Neogaf's SJWs defeated: Lucky Chloe is coming to Tekken 7 in North America
383 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Xubs;46853917]the implication of that is WAY more complicated than just
"I'm better than you"
that is such a fucking stupid and basic interpretation of politics and you know it. Social hierarchy is more complex than some people putting down minorities.[/QUOTE]
Idk why you're berating me for making it so basic that everyone understands it. That's literally what it is, a group of children saying "WE'RE BETTER THAN YOU"
I mean I could go more advanced but I'm on an iPod at 3AM scared shitless that fp will turn into storefront overnight
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853908]I mean I hate to bring up Wikipedia but it agrees with me[/QUOTE]
Social hierarchy doesn't necessarily imply superiority. I believe that social hierarchy in some form is inevitable and will always exist one way or the other, and yet I don't believe that any group (or even opinion, sue me) is inherently 'superior' to any other and don't see how one belief automatically calls for the other. The definition you brought is extremely simple, and even it doesn't really support your claim.
I'd just like to take a moment to point out how hilariously off-track we are right now. This conversation started because a girl in a catsuit would appear in the US version of a Japanese fighting game. We are now discussing the intricacies of political theory.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853908]I mean I hate to bring up Wikipedia but it agrees with me[/QUOTE]
[quote]Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either [B]inevitable[/B], natural, normal, or desirable.[/quote]
While I know that the American right wing is bonkers and celebrates people getting filthy rich off fucking over others, the bolded part is far more common, especially in Europe.
Also, it speaks of [I]social[/I] hierarchy and inequality, not übermensch bullshit. The most common view I have met, what with living in a post-socialist country, is "Well, you just can't fix everyone's lives". I mean, I live in a place where artificially enforced equality was the goal of the system for decades, and even that system quickly produced its own straight-up aristocracy and income inequalities.
For this reason, I am, sadly, in agreement with the inevitability of inequality. The only way all human beings could be granted a perfectly equal and desirable life situation is if we were also more or less uniform. As is, even if we found ourselves in a post-scarcity society, someone would inevitably want more than others, while others may squander even that kind of opportunity.
This inequality can be alleviated, but not entirely removed. Inequality is hard-wired into human behavior, and is a main catalyst for self-improvement and innovation.
Having studied sociology, income inequality is a good example of this.
While in an ideal society, say, scumbags riding the waves of the stock market to make money off of nothing substantial would not be a thing, a brain surgeon would and should still earn more than a store clerk, simply by virtue of becoming a brain surgeon taking years if not decades of study and practice, and the importance and weight of lives placed upon such a surgeon, as opposed to a store clerk whose biggest fuckup at work may, at worst, results in inconvenience for customers or money loss.
[QUOTE=woolio1;46853649]Oh, I know this one! It's a derogatory term used against anyone who supports Feminist causes. It implies that they're not as masculine as someone who doesn't support or actively detracts from those causes. A proverbial nutshot.[/QUOTE]
I'm getting really fucking pissed off at the ignorance shown whenever anyone says anything like this, feminism is a movement for social and economic equality of men and women. All this bullshit isn't about equality, it's about people being offended by stupid shit and trying to censor it.
Well yeah no shit it's more complex than that, I'm just providing a quick summary of the attitudes of people who support social inequality.
It's like me saying 2 + 2 = 1+1+1+1 when it is in fact true as it being true is all that matters
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853964]Well yeah no shit it's more complex than that, I'm just providing a quick summary of the attitudes of people who support social inequality.
It's like me saying 2 + 2 = 1+1+1+1 when it is in fact true.[/QUOTE]
While trying to boil it down to its essence, however, you simplified it to the point where it is just inaccurate.
I mean, you are right now screaming "I KNOW THIS BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU", if I follow the same principle of simplification.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853964]Well yeah no shit it's more complex than that, I'm just providing a quick summary of the attitudes of people who support social inequality.
It's like me saying 2 + 2 = 1+1+1+1 when it is in fact true as it being true is all that matters[/QUOTE]
You are implying that people who see inequality and social hierarchy as inevitable [b]support[/b] it. And that's bullshit generalization. That's not to point out that you don't even know what 'social hierarchy' means, you bring it down to racism or sexism.
It would seem on this earth there are ignorant people in all political groups.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853874]I thought that a right wing ideology was "I'm/we're more superior that you"
This whole "Beta Males" nonsense was also created by idiots who thought they were left wing that happened to also think that men are superior to women, which is a right-wing ideology.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853935]Idk why you're berating me for making it so basic that everyone understands it. That's literally what it is, a group of children saying "WE'RE BETTER THAN YOU"
I mean I could go more advanced but I'm on an iPod at 3AM scared shitless that fp will turn into storefront overnight[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ man what happened to you
[QUOTE=gudman;46853985]You are implying that people who see inequality and social hierarchy as inevitable [b]support[/b] it. And that's bullshit generalization. That's not to point out that you don't even know what 'social hierarchy' means, you bring it down to racism or sexism.[/QUOTE]
Idk but someone who actually uses terms like "Beta" and "Alpha" to describe masculinity is supporting it.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46854007]Idk but someone who actually uses terms like "Beta" and "Alpha" to describe masculinity is supporting it.[/QUOTE]
Is masculinity inherently a wrong thing? It's a malleable concept, just look at what being "manly" has encompassed across the centuries!
Yet at its core, it's just adhering to social and biological expectations placed upon males. These expectations historically included sexism, of course, but they need not necessarily continue to do so.
Ugh this is how every thread ends up now
2-3 people arguing over the stupidest shit that's barely relates to the op.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46854007]Idk but someone who actually uses terms like "Beta" and "Alpha" to describe masculinity is supporting it.[/QUOTE]
The term beta male is just to mock pathetic males though, there's no political affiliation involved.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;46854013]Ugh this is how every thread ends up now
2-3 people arguing over the stupidest shit that's barely relates to the op.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, this debate is going pretty well by SH standards.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853964]Well yeah no shit it's more complex than that, I'm just providing a quick summary of the attitudes of people who support social inequality.
It's like me saying 2 + 2 = 1+1+1+1 when it is in fact true as it being true is all that matters[/QUOTE]
"Social Hierarchy" is not exclusive to the right wing. It's an emphasis of the right wing, because most right wing idealogies are compatible with outcomes that possess social heirarchies, like Randian Objectivism, Monarchism, or Neoconservatism.
However the left is equal capable of the outcomes of social heirarchy. Market Liberals would easily demonstrate how financial incentivism drives a social heirarchy that is mostly free and meritocratic. Leninism holds strongly that there ought to be an intellectual vanguard who is more esteemed and more powerful than the public body because it is in the best interest of everyone to put the burden of leadership upon them. Even Ego-Anarchism shows that the strong become the most powerful and the weak should therefor support the strong in sheltering them.
The left de-emphasizes social heirarchy because it instead emphasizes the message of equality and fairness, however this is where a left-right dichotomy breaks down, because there are ideals on both sides which (rightly) swear to support these things. This is why comprehensive political compasses have a vertical axis of Authority versus Anarchy, because it illustrates more strongly that there are ideals which are left or right but more strongly or less strongly support cohesive, specifically ordered societies.
As for the inevitability of "Social Heirarchy" I want to point to the Social Positivists. There have been no serious Social Positivists since the 50's, but their thoughts are profoundly reflective of what seems to be a universal truth that only Marxist Utopians deny. Suppose you have a Janitor, a Mayor and a Rocket Scientist. It would be absurd, possibly to the point of inducing a civil war, to say that all three of these people have the same social ranking, deserve the same pay, and possess a nearly identical suite of talents.
Because the Scientist gets paid more than the Mayor, but has less social standing he falls somewhere in the middle class. Because the Mayor is not paid very much but is highly esteemed as an elected peer he falls somewhere in the upper class. Because the Janitor is neither paid well nor esteemed, because it takes little talent to be a Janitor and there is little good to say about Janiteerial craft, he is the lower class. Each one interacts with the other in a special way that reflects this stratification even going so far as to secure the futures of their children from diminishing in stature. This is totally normal and only invasive state control can really stop this sort of [I]social heirarchy.[/I] Whether or not it ought to be promoted is a problem that is posed to leftists, because in order to prevent it's promotion certain personal liberties must be suspended and that is a difficult bed follow for all but very authoritarian philosophies to commit to.
Further more, Facepunch will not "become stormfront." We just had a massive banning for Transphobia. Given that Trans are an astronomically insignificant portion of the population, to the point of being a discomforting abberation, Transphobia is not a very suprising, although perhaps controversial, reaction. If Facepunch were "progressively sliding to the right," there would have been a greater hue and cry over those bans. As it was, most people simply nodded, and the most vehement reactions were not to the reason but rather to the method, as the Moderator behind the bans violated several principles of jurisprudential formality, effectively.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46854025]Except we can evolve past these expectations like we evolved past literally throwing our shit past eachother.[/QUOTE]
So long as males have testosterone in their system (and it's pretty vital), masculinity will be a thing.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46853988]Actually It would be more like "I'm right, you're wrong" which is pretty much every debate ever[/QUOTE]
You appear to be missing fair important parts of your point again. 'I'm right because x, you're wrong because y' may be a little more accurate. But I suppose you don't understand it because it's much easier to spout barely correct shit in the vague direction of the problem.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46854007]Idk but someone who actually uses terms like "Beta" and "Alpha" to describe masculinity is supporting it.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily though? Especially since 'beta' and 'alpha' definition are extremely rarely used straight these days. Especially 'beta', it just burns down to a person incapable of forming their own opinion based on experience and observation.
Surely someone somewhere does non-ironically divide people by categories applied to rather primitive species, but I don't think a person casually referring to someone they don't respect as "beta" automatically becomes a nazi.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46854075]Except you have a choice to how much you want to limit this behavior. Like sure, competition is completely natural, but there is a point where one should consider how seriously they're taking it ie using dumb shit like "Alpha, Beta".
Also FYI, I don't think fp will become anything close to stormfront. I'm just over-exaggerating the fact that there are a sizable amount of bigots here.[/QUOTE]
Which is why it is a positive thing that differing opinions like you are present. Honestly though, I hardly see anyone use the Alpha/Beta thing in anything but jest, or as a tool to insult someone.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46854099]There are actually quite a few people who took it above and beyond just a tool to insult people. For example, there was this guy from that bodybuilding forum who was involved in some sort of mass shooting or conspiracy to cause a mass shooting who had a major "I am the alpha male, I am going to murder these beta fucks" or some that like that.[/QUOTE]
He was quite obviously mentally ill. His input should be treated about as relevantly.
So, as far as the masculinity, beta/alpha discussion goes.
Gender is socially constructed and Sex is a biological form. Those are two sociological and biological facts.
The Alpha-Beta discussion stems out of what is taken to be a further, deeper analysis of Gender, to the point that within Gender there are sub-types of a Gender. That is the Alpha, which inclines to take control, object when opposed and lead when followed. The Beta is taken to follow when lead, back down when opposed and to surrender control when it is able. The reasons for why the second can be used as a derogatory term are clear.
They are not strange or inalienable factors of a Sex growth, or of a Gender war. You could run the same analysis of Women, or Metrosexuals. Even gays from the 90's to the mid 00's had a sort of dichotomy of the like with Actives and Passives, that is, those who would approach and those who would play coy.
Further more, the modern conception of Masculinity is relatively recent, and fundamentally "made up." From the mid 1500's to the early 1900's, a "masculine" male was actually deeply connected to his emotions, well groomed, and well equipped intellectually. Anything less was "oafish" or somehow bestial, not masculine.
Good examples of this can be seen in work as old as Beowulf, who cried at the drop of a hat, was taken to always be well groomed and oiled as was standard, and intellectually flexible. He also maintained what we now consider to be masculine traits, but they were largely subordinate to the former traits. He did not break into needless fights, he did not hide his emotions, and he did not stubbornly dig his heels in on ideas.
Testosterone also does not "really" drive men to be "masculine" in the same way that the "time of the month" has no meaningful connection to emotional instability. It is merely a useful social myth we made up to give men a reason to aim lower for themselves and women the ability to express themselves emotionally when it would otherwise be considered innappropriate.
There is no reason to wage a war on the idea of "masculinity" though. It's just a fad the same way leather jackets and greaser style was. It's just as odious and obnoxious as Temperance League women busting in on bars, smashing the bottles and hospitalizing drinkers for "embracing satan." It's inhumanly demeaning and blatant moralizing, which has somehow been adopted by people who for all intents and purposes should be the watchdogs against such behaviors. You may not approve of how people behave, but you should also recognize their inherent, human rights to dissent even if it is in a way which you would call "barbaric" so long as they are not hurting you tangibly.
And if you think a guy with a beer gut, beard and the belief he needs to bench press an engine block to prove he's a man is hurting you for those effects, you're a goddamned pussy.
Addition: The modern understanding of the Alpha-Beta distinction ignores the fact that there are supposed to be more types of personalities, like Sigmas who are driven to change, and Omegas who are driven to solve. The majority of humanity are supposed to be Alphas and Betas, but the wheels are fundamentally understood to be greased by a tremendous array of special actors. Furthermore each of these actors is formed in some way by either innate preferences or environmental interactions, such that more betas arise in a society of many alphas, because it is natural for the alpha to encourage betas to support the leaders.
[QUOTE=woolio1;46853711]And it's still a masculinity-attacking insult rather than a useful descriptor. We can play semantics all day, but these stupid bandwagon terms you folks have adopted are just as ridiculous as your proposed movements.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=woolio1;46853711]stupid [B]bandwagon[/B] terms.[/QUOTE]
I find your use of the term "bandwagon" to describe [I]words[/I] even more ridiculous
Jeez you guys argue about anything
At least enjoy the kawaii for once
[QUOTE=Spectre1406;46854321]Jeez you guys argue about anything
[/QUOTE]
This is SH.
What did you expected :v:
All because SJW was in the title.
Why do people on FP oppose the use of it? It's the title most SJWs identify with. Hell, one of the orginal "Gamers Are Dead" article writers called himself a "Social Justice Druid".
I mean, if you're a moderate feminist/SJW who is offended by the negative connotations then I can understand, but otherwise I find it hard to understand the problem.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
