RL Anger

[Tyche]

@Apos said in RL Anger:

But it's a lot better than @Tyche who is pretty much like, 'Oh yeah you guys being assaulted is bad and shit but you shouldn't talk so much about it and I doubt it happens nearly as much as you think and your experiences aren't valid. Whelp glad we wrapped up the systemic problems of sexual assault in one curt dismissal, let's move on.'

No I think your summary to be inaccurate.
I suggested that Emily Garland was peddling a load of bullshit.
Not all women.
I asserted that I wasn't the problem.
Then all hell broke lose.
The discussion turned to using twitter memes and emotions as arguments instead of reason and logic.
Then I learned that the only way I could be helpful was to participate in a great societal revolution to
revamp and overturn western civilization and the patriarchy.
Sorry I'm not really on board for all that.

I do have some advice though.
If you find yourself playing tabletop role-playing games with creeps.
Go find another gaming group or start your own.

On a bright note there is great news for feminists today.
I read we're going to put a gun-toting evangelical Christian Republican woman on the twenty dollar bill.
Yeah!

[Coin]

@Tyche said in RL Anger:

Then I learned that the only way I could be helpful was to participate in a great societal revolution to
revamp and overturn western civilization and the patriarchy.
Sorry I'm not really on board for all that.

Sucks to be you.

I do have some advice though.
If you find yourself playing tabletop role-playing games with creeps.
Go find another gaming group or start your own.

Or maybe, if there are people who aren't creeps at the table, the creeps could leave. That would be swell.

On a bright note there is great news for feminists today.
I read we're going to put a gun-toting evangelical Christian Republican woman on the twenty dollar bill.
Yeah!

All right, let's break this down.

Harriet Tubman toted guns. What the fuck do you expect a woman fighting to free hundreds of slaves to tote? A broomstick? Do you really believe that revolution and the fight for civil liberties is won by walking around with your hands in the air saying "please let us go / give us rights, we promise we ain't gonna misuse them [like you do]?"

Harriet Tubman was an evangelical Christian. So what? I'm a communist. I don't actually like religion, and I especially don't like the church, but that doesn't mean I automatically brand everyone who believes in god and preaches as someone incapable of doing good things. Could I, and would I, criticize her beliefs? Of course. But I would do it respectfully and more importantly separately from her achievements as a civil rights activist and successful abolitionist, and finally, I would do so in context, given her upbringing and what surrounded her. For fuck's sake the woman fought against slavery at a time when that's pretty much all her people knew--the concept of God being righteous and having her back was probably one of the only things that kept her going.

Harriet Tubman was a Republican. I'm not bothering to look up if this is accurate. I will do you a solid and take it at face value. Even so, she was born in 1822 and died in 1913. The Republican and Democratic parties switch sides [i.e. the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power] somewhere between the late 1860s and 1936. So essentially, you're saying she was part of a transitioning party. Given her ideals and, more importantly, her actions, I am confident in saying that I think Tubman would have been a modern Democrat, if we go as far as to claim she'd join either party, which I'm not sure she would. She joined the more liberal party during a time in which she needed support to achieve her abolitionist goals. (In contrast, Andrew Jackson is one of the founders of the original Democratic Party, which as we've covered, had the values of the current Republican party at the time. So your actual argument, if applied within context, works against the previous face of the $20 bill.)

Now sit down and shut the fuck up, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Derp]

@Ganymede said:

If you're one of the marginalized, it's okay to be tired and frustrated at being asked to explain your motivations and beliefs for the umpteenth time. There are people who genuinely want to help, who, by way of privilege, known or unknown, may not entirely understand or connect with what you're saying. Being frustrated with meeting an otherwise-intelligent person with this ignorance is reasonable.

@Kanye_Qwest said:

If you want me to listen to your thoughts and consider them seriously, you should take some time and respond when you aren't so hysterical. It's impossible to have a logical discussion with you when you are telling me to grow dicks and fuck myself.

For me, this is the entire discussion, right here. These two statements.

At the end of the day, as shitty as this may sound, if you are in a group that you feel deserves equal attention and recognition? The way you get that is by getting the people in the majority (or, you know, the ones with the proverbial boot on your neck, or whatever) on your side, so that they can help to enact the changes you wish to see. Not by pissing them off and asserting you don't need them to understand, or agree. Because that will get you a kneejerk response that is basically the opposite of the goal you are seeking.

More flies with honey. Etc. If someone is trying to help you, accept their help, give them your story calmly and reasonably. You damage no one but yourself when you react with vitriole. It may be reasonable from, like, a philosophical standpoint, but it's not reasonable as far as 'what are the best logical ways to try and enact the changes I want to see, if the problem is me vs. the rest of the world'.

[Kanye Qwest]

+1 because you are such an adorable little idiot. I haven't laughed like that since before I heard Prince died.

[Vorpal]

I've always wondered why people keep wanting to catch flies through all of these methods.

Me? I swat them.

... I promise honest to god I am not a supervillain.

[Coin]

@Derp said in RL Anger:

@Ganymede said:

If you're one of the marginalized, it's okay to be tired and frustrated at being asked to explain your motivations and beliefs for the umpteenth time. There are people who genuinely want to help, who, by way of privilege, known or unknown, may not entirely understand or connect with what you're saying. Being frustrated with meeting an otherwise-intelligent person with this ignorance is reasonable.

@Kanye_Qwest said:

If you want me to listen to your thoughts and consider them seriously, you should take some time and respond when you aren't so hysterical. It's impossible to have a logical discussion with you when you are telling me to grow dicks and fuck myself.

For me, this is the entire discussion, right here. These two statements.

At the end of the day, as shitty as this may sound, if you are in a group that you feel deserves equal attention and recognition? The way you get that is by getting the people in the majority (or, you know, the ones with the proverbial boot on your neck, or whatever) on your side, so that they can help to enact the changes you wish to see. Not by pissing them off and asserting you don't need them to understand, or agree. Because that will get you a kneejerk response that is basically the opposite of the goal you are seeking.

Except this is exactly the problem: the people in the majority expecting the minority and the oppressed to be nice and civil about it because they are a minority and they should behave better if they want our help. Uh, no. Absolutely not.

More flies with honey. Etc. If someone is trying to help you, accept their help, give them your story calmly and reasonably. You damage no one but yourself when you react with vitriole. It may be reasonable from, like, a philosophical standpoint, but it's not reasonable as far as 'what are the best logical ways to try and enact the changes I want to see, if the problem is me vs. the rest of the world'.

Actually, historically, socialc hange comes from the oppressed being angry enough to act beyond the constraints and acceptance of the oppressors. Martin Luther King may have been non-violent, but the white people who decided to follow him and help him didn't do it because he was polite--they did it because they recognized a struggle and joined in without demanding he sit down with them and tell them about it in terms they can understand and don't you raise your voice to me while you do it.

Social upheavels don't happen when you tell the subjugated to behave and be nice. And every time I see someone saying "this is why you're not getting anywhere, because you're rude to people trying to help", I get even angrier, because if those people were really trying to help they would be angry too.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Vorpal said in RL Anger:

I've always wondered why people keep wanting to catch flies through all of these methods.

Me? I swat them.

... I promise honest to god I am not a supervillain.

Exactly what a supervillain would say.

[Vorpal]

@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:

@Vorpal said in RL Anger:

I've always wondered why people keep wanting to catch flies through all of these methods.

Me? I swat them.

... I promise honest to god I am not a supervillain.

Exactly what a supervillain would say.

Therefore I would clearly not say it if I didn't want you to know I was a supervillain.

Which I'm not.

Which isn't something I'd say if I were a supervillain. On the other hand, it's something I totally would say if I were one but wanted you to believe other-

Look, puppies!

[Ganymede]

@Coin said in RL Anger:

Actually, historically, socialc hange comes from the oppressed being angry enough to act beyond the constraints and acceptance of the oppressors.

It depends on whether you are willing to accept social change for what it is, or whether you want lasting social progress, which is entirely different. For example, the French Revolution brought social change, but Robespierre and friends ensured that there would be no social progress. The same can be said about the October Revolution.

Foucault states what I believe to be the phenomenon succinctly: if you do not transgress within the confines of machine, you will remain marginalized and forever under the whims of the oppressor. MLK, Jr. is an exemplar: by advocating and acting within the confines of what was socially-acceptable at the time, he shed light upon inequality in a manner that inspired the existing, oppressive machine to change. Malcolm X, by contrast, advocated a more violent, more unacceptable path to change, and was relatively marginalized by the mainstream, even if his message and teachings were embraced by the oppressed minority.

Regardless, I sit on my point. I don't expect anyone on the side of the oppressed to be as civil or genial as I can be at times. What I can point out is that I tend to understand folks better where they communicate in a more civil or genial manner, but I think this is a truism that neither needs to be explained nor used as a crutch or shield against attempting to understand.

So, opinion: social upheaval and change is substantially different than social progress; and the latter occurs where the oppressed become part of the majority, and re-define the construct of power and meaning.

[Coin]

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

So, opinion: social upheaval and change is substantially different than social progress; and the latter occurs where the oppressed become part of the majority, and re-define the construct of power and meaning.

Except this can't really happen without social change coming first. It's folly to think that social progress will happen without an upheaval first. In fact, any American country that today benefits from democracy at any level progresses only by the grace of the social--and often, I might wager universally, violent--change brought forth by their revolution for independence. Let's not pretend these two things are so distinct and separate, when in truth they're steps that build upon each other.

[Ganymede]

@Coin said in RL Anger:

Let's not pretend these two things are so distinct and separate, when in truth they're steps that build upon each other.

If you want to consider them the same, that's fine; I see them as separate and distinct, and I'm not alone. Ultimately, what I'm attempting to point out is that if you separate the concepts, you may come to a different, and arguably better, appreciation of the difference between temporary and lasting change.

As interesting and long as this argument could be, however, it ultimately detracts from what we largely agree on, which is that it is not unreasonable for the oppressed to communicate in violent ways, and that a visceral, savage reaction ought not be unexpected or a sign that a person doesn't take the matter seriously or isn't educated on the topic.

It should be said, I'm not precisely against social change, but social progress is preferable.

[tragedyjones]

Man, the past 2 rpg books I have bought have been major let downs. Not a fan of Beast, and I am very unsure of Exalted 3rd

[mietze]

Yes. Absolutely, the reason the civil rights movement has made any steps at all is to be sweet and honeyed and thus win over the vast majority of people to their cause. That is how miscegenation laws were outlawed, how for a time there were voter protection laws, how non discrimination laws became enforceable, ect.

I guess it is possible to laugh and cry at the same time.

Also a lot of MLK's activities have been, to use a crappy term, whitewashed. He was decidedly NOT a honeyed sort of man. We like to kind of reremember him as such, but--not so.

[Duntada]

Can I just comment, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry that we literally couldn't even go one election cycle since the Voter Rights Act was deemed "unecessary" before almost every single place that it applied to reminded us how badly we needed it?

Even if this is simple incompetence rather than voter suppression a federal over watch committee would have at least made sure there enough fucking ballots.

[mietze]

I do agree though that there is always a certain element of "make me" involved in political change, at least in the US. It doesn't have to be violent make me--but there does need to be some sort of staying power and risk other than whining about "well I VOTED for it this one time, omg it didn't happen right away, it's useless." Not only do you have to speak out/do petitions/beg people "not on your side" to coax them sweetly to your own apparently, but you also do need to be prepared for personal risk and violence against your person/family/community.

I think changes happen superficially more quickly now that we are kind of in a post-hierarchical society (or one in which strict hierarchy is crumbling, I'm not convinced we're post- it yet), and that has implications from government to parenting to just social structure in general. But wanting to affect change frankly is a lot of work. Boring work too. Paperwork. Showing up. Dealing with asshats who are like "omfg you didn't use the right words to make me feel good even though I would have agreed with you probably otherwise, say it again more correctly you stupid racial/gender/sexual-slur and be respectful!". Because yeah, you're going to have to deal with more of those than you will people who want to beat you down in the street (because most people aren't going to get up off their ass to do that really).

But still. I mean, I am watching this happen somewhat within my political party. SO many people freaking out and whining about needing to spend 10 hours at a caucus. Yes, it's annoying as fuck. However, when things are put on by volunteers at the local level, if you want things to change well get up off your ass and help! Help others who have the time, if you don't. Get in the face of the party platform decisions (in my state a lot of that happens online). If you're too poor to afford making it to the next delegate level but you have the time, then say that--so that those of us who don't have the time but do have the $$ can send you there. Or cheer you on and publicize you if we have neither.

It's hard fucking work. If someone needs to be wined and dined in order to "come over" then honestly, just be polite and then leave them alone. Theyre' not worth the energy that could be expended elsewhere--work on the people that are actually wanting to make an effort too. There are lots of those guys and gals too.

[Ganymede]

@mietze

I can't tell if you're being dry or sarcastic or not.

But, not drily or sarcastically, I never said anything about being sweet and honeyed. I said "advocating and acting within the confines of what was socially-acceptable at the time". Back then, activism involved defiance of the law; however, "defiance of the law" is neither sweet nor honeyed.

Loving v. Virginia? Decided in the confines of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act? Approved in the confines of Congress.

You need not laugh or cry, but you can choose to. I cannot; I am lawyerbot.

[mietze]

You didn't say that @Ganymede .

I'm referring to @Derp's

"At the end of the day, as shitty as this may sound, if you are in a group that you feel deserves equal attention and recognition? The way you get that is by getting the people in the majority (or, you know, the ones with the proverbial boot on your neck, or whatever) on your side, so that they can help to enact the changes you wish to see. Not by pissing them off and asserting you don't need them to understand, or agree. Because that will get you a kneejerk response that is basically the opposite of the goal you are seeking."

[silentsophia]

Oh boy. I love it when a co-worker is shocked I'm shy/not very social/bad at communicating. Shocker, motherfucker, I have a disorder (semanti-pragmatic languge disorder or PLI - pragmatic language impairment in the DSM V if you're curious or into cunning linguists). It's draining to socialize or even be near people (lol personality disorder). I like working alone.

The kicker is he finished the conversation with: "But girls are more social, right?"

BETTER HAND ME MY MAN CARD NOW.

[Ganymede]

@silentsophia said in RL Anger:

The kicker is he finished the conversation with: "But girls are more social, right?"

My experience with women has led me to conclude that being "more social" does not equate to "more socially-adept or acceptable."

[somasatori]

An open letter:

Being someone who also has plugs, I think you should be required to sign a waver stating that you will regularly clean your jewelry and flesh tunnels because, guy in the Moreno Valley Whole Foods, the last thing I want to do while I'm shopping is smell your human gouda. We're in this together.