement about black separatism, if we accept that the two statements are in contradiction from one another. I think the SJW craze in general is largely about a generation of entitled and narcissistic college kids who were given the "nobody loses" treatment. I think that an entire generation of kids has been told that they're special and that they matter on a grand scheme of things and are unhappy with the fact that that was a lie. I'll grant that on the race side of things, there are genuine complaints and grievances, but when you lump SJWs together with people who protest over neuro-atypicality, non-binary genders, otherkin, headmates, etc., then you really see that some people have come up with this postmodern narrative to try to make themselves feel special, when in reality they're just unimportant. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Alec W;49763037]well duh all lives matter but why aren't we allowed to focus on one specific group and the issues? do you go to race for the cure breast cancer runs and go "why can't you donate to [I]every[/I] cancer?" i'm sorry your exposure to BLM has been the worst parts of it.[/QUOTE] For real, why don't we donate for all kinds of cancer? Nobody donates to lung cancer because everyone thinks smokers deserve it.
Sure, there's problems, but those problems should not be the vehicle for absolute dismissal. Your first post was dismissal. And some of that general distaste isn't completely irrational either. Some of them are using it as a means to hate, but some people are doing it out of a mental defense mechanism similar to how a raped person would treat the gender of the person who raped them. It's all boils down to being understanding, disagreeing peacefully, advocating for the people you do enjoy, and not dismissing. Dismissal of an entire movement is always awful. For instance, I used to hate feminism. Now, I think I'd consider myself a feminist. I used to characterize feminism as a terrible thing because of the terrible people I've seen, but there are honest-to-god awesome goals with feminism and there is a spectrum of fanaticism that is never depicted. There are people that are far closer to the center and are reasonable than people are willing to care about. To deny feminism because of the obnoxious few is to deny that stuff like slut-shaming and what not is an issue. Same thing here - dismissing #BLM on the grounds that there are annoying college kids is denying the validity of the issues that they talk about, primarily police brutality and poverty. You can apply this to the Republican party too. People love to dismiss the Republican party, but the Republican ideology isn't bad. There are great Republicans. The problem is that they lose the spotlight to the extreme ones, and they falsely represent the entire group. By proxy the Republican ideology looks like shit, and it can lead to the denial of serious issues, like funding social programs. Criticism isn't inherently bad, but dismissal is. Dismissal is what created #BLM in the first place.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49763140]Sure, there's problems, but those problems should not be the vehicle for absolute dismissal. Your first post was dismissal. And some of that general distaste isn't completely irrational either. Some of them are using it as a means to hate, but some people are doing it out of a mental defense mechanism similar to how a raped person would treat the gender of the person who raped them. It's all boils down to being understanding, disagreeing peacefully, advocating for the people you do enjoy, and not dismissing. Dismissal of an entire movement is always awful. For instance, I used to hate feminism. Now, I think I'd consider myself a feminist. I used to characterize feminism as a terrible thing because of the terrible people I've seen, but there are honest-to-god awesome goals with feminism and there is a spectrum of fanaticism that is never depicted. There are people that are far closer to the center and are reasonable than people are willing to care about. To deny feminism because of the obnoxious few is to deny that stuff like slut-shaming and what not is an issue. Same thing here - dismissing #BLM on the grounds that there are annoying college kids is denying the validity of the issues that they talk about, primarily police brutality and poverty. You can apply this to the Republican party too. People love to dismiss the Republican party, but the Republican ideology isn't bad. There are great Republicans. The problem is that they lose the spotlight to the extreme ones, and they falsely represent the entire group. By proxy the Republican ideology looks like shit, and it can lead to the denial of serious issues, like funding social programs. Criticism isn't inherently bad, but dismissal is. Dismissal is what created #BLM in the first place.[/QUOTE] Well I think in the political realm, nobody's beliefs or opinions should be outright dismissed; I think everyone should have their beliefs at least discussed. However, on a personal realm on an individual basis, I dismiss SJW types because I find them annoying. But that's okay because I don't interact with much of anyone these days so these opportunities haven't arisen since I cut off communication with everyone I went to highschool with. I used to see these people on a day to day basis. Not anymore. Sort of a wedge between us.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763076]I think the SJW craze in general is largely about a generation of entitled and narcissistic college kids who were given the "nobody loses" treatment. I think that an entire generation of kids has been told that they're special and that they matter on a grand scheme of things and are unhappy with the fact that that was a lie. I'll grant that on the race side of things, there are genuine complaints and grievances, but when you lump SJWs together with people who protest over neuro-atypicality, non-binary genders, otherkin, headmates, etc., then you really see that some people have come up with this postmodern narrative to try to make themselves feel special, when in reality they're just unimportant.[/QUOTE] Another way to look at this: you can criticize the annoying SJW's, but you have to be careful that your criticism doesn't bleed into criticizing actual goals. Anything remotely liberal gets called "SJW" and "PC police" anymore, and it's really annoying and disheartening. Hell, there's a clip from the reboot of the Powerpuff Girls, and the comments were all from people saying shit like "what is this feminazi platform bullshit" and, although it's a slippery slope argument, that slippery slope is real. What we really need in feminism and in #BLM are leaders that are more willing to organize and promote unity - to pave the way and show everyone how it's done. As of right now, the Dunning Kruger effect has taken over. The problems are valid and the advocacy is necessary, so if the problem is advocacy people need to stop dismissing and start taking over.
How is it that Al Sharpton, a man who encouraged a pogrom against Jews and made anti semitic remarks, is a leader of an equality movement? [URL="http://www.npr.org/2013/01/19/169734710/the-rev-al-sharpton-in-six-true-false-statements"]http://www.npr.org/2013/01/19/169734710/the-rev-al-sharpton-in-six-true-false-statements[/URL] [QUOTE]A car accident in which a Hasidic driver killed 7-year-old Gavin Cato, who was black, sparked outrage. Rioting erupted and lasted for three days, during which a rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, was fatally stabbed in an attack by a group of young black men. An estimated 43 civilians and 152 police officers were injured. Against the objections of New York Mayor David Dinkins, who sought to calm tensions, Sharpton led a march of some 400 protesters through the neighborhood. He and his followers chanted "No justice, no peace." Some marchers were heard yelling anti-Semitic epithets. The march ended without incident. In a eulogy at the boy's funeral, Sharpton criticized Jewish merchants in Crown Heights for selling diamonds from apartheid South Africa. He also said: "All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no coffee klatch, no skinnin' and grinnin'." Among the banners hanging to commemorate the boy, one read "Hitler did not do the job." [/QUOTE]
Its a shame that Al Sharpton is a leader within the African-American community. Shame there is one too. Being associated with leadership like that by virtue of your race must suck.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763162]Well I think in the political realm, nobody's beliefs or opinions should be outright dismissed; I think everyone should have their beliefs at least discussed. However, on a personal realm on an individual basis, I dismiss SJW types because I find them annoying. But that's okay because I don't interact with much of anyone these days so these opportunities haven't arisen since I cut off communication with everyone I went to highschool with. I used to see these people on a day to day basis. Not anymore. Sort of a wedge between us.[/QUOTE] There's a negative reaction to people suggesting they just want a discussion, because often times a lot of people want to discuss about how their problems aren't that serious. People don't want to discuss with people who don't take them seriously, and so there is a fear of communicating with people as a result. There were probably people in the 50's that were talking about, "Hey, let's talk about this whole racism thing. Is it really that big of a deal? Everyone gets access to water, everyone gets access to education... what's the issue? Maybe you're just an annoying liberal teenager that wants to put other people down." This is the big issue with Muslims, in my opinion. People want to have a "discussion" about the Muslim problem, but it ends up becoming discussion about blocking immigration, terrorism, and lots of non-productive complaints. While you and I might be willing to have a serious discussion with these people, we must be careful that we aren't dominating the conversation and denying them their importance, or alternatively we should simply listen as best as possible. Some people don't want to do that. Some people want a one-sided conversation that preaches hate. This exists for #BLM, Muslims, feminism, and all kinds of social justice issues. The way that I think about it in my head is characterizing the group as a victim of rape. A lot of people approach that victim and question them about the seriousness or truthfulness of what happened to them, and throw their hands up in the air talking about how that [I]bitch[/I] is crazy and unreasonable. Yeah, there's going to be some of the crazies that infiltrate groups, but it's not completely unfounded. If you're going to stand in the way, you need to step aside or get run over.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763076] c.) I think that "all lives matter" is a statement about a wish for egalitarianism, while "Black Lives Matter" is a statement about black separatism, if we accept that the two statements are in contradiction from one another. [/quote] The best analogy I've heard for BLM is the burning house analogy. If a house is on fire, the fire department go and fight that fire because [i]that house is the one that's in danger[/i] and it may also damage other houses in its current condition. You don't go "hey firefighters, what about that house that isn't on fire nearby?" because that house doesn't need help at the current moment. [quote] I think the SJW craze in general is largely about a generation of entitled and narcissistic college kids who were given the "nobody loses" treatment. I think that an entire generation of kids has been told that they're special and that they matter on a grand scheme of things and are unhappy with the fact that that was a lie. I'll grant that on the race side of things, there are genuine complaints and grievances, but when you lump SJWs together with people who protest over neuro-atypicality, non-binary genders, otherkin, headmates, etc., then you really see that some people have come up with this postmodern narrative to try to make themselves feel special, when in reality they're just unimportant. [/QUOTE] non binary genders are a real thing tho? Otherkin and headmates are either a neurotypical being a troll or someone with legitimate mental health issues who needs better, more affordable help than your country can provide, as well as an open forum without being afraid they'll be discriminated against because of their issues
Snip
[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;49763241]non binary genders are a real thing tho? Otherkin and headmates are either a neurotypical being a troll or someone with legitimate mental health issues who needs better, more affordable help than your country can provide, as well as an open forum without being afraid they'll be discriminated against because of their issues[/QUOTE] On the subject of non-binary genders, I'm currently trying to figure myself out, because I might actually be pansexual. I'm not your Tumblr-reading mega SJW either. False superiority is something that can infest in anything. You could be a morally superior eater of foods (veganism), a morally superior religious man (born-again), a morally superior feminist, a morally superior... anything, really.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49763342]On the subject of non-binary genders, I'm currently trying to figure myself out, because I might actually be pansexual. I'm not your Tumblr-reading mega SJW either..[/QUOTE] I really don't see how one of those things affects the other? If you could explain what you mean
[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;49763241]non binary genders are a real thing tho? Otherkin and headmates are either a neurotypical being a troll or someone with legitimate mental health issues who needs better, more affordable help than your country can provide, as well as an open forum without being afraid they'll be discriminated against because of their issues[/QUOTE] Common misconception; those things were actually all made up by teenagers
[QUOTE=KillRay;49763354]I really don't see how one of those things affects the other? If you could explain what you mean[/QUOTE] A lot of people look at non-binary genders as flat out stupid and pretentious. That includes pansexuals, which are often labeled special snowflakes. And because a lot of people only ever hear from the super vocal pansexuals, they get a bad rep and get bunched together with otherkin and what not.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49763397]A lot of people look at non-binary genders as flat out stupid and pretentious. That includes pansexuals, which are often labeled special snowflakes. And because a lot of people only ever hear from the super vocal pansexuals, they get a bad rep and get bunched together with otherkin and what not.[/QUOTE] Pansexuality would be a sexual orientation, not a gender
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763361]Common misconception; those things were actually all made up by teenagers[/QUOTE] No they're not? How willfully ignorant do you have to be to not understand that some people don't feel like they're a woman or man, the gender binary is a stupid and overly rigid system that's just kinda sad. People transition, people experience gender dysphoria, who are you to tell someone exactly what they are? Your Sex maybe what you're born with, but your gender is part of your self identity. I'm saying that as a Pansexual cisgender male with quite a few genderfluid friends, it's definitely a real thing. I can't comment with authority on the otherkin situation, but people who believe in it genuinely need help, but like with headmates they could be like imaginary friends, a temporary thing used to deal with something.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49763361]Common misconception; those things were actually all made up by teenagers[/QUOTE] Gender schema theory has been a field of psychology since the 80s, and gender roles have been under discussion since the 50s with intersex people, gender dysphoria is in the DSM... This stuff has been the subject of research since the 1920s. Saying it's "made up by teenagers" is absurd. Ancient cultures have non-binary gender descriptors - Indian Vedic culture recognized three genders, the Middle Kingdom of Egypt had male, female, and sekhet, the Greeks had the "hermaphrodites..." Israel had like 6. Male, female, androgynous (both), tumtum (unknown), aylonit (barren female), saris (male-to-female transgender/eunuch). Saying that gender identities are just "made up" by teenagers is a joke. It's a big field of research in psychology and anthropology.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49763397]A lot of people look at non-binary genders as flat out stupid and pretentious. That includes pansexuals, which are often labeled special snowflakes. And because a lot of people only ever hear from the super vocal pansexuals, they get a bad rep and get bunched together with otherkin and what not.[/QUOTE] I'm pansexual, it's something thats existed for a lot longer than tumblr. It's not even that crazy of an ideal, compared to some of the other wacky sexualities that exist on the internet. It's generally just seen as a more outreaching term to include trans people especially, since a lot of bi people will still not date a trans person. I've never really seen as a "pretentious or stupid" sexuality just due to that fact. Pan and poly are still just types of bisexuality though, same way a rectangle is still a square.
[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;49763423]No they're not? How willfully ignorant do you have to be to not understand that some people don't feel like they're a woman or man, the gender binary is a stupid and overly rigid system that's just kinda sad. People transition, people experience gender dysphoria, who are you to tell someone exactly what they are? Your Sex maybe what you're born with, but your gender is part of your self identity. I'm saying that as a Pansexual cisgender male with quite a few genderfluid friends, it's definitely a real thing. I can't comment with authority on the otherkin situation, but people who believe in it genuinely need help, but like with headmates they could be like imaginary friends, a temporary thing used to deal with something.[/QUOTE] Why is it that people who think they're animals need help but people who think they're a non-existent gender don't? I'm perfectly accepting of trans people, gay people, etc., but non-binary genders are just made up. There's male and female, and you can be either one regarless of your sex at birth. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;49763431]Gender schema theory has been a field of psychology since the 80s, and gender roles have been under discussion since the 50s with intersex people, gender dysphoria is in the DSM...[/quote] This stuff has been the subject of research since the 1920s. Saying it's "made up by teenagers" is absurd. Ancient cultures have non-binary gender descriptors - Indian Vedic culture recognized three genders, the Middle Kingdom of Egypt had male, female, and sekhet, the Greeks had the "hermaphrodites..." Israel had like 6. Male, female, androgynous (both), tumtum (unknown), aylonit (barren female), saris (male-to-female transgender/eunuch). Saying that gender identities are just "made up" by teenagers is a joke. It's a big field of research in psychology and anthropology.[/QUOTE] Psychology and Anthropology aren't really the most well-respected fields, though, are they? They're on the border or humanities and science, which gives them ample room to make things up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.