Smug-Fuck Fox Pundit Hates Women, Is A Woman

You can see them through quotes though

Jay/Cris wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Contrast with 'nigger', which never means anything good.

BUT RAPPERS

Yes; "BUT RAPPERS" what? Make an actual point or leave it alone.

Very well. My point is as follows: "Bitch isn't sexist because gay men use it as a term of endearment" is as stupid as a white person saying "BUT RAPPERS SAY IT".

But isn't that kind of the whole point? If a white person uses the word 'nigger', it's racist. If an Afro-American person uses that word to his friends, it might not be. It's the whole reclaiming of the word by the marginalized party and re-making it into a badge of honour. The same thing happened to the word 'queer', and, oddly, the reverse seems to be happening with the word 'gay'. However, these kind of linguistic trends make it impossible to say that 'nigger' is always racist, since, evidently, in some contexts, uttered by some people, it's not. It's still very much a loaded word, sure, but you cannot ignore the fact that who says the word makes a valid difference to the meaning of the word.

I'm not saying that bitch and nigger are comparable, because they're not. I do in fact agree with Cyberwulf and think the word, in more than most cases, is misogynist. However, I do think that it might be more productive to reclaim the word rather than banishing it from vocabulary altogether. Words are slippery, tricky thing, but banning words is rather difficult, while changing their meaning is a lot easier than you'd think. I mean, there's already examples where being a bitch is meant somewhat positively rather than negatively: if you're the so-called bitch at the workplace, you might not be nice and feminine, but you do get the job done and the people (men) working for you do listen to your orders.

Point? Right. Point. It is hypocritical to call someone a bitch while also accusing them of misogyny; it's not very productive to dismiss someone entirely simply because they used the words 'bitch'.

My eyes are tiny pink hearts right now. Thank you, darling.
For what it's worth, however, the context in which 'bitch' is used in the original post is clearly meant in a derisive and insulting manner. I'd argue that, in this specific instance, it was indeed sexist.

That said, I also am sick to my tits of seeing white feminists drag race into every argument, as though the sexism and racism are totally analogous. Spoiler alert: they aren't. They're related in that they're both forms of oppression, but acting as though they're ~one and the same~ without taking into account the myriad of ways intersectionality specifies experiences and complicates identities does a disservice to both our communities.

It also doesn't help that a lot of the same feminists who do this shit were crawling up my ass during the 2008 primaries about voting for my "race or my gender", so there's also that. Don't trot out these issues to look superior to people online while treating the people you pretend to fight for like crap when they're inconveniencing you, plz.
/rant

xerrofoot wrote:

Cyberwulf, you're a bitch, and I say that without the slightest trace of misogyny.

xerrofoot wrote:

CALLING YOU OUT ON YOUR BITCHINESS DOES NOT MEAN I AM A MISOGYNIST.

Lol, bb just
no

Go lie down

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

You can see them through quotes though

I can pretend whoever quoted them made it up because like, who in their right mind would actually be that stupid?

fapfapfap wrote:

Mm... I love blocking posters. It's basically getting the last laugh. I mean, how awesome is it to have an attention whore that can't go a single post without saying something amazingly stupid for the sole purpose of getting a reaction, and then go about not even reading their spew that they spent so much time coming up with? Like, not even actively avoiding, but one click and they don't even really exist anymore. Well, beyond the intermittent pleasure you get from knowing they're still trying to rile you up by being a fucking idiot.

It's wonderful.

Except for two things:
1.) You look like a pussy bitch
2.) Someone is just going to quote the blocked individual's post and you'll end up reading it anyway.

BamBam wrote:

For what it's worth, however, the context in which 'bitch' is used in the original post is clearly meant in a derisive and insulting manner. I'd argue that, in this specific instance, it was indeed sexist.

Using words as insults can be offensive to people. Thank you for explaining this.

Not JUST insulting you rotten macaroon, sexist. Damb.


Wtf, rotten macarron? I need to go to bed.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Except for two things:
1.) You look like a pussy bitch
2.) Someone is just going to quote the blocked individual's post and you'll end up reading it anyway.

This. Sure, you can block someone, but that doesn't stop them saying shit through someone else, or creating a sock account to say that stuff so you're still forced to see it.

I find it helps if you do not announce to the world that you have blocked whoever it is that is pissing you off.

Howithurts wrote:

The reason women do not serve in active combat roles in the military is because men will go out of their way to protect them, moreso then their buddies, which can ruin what they're trying to do when people risk the mission to try and save a woman, not because they're not as physically capable. Or so the military says.

Which is a pretty good argument for taking men out of combat. I mean, if men are going to ignore their training and jeopardize their mission, clearly they are not fit for combat duty.

IIRC, "will go out of their way to protect them" was one of the arguments against gays in the military, as well.

Soylent Green wrote:

Howithurts wrote:

The reason women do not serve in active combat roles in the military is because men will go out of their way to protect them, moreso then their buddies, which can ruin what they're trying to do when people risk the mission to try and save a woman, not because they're not as physically capable. Or so the military says.

Which is a pretty good argument for taking men out of combat. I mean, if men are going to ignore their training and jeopardize their mission, clearly they are not fit for combat duty.

What if they gave a war and nobody came?

Freezer wrote:

IIRC, "will go out of their way to protect them" was one of the arguments against gays in the military, as well.

What, really?

Don't remember where I heard it, but the line goes "If you let gay men in, openly, you're going to eventually get lovers in the same squad. What happens if a soldier has to choose between his lover and his objective?"

Which, like so many anti-gay arguments, assumes that this has never happened before because there are no gays in _______..

Freezer wrote:

Don't remember where I heard it, but the line goes "If you let gay men in, openly, you're going to eventually get lovers in the same squad. What happens if a soldier has to choose between his lover and his objective?"

Which, like so many anti-gay arguments, assumes that this has never happened before because there are no gays in _______..

Yep - I heard the same sort of "reasoning" too. Usually from people who have no trouble being all for the military when the situation dictates, but also assume that the soldiers in that same military are unprofessional hacks who can't think with their big brain when under fire.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Don't remember where I heard it, but the line goes "If you let gay men in, openly, you're going to eventually get lovers in the same squad. What happens if a soldier has to choose between his lover and his objective?"

Which, like so many anti-gay arguments, assumes that this has never happened before because there are no gays in _______..

Yep - I heard the same sort of "reasoning" too.

From who? I can't ever remember hearing anything like this in relation to that issue, EVER.

And when I ask "who" I'm being serious and I want a name, and preferably, sauce.

I'd say it's mostly weird, and maybe just a little racist.

What's particularly weird is that you have that image saved. Clearly you have a mature Asian homosex licking fetish, you sick girl.

I googled some variant of "man" and "sauce", honey. You know, Google. That thing that has, like, all the internet in it and is much too complicated for you to use.