RL Anger

[Thenomain]

@Jim-Nanban How awful how we apply the actions of a relative few onto 50% of the population.

This is what I hate most about snarking about SJW and MRA; the bleed-over to people who are completely innocent in this budding hate-war.

[Jim Nanban]

@Thenomain Fine, I'll stop being coy.

Women who have a fucking problem watching a motherfucking movie with men are imbeciles. End of story.

Men who have a fucking problem with women watching a motherfucking movie without men are imbeciles. End of story.

[Thenomain]

@Jim-Nanban

That wasn't aimed at you. I knew what you were getting at. But I also don't mind anyone who wants to say, "This is a girl's night out." Or, "This is a shelter for battered women." Or this...comic by Kate Beaton I can't find where women complain about men swearing in a bar, and one of them says, "Fuck's sake," and it's funny honest.

Point being that I care at the point where it hurts someone and not before. I don't get how women wanting a women's-only charity hurts anyone. But I think we're agreeing there. I hope. I'll be over here.

[Cupcake]

I want to watch Wonder Woman with all of my friends that I usually go with.

I would also love to watch Wonder Woman a second time with my lady friends in a ladies only environment.

I would not begrudge any men who wanted to arrange a men's only viewing of a movie for charity, either.

[Auspice]

Where I find it funny is that Alamo Drafthouse has been doing 'women's night out' events for a while and until now, these dudes have had no shits to give.

Which means they only care because it's butting in on the realm of dudebro, aka superhero films.

I also find it funny because one guy decided to go 'What if they did a 'clown only' viewing for IT?!' and the reply was 'We might steal that idea!' They've also said hey, if you want to do a men's only event, here's our private event page. Plan one. Have at.

[Thenomain]

@Auspice said in RL Anger:

Which means they only care because it's butting in on the realm of dudebro, aka superhero films.

And here's where it hurts people. "You can't like the thing I like." Really, Reactionary Hipster Movement? ('Hipster' can be removed, but I left it in for mild laughs.) One of the best things that happened to computer games was Halo, allowing in a bunch of non-gamers into gaming culture. Now look at Steam. Look at it.

They've also said hey, if you want to do a men's only event, here's our private event page. Plan one. Have at.

All prejudices fade in the presence of the green.

[Jim Nanban]

@Thenomain Nah man, it's the anger thread. I'm not flaming you or @Cupcake , we're just all dancing in napalm.

[SparklesTheClown]

I wonder if one day anyone will realize the hilariously circular irony of being outraged by outrage.

[Jim Nanban]

@HelloProject Yes, but everyone will just write them off as being hipsters.

[Jim Nanban]

@Auspice said in RL Anger:

Which means they only care because it's butting in on the realm of dudebro, aka superhero films.

Here's another aspect that's off-the-charts idiotic: Since when do men NOT enjoy watching women watch another beautiful woman prancing around in spandex?! I know these MRA guys think they're trying to help, but stop ruining this for the rest of us!!!!!

[Cupcake]

I am too old to be a hipster.

dancing in napalm

[Thenomain]

@Jim-Nanban said in RL Anger:

stop ruining this for the rest of us!!!!!

I'm going to make this my new position on all social issues.

[SparklesTheClown]

Every time someone goes "THESE FUCKING SJWS ARE AT IT AGAIN!", I'm like, man, do you not even remotely recognize the irony here?

As far as a women's only event, it's like, the complete and utter willful disregard for the greater context of why these kinds of events even exist makes that sort of argument come off as just disingenuous blind anger. I say disingenuous because I know that anyone else knows why these kinds of events exist, so pretending that the context doesn't exist is pretty much opening one's self up to others assuming malicious intent.

Let me give a hypothetical example.

News Headline: "Multiple schools have now banned peanuts and peanut products from being used in their free lunches."

Angry Person: "Omg wtf, this is absolutely ridiculous. Peanuts are perfectly fine, this is just some health nut bullshit. This is completely dumb."

Obviously with gender, race, culture, and all other "triggering" information removed, one should be able to critically read into this and see what's wrong here. Yes, the headline is missing context, but most people would easily be able to discern that kind of context from the shared experience of, like, living in the same country.

The angry response to the news headline outright ignores what is extremely common context, so the outside observer's logical conclusion would be, "Wow, this person doesn't give a shit about children with peanut allergies". Their thought isn't going to be "Wow, this person literally has no idea what a peanut allergy is".

I may occasionally be unintentionally condescending, but I have never insulted someone's intelligence to the point of assuming they were like, "HMMM, I WONDER WHY WOMEN'S ONLY THINGS EXIST, I'M GONNA HAVE TO REALLY SCRATCH MY HEAD OVER THIS ONE!!!"

But the expectation seems to be that I am supposed to assume that someone lacks common knowledge and general cultural context to the level of assuming that they literally have never spoken to another human being or left the house.

And as a result, I'm supposed to assume a lack of malicious intent, because of what I can only assume is because the person on the other end of the discussion is some sort of test tube clone who is only just beginning to learn about the world around them.

I just wanted to put this in context so that it's understood that "Omg teh wimmins and their private event" is not an argument that is ever going to come off as innocently thoughtful.

Unless, of course, I can see proof of one's freshly grown clone status.

[mietze]

Having been witness to the peanut butter in elementary school lunches "debate" now for like 10 years...actually, yeah, there are plenty of people who say quite literally "Fuck you and your fatally allergic child, my kid will only eat peanut butter sandwiches, and YOU want him to STARVE!" I have seen it in email, as well as seen it screamed in person.

[Jim Nanban]

@HelloProject I refuse to accept what's communicated in your post: That you cannot figure out why someone might be opposed to all forms of discrimination.

[Meg]

@Jim-Nanban said in RL Anger:

@HelloProject I refuse to accept what's communicated in your post: That you cannot figure out why someone might be opposed to all forms of discrimination.

If you're going to get your panties in a twist about discrimination, it should at least have an adverse affect. Not being able to watch the movie at all? Yes, be against that discrimination. Not being able to watch a movie with one group of people? C'mon now.

[Bobotron]

Gamers.
Gamers make me angry this week.
I need more booze before I can handle this shit.

[SparklesTheClown]

@Jim-Nanban said in RL Anger:

@HelloProject I refuse to accept what's communicated in your post: That you cannot figure out why someone might be opposed to all forms of discrimination.

And I refuse to accept that you sincerely don't understand the context of the situation and that you're actually making a sincere argument about discrimination. So I guess we're even!

You sound like someone who also doesn't see color and believes that "we're all one race, the human race".

I could quote shitty Facebook memes all night, but I have to go eat.

@mietze said in RL Anger:

Having been witness to the peanut butter in elementary school lunches "debate" now for like 10 years...actually, yeah, there are plenty of people who say quite literally "Fuck you and your fatally allergic child, my kid will only eat peanut butter sandwiches, and YOU want him to STARVE!" I have seen it in email, as well as seen it screamed in person.

Oh yeah, that's my point though. It's willful dickishness. No one's going to buy it if they sit there trying to pretend to have literally never heard of peanut allergies while arguing against banning peanut butter.

Talking like someone literally dying from peanuts and someone who thinks jelly sandwiches are icky are somehow equal things are dickish as hell arguments, pretending to have no idea what peanut allergies are is just ridiculous, which is why I (presume) no one does that.

Ignoring literally all context for why women would want a women only event is equivalent to going "Well, fuck you, I've never even heard of a peanut allergy. #allsandwichesmatter."

[Thenomain]

@HelloProject

You do know that there is merit behind the phrase "I am not my brother's keeper", right? Take that to the extreme: "Who cares if you have health problems with your kid when I have to find ways to get mine to eat?"

Yes, there's a lot of selfishness in that, but humanity is from a species where concern of my pack informs a lot of the evolutionary things going on in our brains. It's not hard to understand, no matter what you say, even if it's stupid for the stage of evolution we need to be in.

Incidentally, I genuinely and non-ironicly believe the "only one race: the human race" thing you're mocking Jim over. I find this informed by scientific principles and my humanist atheism. Thanks.

[SparklesTheClown]

@Thenomain

Being like "I don't give a shit about other people's kids" is half the reason that anti-vaxxer shit is a thing, so it's hard to sympathize with it. I'm not saying it isn't on some level the nature of our society (particularly American society) to default to "ignorant and selfish as hell" a lot of the time, but just because I can empathize with it doesn't mean I sympathize with it.

To me there's an order of magnitude of difference between "Fuck your kid's life because I can't get my kid to eat a different kind of sandwich", and "I won't give your kid food because I don't have the resources to take care of your kid too". I can sympathize with the latter, but the former is just, like, fuck these people, to me.

As far as my "human race" statement, I don't disagree that this is scientifically correct, I'm in particular mocking the way that certain people express the sentiment in certain contexts. I've seen enough of you in discussions to know that you wouldn't express it in the way that I'm mocking, at least that's my general optimistic assessment because you seem like someone who thinks very critically.