Bernie Sanders cut short after 'Black Lives Matter' takeover rally
192 replies, posted
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;48420468]brogressives are awesome allies to minority and civil rights causes as long as it's on their time and on their schedule. And never ever piss them off, because if they feel an inch disrespected they will at the least disconnect from the cause and at worse turn on minorities completely.
A brogressive is not an ally you want on any social movement really.[/QUOTE]
you're right, brogressives probably won't understand. if you can't recruit them to true progressivism, you should cut of contact with them, it is unhealthy to be around nonbelievers anyways, stop wasting time with them.
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;48420574]two sides of the same coin. but no, a sjw would probably not fit into that description[/QUOTE]
I've genuinely seen SJW's call people "house niggers" and "Uncle Toms" and other shit like that because they weren't ideologically pure enough.
Which is why I hate this term Brogressive, it sounds like someone spent too much of their time in an echo chamber and made up terms to dismiss people who have slightly different opinions than they do. It's like the "Cuckservative" of the left.
It's funny how all these new labels are coming up to label people who are "against" progressive movements. The first step to dividing people is labeling them. Movements like these are not progressive when it claims inclusiveness, but spawns exclusiveness. That's why black people were called many different things, prior to the civil rights movement, to the point where some words that are not racial slurs have historically negative context like calling black people "colored".
why do people keep using "bro" where it doesn't fit, anyway?
Last time I checked, a "bro" in the negative connotation was your typical white college frat dude
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;48420900]Last time I checked, a "bro" in the negative connotation was your typical white college frat dude[/QUOTE]
That's the point. You want to discredit your opponents? Label them as something undesirable. In this case, progressives that they disagree with are labeled immature, racist, sexist, and otherwise ignorant. Because if they don't agree with you, they're wrong.
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;48420395]you're going to have to find another user for that bro, since i'm not justifying what they did.if they just wanted to shout at some old white dude then by all means, don't do it under the guise of a legitimate movement though, you just make everyone look bad.
i'm just saying that people (the american left, because the right was never a fan to begin with) turned on BLM so easily because they are fickle and willing to turn on you the moment you don't play on their time and on their rules.. it only took two women to redefine an entire social movement as a "regression , not a progression". it only took two women for people to demonize an entire movement.
but hey Americans trivialize political movements all the time so who give a shit, it happened with occupy wall street, it still happens to feminism and even the tea party (before it went completely bonkers at least) has the same thing happen to them. all it takes is one person and we are back a step fucking one.[/QUOTE]
It happens to feminism because it's not just two women spewing crazy nonsense on Twitter and infecting schools with radicalism. It happened to black lives matter because thousands upon thousands on social media are saying they support the fight against the evil white man Bernie Sanders and it happened to the tea party because well, they're the tea party.
I've given my reasons behind not liking Black Lives Matter as a political movement and it's a bit deeper than some people rushing the stage and taking the mic from Bernie. Not to mention the blatant financial ties to Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE=Velocet;48420967]It happens to feminism because it's not just two women spewing crazy nonsense on Twitter and infecting schools with radicalism. It happened to black lives matter because thousands upon thousands on social media are saying they support the fight against the evil white man Bernie Sanders and it happened to the tea party because well, they're the tea party.
I've given my reasons behind not liking Black Lives Matter as a political movement and it's a bit deeper than some people rushing the stage and taking the mic from Bernie. Not to mention the blatant financial ties to Hillary Clinton.[/QUOTE]
Give me an example of thousands on thousands of people on social media "supporting the fight against the evil white man Bernie Sanders."
I have seen absolutely nothing but support for Sanders throughout this entire thing. Absolutely nothing. Even the Black Lives Matter foundation has endorsed Sanders - this is the actions of two people who wanted nothing but to push the idea of ending police racism and police brutality into the presidential sphere of debate. That's it.
If you discount an entire movement because two people annoyed you, you're just ignorant. I could cherry pick two people from the Men's Rights movement and discount the whole thing, I could cherry pick two people from Gamergate and discount the whole thing, I could do the exact same thing that people on Facepunch complain about. If you don't want movements you support being generalized and marginalized, don't fucking do it to other movements.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48421064]Give me an example of thousands on thousands of people on social media "supporting the fight against the evil white man Bernie Sanders."
I have seen absolutely nothing but support for Sanders throughout this entire thing. Absolutely nothing. Even the Black Lives Matter foundation has endorsed Sanders - this is the actions of two people who wanted nothing but to push the idea of ending police racism and police brutality into the presidential sphere of debate. That's it.
If you discount an entire movement because two people annoyed you, you're just ignorant. I could cherry pick two people from the Men's Rights movement and discount the whole thing, I could cherry pick two people from Gamergate and discount the whole thing, I could do the exact same thing that people on Facepunch complain about. If you don't want movements you support being generalized and marginalized, don't fucking do it to other movements.[/QUOTE]
People already do that with Men's rights. People already do that with GamerGate. It's funny that you have a problem with it all of a sudden when it's BLM or Feminism.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48421064]Give me an example of thousands on thousands of people on social media "supporting the fight against the evil white man Bernie Sanders."
I have seen absolutely nothing but support for Sanders throughout this entire thing. Absolutely nothing. Even the Black Lives Matter foundation has endorsed Sanders - this is the actions of two people who wanted nothing but to push the idea of ending police racism and police brutality into the presidential sphere of debate. That's it.
If you discount an entire movement because two people annoyed you, you're just ignorant. I could cherry pick two people from the Men's Rights movement and discount the whole thing, I could cherry pick two people from Gamergate and discount the whole thing, I could do the exact same thing that people on Facepunch complain about. If you don't want movements you support being generalized and marginalized, don't fucking do it to other movements.[/QUOTE]
You can spend 2 seconds on Twitter and find countless examples of support for the actions of the protesters.
[url]https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/630282257031409664[/url]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48421102]People already do that with Men's rights. People already do that with GamerGate. It's funny that you have a problem with it all of a sudden when it's BLM or Feminism.[/QUOTE]
I have a problem with people complaining that it happens to those movements and then doing the exact same thing to movements that they disagree with.
You can't say "they're misrepresenting our movement and demonizing us, it's no fair! let's misrepresent and demonize their movements too!" without being a massive hypocrite.
I support GG (not so much MRA), but the fact that people here are so quick to defend those movements and then jump on a bandwagon to attack the movements they don't agree with is incredibly hypocritical. If you don't want people misrepresenting your movement as racist or sexist, don't attack their movements in the exact same way they attack yours. It just makes you petty.
Reddit's having a field day with this, too. Just pasting the picture of this woman all over /r/punchablefaces. It's infantile and all it does is make Sanders look bad - people will just see his supporters attacking BLM and they'll think he's the same way. It's just stupidity flying around in both directions.
[editline]10th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=elfbarf;48421129]You can spend 2 seconds on Twitter and find countless examples of support for the actions of the protesters.
[url]https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/630282257031409664[/url][/QUOTE]
Supporting the protesters, sure. Demonizing Sanders? Haven't seen a single person say anything negative about him. This post says nothing negative about him.
Also, Brianna Wu is a professional troll who exists to incite reactions to get money, that's hardly a good source.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48421064]Give me an example of thousands on thousands of people on social media "supporting the fight against the evil white man Bernie Sanders."
I have seen absolutely nothing but support for Sanders throughout this entire thing. Absolutely nothing. Even the Black Lives Matter foundation has endorsed Sanders - this is the actions of two people who wanted nothing but to push the idea of ending police racism and police brutality into the presidential sphere of debate. That's it.
If you discount an entire movement because two people annoyed you, you're just ignorant. I could cherry pick two people from the Men's Rights movement and discount the whole thing, I could cherry pick two people from Gamergate and discount the whole thing, I could do the exact same thing that people on Facepunch complain about. If you don't want movements you support being generalized and marginalized, don't fucking do it to other movements.[/QUOTE]
I'm not cherry picking. When someone in GamerGate did something stupid, everyone universally called them out on it without hesitation. Same thing happened when that MRA site did that article about Mad Max being "feminist propaganda".
If this was not condoned by the Black Lives Matter movement, why hasn't the official page acknowledged that people are making fake pages on social media?
Let's look up a couple social justice buzzwords. Look at how many people are complaining about the fact that Bernie Sanders is everything they despise. He's white, he's straight, he's rich and he's old. They are a vocal minority, but there's quite a few of those roaming around the internet so to pretend it's only two people is ridiculous and you know that. It's in the thousands, thousands of individuals having more of a voice than they deserve.
He's homophobic, he's transphobic, he's a misogynist, he's a racist, he's this, he's that, *insert another label the radical left uses on people they don't like for whatever stupid reason they have*
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48421143]I have a problem with people complaining that it happens to those movements and then doing the exact same thing to movements that they disagree with.
You can't say "they're misrepresenting our movement and demonizing us, it's no fair! let's misrepresent and demonize their movements too!" without being a massive hypocrite.
I support GG (not so much MRA), but the fact that people here are so quick to defend those movements and then jump on a bandwagon to attack the movements they don't agree with is incredibly hypocritical. If you don't want people misrepresenting your movement as racist or sexist, don't attack their movements in the exact same way they attack yours. It just makes you petty.
Reddit's having a field day with this, too. Just pasting the picture of this woman all over /r/punchablefaces. It's infantile and all it does is make Sanders look bad - people will just see his supporters attacking BLM and they'll think he's the same way. It's just stupidity flying around in both directions.[/QUOTE]
You're confusing hypocrisy with treating others they way they have treated you.
No doubt poverty and socioeconomic inequalities compelled them to do this.
Sure, these people are being quite annoying, but people do drastic things when things aren't dealt with. The trade off is having no voice whatsoever.
People criticized black people in Ferguson for not trying to choose some alternate path instead of rioting to make progress, but within that context there was no other choice. They weren't being taken seriously and no one was listening. What Ferguson proved is buildings have to burn before the black community is given a voice, and that they still won't be listened to because they are rioting. It's a lot of cyclical bullshit.
No one deals with the higher incarceration rates. No one deals with the police brutality. No one deals with anything.
These people are protesting Bernie partially because a good sum of them enjoy protesting, but also partially because they're trying to get Bernie to focus on them. If they protest at a Republican rally, you know they'll be silenced. If they protest at a Bernie rally, they're placing bets that he's going to respond and give them consideration at least somewhere along the line of his campaign - especially considering Bernie's track history.
The problem now is they need to lay off enough to let him respond. And it appears he has, seeing as he appears to have included room for them in his political agenda. I think many of the #BLM know who Bernie is and, despite how ugly they may have seemed in their protest, are optimistic. If they weren't, they wouldn't keep pushing - they'd give up.
Yeah, there's hypocrisy and problems, but it doesn't diminish the entire goal of the movement and doesn't change the fact that they're doing this because they are otherwise ignored. To legitimately believe otherwise is to continue contributing to the vicious cycle many black people have been stuck in for some time now.
The other problem is of representation. The loudest take the flag. The entire movement should not be judged based on the loudest because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;48421678]Sure, these people are being quite annoying, but people do drastic things when things aren't dealt with. The trade off is having no voice whatsoever.
People criticized black people in Ferguson for not trying to choose some alternate path instead of rioting to make progress, but within that context there was no other choice. [B]They weren't being taken seriously and no one was listening[/B].[/QUOTE]
Because of the rioting, looting and stuff like this. Stuff like this justifies the policies actions in many peoples minds and I can easily see why.
[editline]10th August 2015[/editline]
Being against "riot shaming" is silly.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48421762]Because of the rioting, looting and stuff like this. Stuff like this justifies the policies actions in many peoples minds and I can easily see why.
[editline]10th August 2015[/editline]
Being against "riot shaming" is silly.[/QUOTE]
Uh, riots happened [I]afterwards[/I] in many of these cases. I can't think of any riots that occured without a spark within recent years.
You can't say that the police's actions were retroactively justified because of future riots.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48421102]People already do that with Men's rights. People already do that with GamerGate. It's funny that you have a problem with it all of a sudden when it's BLM or Feminism.[/QUOTE]
I'm convinced that MRAs and GG started with good intentions by good people, but were quickly taken over by really undesirable people (fedora-sporting neckbeards and the "no gurls allowed" club respectively).
Shit like "why does the man always get shit on in child custody debates" is actually pretty reasonable, but MRAs only seem to get their dander up when women ask for more time to recover from maternity. Shit like "we're pretty sure IGN just gives 10s to whoever gives them money" is actually pretty reasonable, but GG only seems to get noisy when a woman character does something other than be a walking sex toy. It's not the first time this sort of thing happened. Hell, the Republicans used to be the more liberal of the two US parties. When shit like this happens, there's no point in continuing with your tainted label. It's best to just move on.
The original tenets of the MRA thing (child custody and similar) are actually covered by rational feminism. I can't think of a group that seeks to do what GG was originally doing before it decided to become the Feminism Hate Machine. Or you could just avoid the whole "labels" thing in the first place and force people to actually listen to your opinion; that's what I'm doing these days.
[QUOTE=lavacano;48422084]I'm convinced that MRAs and GG started with good intentions by good people, but were quickly taken over by really undesirable people (fedora-sporting neckbeards and the "no gurls allowed" club respectively).
Shit like "why does the man always get shit on in child custody debates" is actually pretty reasonable, but MRAs only seem to get their dander up when women ask for more time to recover from maternity. Shit like "we're pretty sure IGN just gives 10s to whoever gives them money" is actually pretty reasonable, but GG only seems to get noisy when a woman character does something other than be a walking sex toy. It's not the first time this sort of thing happened. Hell, the Republicans used to be the more liberal of the two US parties. When shit like this happens, there's no point in continuing with your tainted label. It's best to just move on.
The original tenets of the MRA thing (child custody and similar) are actually covered by rational feminism. I can't think of a group that seeks to do what GG was originally doing before it decided to become the Feminism Hate Machine. Or you could just avoid the whole "labels" thing in the first place and force people to actually listen to your opinion; that's what I'm doing these days.[/QUOTE]
I agree with most of that, but similar charges can be leveled against feminism.
Back in the day, feminism was mainly about equality between the sexes. It's since been taken over by a toxic mixture of man-hating and the advancement of women in total disregard for equality (although still pretending the advancement is about equality).
At this point it's just time to move on from feminism, the label has become irretrievably toxic and tainted. I mean, I believe in equality between sexes, but I'd never describe myself as a feminist because I fundamentally disagree with many points of modern feminism.
Egalitarian would be a better term and label, it covers equality for [I]both[/I] sexes along with equality between races, social classes etc.
[QUOTE=lavacano;48422084]I'm convinced that MRAs and GG started with good intentions by good people, but were quickly taken over by really undesirable people (fedora-sporting neckbeards and the "no gurls allowed" club respectively).
Shit like "why does the man always get shit on in child custody debates" is actually pretty reasonable, but MRAs only seem to get their dander up when women ask for more time to recover from maternity. Shit like "we're pretty sure IGN just gives 10s to whoever gives them money" is actually pretty reasonable, but GG only seems to get noisy when a woman character does something other than be a walking sex toy. It's not the first time this sort of thing happened. Hell, the Republicans used to be the more liberal of the two US parties. When shit like this happens, there's no point in continuing with your tainted label. It's best to just move on.
The original tenets of the MRA thing (child custody and similar) are actually covered by rational feminism. I can't think of a group that seeks to do what GG was originally doing before it decided to become the Feminism Hate Machine. Or you could just avoid the whole "labels" thing in the first place and force people to actually listen to your opinion; that's what I'm doing these days.[/QUOTE]
But again, to their credit, when they got taken over, they were vocal enough to say "those people do not represent our interests". Especially when it came to death threats. As disorganized as GamerGate was, they did everything in their power to get the message out that the leaderless movement didn't condone those actions.
Why isn't Black Lives Matter doing the same? They have an official website. They have an official twitter account, yet it's dead silent on the matter. I know why they aren't saying anything, they may not condone it, but they certainly don't oppose it. Follow the money and it goes back to a billionaire names George Soros, follow the money further and it ends up in the pockets of Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;48422235]I agree with most of that, but similar charges can be leveled against feminism.
Back in the day, feminism was mainly about equality between the sexes. It's since been taken over by a toxic mixture of man-hating and the advancement of women in total disregard for equality (although still pretending the advancement is about equality).
At this point it's just time to move on from feminism, the label has become irretrievably toxic and tainted. I mean, I believe in equality between sexes, but I'd never describe myself as a feminist because I fundamentally disagree with many points of modern feminism.
Egalitarian would be a better term and label, it covers equality for [I]both[/I] sexes along with equality between races, social classes etc.[/QUOTE]
But feminism hasn't reached that point - you're delusional if you think the average feminist supports "man hating" and wants to get rid of equality to promote women to a higher standard than men. It is a very very small minority of internet-goers, usually younger kids or teenagers, who hold those views.
Saying that feminism has been "hijacked" and is "anti-men" is so unbelievably misinformed. There are issues of men that feminism hasn't addressed as readily as they address issues of women, and that is a valid complaint that I'd like to see pushed more often, but it is and always will be a platform for gender equality. Focusing on the lunatics on the internet who say that men should be exterminated just shows your biases - not the biases of one of the largest social movements of all time.
Seriously. Saying that is like saying Gamergate is out to slaughter women to prevent them from joining the gaming industry - I'm sure there's one or two lunatics that hold that point of view, some of them satirical (Sam Hyde anyone). Feminism has millions and millions of supporters, the vast majority of whom do not think men should be viewed as inferior or women as superior.
You're projecting the views of a tiny tiny unbelievably small minority onto an entire massive population. I can't name a single feminist, either famous or just an acquaintance of mine, that hates men. That is not what feminism is about - you can argue that "radical feminism" holds those point of views, but still. It's like saying all Islam wants ISIS to rule the world and have Sharia law enacted everywhere and to slaughter anyone who doesn't follow their religion. Some might, but the vast majority vehemently disagree with that perspective. It's just intellectually dishonest to say that feminism is about "man-hating" when there are millions of people that support it across the globe of both genders.
[editline]10th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=lavacano;48422084]I'm convinced that MRAs and GG started with good intentions by good people, but were quickly taken over by really undesirable people (fedora-sporting neckbeards and the "no gurls allowed" club respectively).
Shit like "why does the man always get shit on in child custody debates" is actually pretty reasonable, but MRAs only seem to get their dander up when women ask for more time to recover from maternity. Shit like "we're pretty sure IGN just gives 10s to whoever gives them money" is actually pretty reasonable, but GG only seems to get noisy when a woman character does something other than be a walking sex toy. It's not the first time this sort of thing happened. Hell, the Republicans used to be the more liberal of the two US parties. When shit like this happens, there's no point in continuing with your tainted label. It's best to just move on.
The original tenets of the MRA thing (child custody and similar) are actually covered by rational feminism. I can't think of a group that seeks to do what GG was originally doing before it decided to become the Feminism Hate Machine. Or you could just avoid the whole "labels" thing in the first place and force people to actually listen to your opinion; that's what I'm doing these days.[/QUOTE]
See, feminism really does cover most of MRA's core tenets. Feminism fought to allow women to fight in the military. Guess what that did? Reduced the deaths of men in combat roles. Is that not positive? Feminism fought to change laws that dictated that "penetration" was the only way to be raped - meaning that men legally could not be raped. That's not reasonable?
I agree that many feminists don't pay as much attention as they should to issues where men are unequal to women. Suicide rates, homelessness, lack of men's shelters, etc. There's plenty of reasons - but feminism has done an absolute enormous amount to change society's views on gender roles for the positive. Men nowadays can be feminine if they want. They can dress up nice and have waxed eyebrows and not get shunned completely by other men. They can get pedicures, they can do all sorts of shit without being totally laughed at by all the other dudes. It's overall a positive influence on both genders - men can have more traditionally feminist behaviors and roles in society, and women can have more masculine ones. That is a massive yet subtle step to total gender equality.
Still confused as to how this became an MRA/GG/Feminism debate when it started out as a BLM debate, but since Facepunch lumps all these movements together it's still technically relevant.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48422447]But feminism hasn't reached that point - you're delusional if you think the average feminist supports "man hating" and wants to get rid of equality to promote women to a higher standard than men. It is a very very small minority of internet-goers, usually younger kids or teenagers, who hold those views.
Saying that feminism has been "hijacked" and is "anti-men" is so unbelievably misinformed. There are issues of men that feminism hasn't addressed as readily as they address issues of women, and that is a valid complaint that I'd like to see pushed more often, but it is and always will be a platform for gender equality. Focusing on the lunatics on the internet who say that men should be exterminated just shows your biases - not the biases of one of the largest social movements of all time.
Seriously. Saying that is like saying Gamergate is out to slaughter women to prevent them from joining the gaming industry - I'm sure there's one or two lunatics that hold that point of view, some of them satirical (Sam Hyde anyone). Feminism has millions and millions of supporters, the vast majority of whom do not think men should be viewed as inferior or women as superior.
You're projecting the views of a tiny tiny unbelievably small minority onto an entire massive population. I can't name a single feminist, either famous or just an acquaintance of mine, that hates men. That is not what feminism is about - you can argue that "radical feminism" holds those point of views, but still. It's like saying all Islam wants ISIS to rule the world and have Sharia law enacted everywhere and to slaughter anyone who doesn't follow their religion. Some might, but the vast majority vehemently disagree with that perspective. It's just intellectually dishonest to say that feminism is about "man-hating" when there are millions of people that support it across the globe of both genders.[/QUOTE]
Don't get too distracted by the "man-hating" point (although that's been around a lot longer than the internet), it's relatively minor compared to pushing the advancement of women in disregard for equality which is everywhere is modern feminism.
It's not even strictly a hijack, feminism has always included elements that alongside the people fighting for equality between sexes, just it used to be mostly the latter and it's now mainly the former.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;48422486]Don't get too distracted by the "man-hating" point (although that's been around a lot longer than the internet), it's relatively minor compared to pushing the advancement of women in disregard for equality which is everywhere is modern feminism.
It's not even strictly a hijack, feminism has always included elements of advancement for women in disregard for equality alongside the people fighting for equality between sexes, just it used to be mostly the latter and it's now mainly the former.[/QUOTE]
I don't really know what you even mean by "modern feminism," though. Do you mean third-wave feminism? Because the primary criticism of third-wave feminism is that it has next to no cohesive goal. You primarily see perspectives that people on Facepunch regularly applaud - the Slut Walk, reclaiming the word "bitch" through phrases like "bad bitch" and such, fighting for protection and rights of sex workers, fighting for the right to access birth control and abortion, fighting for proper sex education, fighting for the rights of porn actresses and actors, fighting for the rights of transgendered and LGBT people...
Nowhere in the core tenets of modern third-wave feminism does a disregard for equality for the advancement of women ever appear. It's not a hugely cohesive movement - there are people saying that, but saying that third-wave feminism is "mainly that" is still hugely ignorant.
Unless you're opposed to people fighting to define rape as being possible in a marriage, I really don't even understand what you're fighting against. The type of people you see online ranting and raving about how white men are the devil and they're putting people of color and women down is just a small vocal minority. The actual, genuine third-wave feminists are the ones suing to change laws and taking part in activist campaigns.
You shouldn't pay any attention to what people on the internet say, myself included. Just go read on the history of feminism and you'll see that what the tumblr people on the internet are saying is largely misunderstood and blown out of proportion. If your understanding of feminism is that it's about putting women above men, you really really need to read about the subject in more detail, because that's really not at all what feminism is about in the slightest. I'd argue that third-wave feminism is the most positive towards men in history.
None of the positive benefits of feminism for men were intended, they were incidental outcomes.
Feminism has always been about the advancement of women, whether that's [I]for[/I] equality or in disregard of equality.
I'm not fighting the positive things some people are trying to do under the banner of feminism, just suggesting they should drop the label and move onto something that still means equality.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;48422605]None of the positive benefits of feminism for men were intended, they were incidental outcomes.
Feminism has always been about the advancement of women, whether that's [I]for[/I] equality or in disregard of equality.
I'm not fighting the positive things some people are trying to do under the banner of feminism, just suggesting they should drop the label and move onto something that still means equality.[/QUOTE]
You're saying people should stop saying they're Islamic because ISIS exists, or that they're Christian because the WBC exists. Minority extremist groups don't change what the majority of the group think - and the majority in both of those situations are perfectly normal people.
It's just a label. Some people will use it to push an agenda that doesn't fit with what the label means. Pretending that it's a majority is just dishonest, though.
If you actually look into "radical feminism," you'll find that it's primarily pushed by second-wave feminists - the type that say women cannot consciously partake in pornography because the only reason pornography exists is because of the patriarchy. Modern feminism is overwhelmingly third-wave, which is far, far different. If you were complaining about this in 1980 or even 1990 I would absolutely understand, but the modern tumblr-type third-wave feminists aren't even close to the more prude and anti-men second-wave feminist movement.
Second-wave feminism is profoundly anti-transgender rights, which you'll absolutely never see in modern feminism. They're the type of feminists that say "transgendered people are just men pretending to be women to take part in our oppression," etc.
Modern feminism is increasingly third-wave (though second-wave still does exist), and increasingly pro-LGBT, pro-men, pro-expressing sexuality, etc. I don't know where you're getting this viewpoint that feminism is becoming more and more anti-men - if anything it's the death throes of second-wave feminism.
The BLM group is like a version of the KKK with a nice sounding title so you don't immediately find out that they're a toxic hate mob.
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;48423568]The BLM group is like a version of the KKK with a nice sounding title so you don't immediately find out that they're a toxic hate mob.[/QUOTE]
Not really, I mean some of them act that way towards cops but law enforcement isn't a race.
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;48423568]The BLM group is like a version of the KKK with a nice sounding title so you don't immediately find out that they're a toxic hate mob.[/QUOTE]
Call me when they hang white people from trees, drag them from the back of trucks until their skin is torn off, and burn them alive.
This is the most absurd post yet.
Dang it, these fools are making my friends ethnic group look bad.
[editline]10th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48423840]Call me when they hang white people from trees, drag them from the back of trucks until their skin is torn off, and burn them alive.
This is the most absurd post yet.[/QUOTE]
Call me when you see white people burning their own cities in the name of race.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48424042]
Call me when you see white people burning their own cities in the name of race.[/QUOTE]
I've seen white people burning cities because they won or lost a hockey match
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48424042]Dang it, these fools are making my friends ethnic group look bad.
[editline]10th August 2015[/editline]
Call me when you see white people burning their own cities in the name of race.[/QUOTE]
I value human lives far more than some property lost in a riot.
Again, comparing BLM to the KKK is the most fucking absurd thing I've ever heard. The KKK routinely celebrated and partied around the deaths of black people, both innocent and accused of crimes.
Absolutely delusional to think that they can even be compared.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.