Apple pulls apps with confederate flag, including civil war games
130 replies, posted
I'm so glad I've never bought an Apple product, they are a shithole company that makes dumb things anyways.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48052241]Can we stop calling people "Social Justice Warriors?" You guys get how ridiculous that sounds, right?[/QUOTE]
A lot of them call themselves that.
[QUOTE=paul simon;48053122]It is ridiculous, and that's why we call them that[/QUOTE]
I think you've misunderstood something. It makes [B]you[/B] look ridiculous because you're falling back to some boogeyman with one of the loosest definitions mankind has ever known rather than actually addressing the thing properly with something resembling thought.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48053400]I think you've misunderstood something. It makes [B]you[/B] look ridiculous because you're falling back to some boogeyman with one of the loosest definitions mankind has ever known rather than actually addressing the thing properly with something resembling thought.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I was more saying that anyone that uses the term non-ironically sounds stupid because it's a term that sounds stupid.
It doesn't make any sense. It implies that "social justice," whatever that is, requires "warriors," whatever those are, instead of just realizing that we can all be less of a dick to people and get along fine. Which is what "social justice" actually would be, if it were a concept that meant anything.
If we could just all stop being cocks, we'd be in a much better place.
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Destroyox;48053307]I'm so glad I've never bought an Apple product, they are a shithole company that makes dumb things anyways.
A lot of them call themselves that.[/QUOTE]
Well then they sound ridiculous too.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48053400]I think you've misunderstood something. It makes [B]you[/B] look ridiculous because you're falling back to some boogeyman with one of the loosest definitions mankind has ever known rather than actually addressing the thing properly with something resembling thought.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, some people genuinely call themselves that, so it's become sort of a thing to call people with similar behavior SJWs. (read: people who seemingly spend their days looking for things that offend them or someone else that they feel the need to protect)
[QUOTE=woolio1;48053452]Actually, I was more saying that anyone that uses the term non-ironically sounds stupid because it's a term that sounds stupid.
It doesn't make any sense. It implies that "social justice," whatever that is, requires "warriors," whatever those are, instead of just realizing that we can all be less of a dick to people and get along fine. Which is what "social justice" actually would be, if it were a concept that meant anything.
If we could just all stop being cocks, we'd be in a much better place.
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
Well then they sound ridiculous too.[/QUOTE]
The term is very accurate the way I see it.
There are actually warriors fighting for rights of others in society seemingly for a good cause. They fight against made up problems and for made up things(that is social justice). They are as fierce as actual wariors.
Gotta keep calling them that because it makes complete sense. What doesnt make sense is to say "guys you know it sounds stupid right" in every thread, I have seen such posts way too many times.
Cook needs to go, Phil Schiller should be on top.
Really reminds me of my country and all the Nazi symbolism. Man, can't believe some people think that forgetting things means it never happened.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48053400]I think you've misunderstood something. It makes [B]you[/B] look ridiculous because you're falling back to some boogeyman with one of the loosest definitions mankind has ever known rather than actually addressing the thing properly with something resembling thought.[/QUOTE]
Its definition is quite clear, and every time people like you complain about it, we reexplain it, but no matter how much we try to make it clear you guys just keep being snobby because of a fucking word. Just because you refuse to acknowledge that doesn't make its definition "the loosest mankind has ever known".
It doesn't matter anyway, if we came up with another word to refer to them you'd keep on pretending it automatically invalidates any argument it's used in.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48053400]I think you've misunderstood something. It makes [B]you[/B] look ridiculous because you're falling back to some boogeyman with one of the [B]loosest definitions mankind has ever known[/B] rather than actually addressing the thing properly with something resembling thought.[/QUOTE]
With the number of threads about them or discussing them all seemingly having a similar definition (when you ask the person using it what it means instead of screeching BOGEYMEN!) I don't think the definition is that loose.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;48055928]With the number of threads about them or discussing them all seemingly having a similar definition (when you ask the person using it what it means instead of screeching BOGEYMEN!)[B] I don't think[/B] the definition is that loose.[/QUOTE]
do you [B]think [/B]that's the case, or do you [B]know[/B] that's the case?
[QUOTE=Ownederd;48056053]do you [B]think [/B]that's what happened, or do you [B]know[/B] that's what happened?[/QUOTE]
I don't know what post you're replying to. Wrong thread maybe?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48056157]I don't know what post you're replying to. Wrong thread maybe?[/QUOTE]
fixed
[QUOTE=Ownederd;48056053]do you [B]think [/B]that's the case, or do you [B]know[/B] that's the case?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps in general the term isn't defined very clearly, that's usually the case with neologisms. But on this forum its meaning has been made pretty clear and to keep insisting that it's meaningless when you know very well what the poster refers to is disingenuous.
I'm not saying it's meaningless, I'm saying it sounds insane.
Good lord, do you people ever listen to yourselves?
i don't know, before this incident people were still using the confederate flag as a symbol of the south/southern pride -- i'm kind of glad it's under so much attack considering that people got away with showing it off for so long, despite it's awful connotations
[QUOTE=woolio1;48056257]I'm not saying it's meaningless, I'm saying it sounds insane.
Good lord, do you people ever listen to yourselves?[/QUOTE]
The oxymoron between "Social Justice" and "Warrior" is intentional, it denotes how those people vehemently fight for a cause they seem to believe in without considering whether their actions help it or not.
You missing the point doesn't mean it's insane.
[editline]26th June 2015[/editline]
If you can come up with a better denomination, you're welcome to propose it.
In some good news about this, Ultimate General: Gettysburg was put back on the App Store without any changes!
[QUOTE=paul simon;48053122]It is ridiculous, and that's why we call them that[/QUOTE]
It's a phrase that says way more about you then them IMO. Like, you could call someone a "Liberal commie pinko" and it'd make them sound ridiculous, but you'd sound dumber
[editline]27th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48055406]
made up things(that is social justice)
.[/QUOTE]
If you think that social justice is just made up things and outrage on Tumblr you really need to spend less time on the internet IMO
That said, puling games where this flag is used in a proper historical context is 100% knee-jerk
So I ran across this on TV today, it's from 2005, but its from author John Coski, who is an expert on the confederacy and the confederate battle flag. He raises a lot of good points and if you really care about this you should watch it, no matter what your opinion is.
[url]http://www.c-span.org/video/?189466-1/john-coski-confederate-battle-flag[/url]
One of the biggest points is at 32:30 - 33:40 (32:50 - 33:40 if you're super lazy) if you're too lazy to watch it all. But the whole thing is interesting no doubt.
There's also an NPR interview with the same author, from June 23, 2015 about the current events.
[url]http://www.npr.org/2015/06/23/416736897/the-long-and-divisive-history-of-the-confederate-flag[/url]
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48064957]It's a phrase that says way more about you then them IMO. Like, you could call someone a "Liberal commie pinko" and it'd make them sound ridiculous, but you'd sound dumber[/QUOTE]
Propose a term that's just as fitting a denomination for this type of people then?
It's easy to criticize people for the words they use but if you complain you should be able to propose solutions.
If you extrapolate people's character from something as trivial as the expressions they employ then how can you claim to be free of prejudices? Is one's vocabulary more important than their point now? Why are you so picky about how people express themselves?
this would be on par with germans and how the nazi flag was banned lol
[QUOTE=_Axel;48065127]Propose a term that's just as fitting a denomination for this type of people then?
It's easy to criticize people for the words they use but if you complain you should be able to propose solutions.
If you extrapolate people's character from something as trivial as the expressions they employ then how can you claim to be free of prejudices? Is one's vocabulary more important than their point now? Why are you so picky about how people express themselves?[/QUOTE]
Why do we have to call them anything? What's the deal with the abstraction? Why can't we just use their names, as I assume most people have? Why do you have to hide your enemies behind a mask?
[QUOTE=woolio1;48065523]Why do we have to call them anything? What's the deal with the abstraction? Why can't we just use their names, as I assume most people have? Why do you have to hide your enemies behind a mask?[/QUOTE]
What? When talking about a large demographic you don't refer to them by name. What do you want me to do? Personally look for people who're part of their group and list their names? When you talk about politics, you use political-related terms to refer to the different parties; liberals, democrats, communists, republicans, fascists, etc...
When talking about social phenomenons that involve hiding under the pretense of social justice to generate outrage and realize personal goals, I'm going to refer to the people that are guilty of this behavior as SJWs. I don't see what's unclear about this.
I'm talking about large groups of people who share the same characteristic, of course I'll refer to this group by using the characteristic they have in common as a basis.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48065558]What? When talking about a large demographic you don't refer to them by name. When you talk about politics, you use political-related terms to refer to the different parties; liberals, democrats, communists, republicans, fascists, etc...
When talking about social phenomenons that involve hiding under the pretense of social justice to generate outrage and realize personal goals, I'm going to refer to the people that are guilty of this behavior as SJWs. I don't see what's unclear about this.[/QUOTE]
Abstraction is the easiest way to dehumanize your opponents. That's why we use it. It makes it easier to see your own side as "right," because you're not considering the individual facets of the opposition.
This is literally high school debate club-level stuff. If you're arguing against an abstraction, you're not arguing against anybody other than yourself.
Confront your enemies head-on, in gladiatorial combat.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48065576]Abstraction is the easiest way to dehumanize your opponents. That's why we use it. It makes it easier to see your own side as "right," because you're not considering the individual facets of the opposition.
This is literally high school debate club-level stuff. If you're arguing against an abstraction, you're not arguing against anybody other than yourself.[/QUOTE]
So when talking about politics you never once mention the term liberal or democrat, or any other political group?
Are you missing the point on purpose?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48065582]So when talking about politics you never once mention the term liberal or democrat, or any other political group?
Are you missing the point on purpose?[/QUOTE]
Not as a descriptor. There are candidates behind the party labels, with individual beliefs that may or may not align with those labels. For instance, Ron Paul in the GOP, or Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party.
Discuss Sarkeesian or whoever all you want, but the moment you start throwing people into a pile you lose all definition.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48065590]Not as a descriptor. There are candidates behind the party labels, with individual beliefs that may or may not align with those labels. For instance, Ron Paul in the GOP, or Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party.
Discuss Sarkeesian or whoever all you want, but the moment you start throwing people into a pile you lose all definition.[/QUOTE]
But you do say stuff like "liberals are more progressive" and "the GOP is more reactionary".
How can you expect me to describe a social phenomenon without grouping people who share similar characteristics together? I'm not talking about a single political candidate or a person I can refer to by name, I'm talking about large amounts of people who all indulge in the same behavior. It's literally impossible to refer to them "by name". It's astonishing that you can't comprehend that.
You calling them "liberals" is explaining a lot about this whole situation...
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I've got a wedding to attend.
If you're wondering why words are so important to me, they are literally my job. I'd be fired if I used terms like that in my work, because accuracy is everything.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48065618]You calling them "liberals" is explaining a lot about this whole situation...
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I've got a wedding to go to.[/QUOTE]
What? I'm a fucking French socialist, do you think I'm some kind of right-winger or something?
Nice way of ignoring my point, by the way.
[editline]27th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=woolio1;48065618]If you're wondering why words are so important to me, they are literally my job. I'd be fired if I used terms like that in my work, because accuracy is everything.[/QUOTE]
So you literally never talk about more than a single person at a time then? How do you refer to groups of people without contradicting yourself?
[QUOTE=woolio1;48065576]Abstraction is the easiest way to dehumanize your opponents. That's why we use it. It makes it easier to see your own side as "right," because you're not considering the individual facets of the opposition.
This is literally high school debate club-level stuff. If you're arguing against an abstraction, you're not arguing against anybody other than yourself.
Confront your enemies head-on, in gladiatorial combat.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=woolio1;48064960]And in a lot of cases, it is. Most of the Muslim people I know are probably more progressive than most of the Christians I know. I have to wonder if that's because I'm in the Southeast, though. It's not exactly hard to be more progressive than the Southern Baptists.[/QUOTE]
Hypocrisy, they name is woolio....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.