I wish pro-lifers cared about actual children as much as they care about a clump of cells.

At the end of the day, aren't we all just clumps of cells when you think about it?

Marriage is a big commitment but having children together isn't? wow, you people are sick. This whole generation is messed up sick.

Exactly. Of all the positions against marriage, that is, indeed, the most moronic. Claiming marriage is too big of a commitment, but at the same time being willing to comingle your DNA with someone's and create a situation from which it is far more difficult to extricate yourself in most countries just makes you look incapable of reasoning.

Like, obviously I’m against celebrating people’s deaths in any way, BUT if you lived your life putting people down, dividing your community, destroying people’s ideas of what they want/deserve/are worth and degrading others for ALL for social media clout and money, do not be surprised when a) karma finds you, and b) those same people cannot drudge up any sympathy for your passing. Like really, so many people live their lives sowing so much discord and hatred into the lives around them and then we wonder why people breathe a sigh of relief when they finally die. Their victims are at peace now, that’s why. No one is required to mourn someone whose entire legacy is harm and greed-fueled hate.

I'm not a Kevin Samuels fan. Yes, he did have some hard truths that he told to men and women from what I've seen, but he is yet another "influencer" who was on the path to gather as many clout points as possible. I'm sure that played a role in not focusing on men any longer and giving women all the smoke. Also, as a fellow black man, I wasn't really a fan of some aspects of the image he was giving us (as if we need any more blows to that). Sure, it's a bit "better" than being portrayed as uneducated thugs, or running around like pookie and ray rays, but he's still feeding into certain stereotypes about black male behavior in relationships.

Still I don't celebrate his death, just as I didn't and will not celebrate the deaths of all the black female influencers who tore down black men and have contributed to the next generation of black women learning to do the same, causing further harm to the community. I don't even celebrate demise of the couple of black women in my life who passed and who senselessly gave me grief because, by accident of birth, I happen to be a member of a group, other members of which those women had negative dealings. This is a malicious influence that is far more personal than an internet famous talking head. For all the people in the community that spend time and energy saying the other gender ain't shit, cheat all the time, this, that, and the third, I feel nothing but pity, really. They could be their own angels, but they'd rather be their own devils. And their irrational hatred towards half of their own community, if not humanity itself, will condemn them to live in a hell of their own making, for which they blame others. Now that's karma, as the ancients originally defined it.

It baffles me when Male dating coaches talk about how women hit the wall, but they don't. Buddy, trust me when I say we get better with age, and also trust me when I say that a 25 year old is not looking for a 58 year old man as her first choice to have a family and children with (I am looking at you, Kevin Samuels). Some women in their 20s may like to date men who are slightly older for whatever reason, but not that old. At your age you don't have spermatozoids no more, you have spermatosaurus. So chill.

There is also zero discussion about how to be a good husband and father, it is all just about how to have relations with women with the least effort and about shaming those very women for their looks, age or whatever. Like, buddy, what will you do when tragedy inevitably knocks at your door? Do you know how to take care of your wife if she happens to get post partum depression after giving birth? What if she has a miscarriage? What if one of her parents die or get really ill? Are you a shoulder to cry on? A rock to lean on? Or just a dude who will "exercise his options" whenever push comes to shove?

It is all about beauty, they don't see women as people, they truly don't. And on top of that, they seem to think that the way they see the world is the way the world is, period. Apparently their "logic" and "reason" makes them able to see the world in a specially mysoginistic, disgusting and "realistic" way, and when somebody questions their world view, they call them "emotional" or "in their feelings".

Anyway, I am blocking all channels that have this narrative, at first they used to be entertaining, but now they are just downright depressing. They are occupying mind space that should go to more valuable things. If I have learnt something this year is that my mental space is sacred and that I shall protect it from stupid shit like this. Also, if I have to hear Kevin Samuels say "pApi ChUloo" one more time in that latina accent, there will be issues.

Let me say, I understand where you're coming from, but positive or negative, they're trends that were recognized long before Kevin Samuels was chilling in the womb. He developed a reputation for not pulling any punches (not that he's the first or the only one), but there are uncomfortable realities in what he says. Indeed, it's far more common for women to date a generation older than the reverse, and this has been true in the majority of societies throughout recorded history.

Hell, an example is even in my personal life. One of my good friends of nearly 20 years has always been with guys much older than she is. Once she hit 22, I don't think she dated a guy that wasn't at least 20 years her senior, and the guys are just average dudes, so she was never looking to be a sugar baby. Is that common? Well, I wouldn't say the degree she takes it to is "common," but it's not "rare" either.

And if a woman does have the goal finding someone "financially secure" as we'll euphemistically phrase it, well, unless she's at least 40-something herself, she is going to have to expand her search into the could-be-her-father range because that's where the overwhelming majority of men in that category are. Could she find a well-to-do 20 or 30-something? Sure. She could win the Powerball, too, but she'd be a dumbass if she planned her future around that and wasted valuable years on gunning for it, especially to the exclusion of better strategies. And to be real, trying to get one period, of any age, is a hail mary play, even in her prime.

Now as for men considering a woman's value with age, if an older man is looking to have kids (perhaps because he has none yet), then a woman < 35 years old is going to be the best choice for making that happen, even with modern technology and taking on the additional expense that comes along with that. And the goal of having your own biological children with the woman you are with is powerful enough to blow everything else out of the water on its own. If merely having kids is the goal, and whether they are your biological children or not is not important, then you may be less strict on the age. Now while I'm a man, I can speak only for myself and how I approached things. Since I wanted to have kids (my own, biological children), but I also wanted to have a woman, not a girl inside of a woman's body, when I was still looking, those desires boxed me in with a hard upper and lower limit, and a pretty narrow range since I haven't met many below 25 I'd consider to be mature women, so that was my floor.

As far as beauty goes, both men and women weigh physical attractiveness heavily. Men have witnessed this first hand from women and vice versa; although, strangely, it seems very hard for one side to empathize with the other. Now I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that my looks don't play a large role in why my fiancee is with me. And I admit fully that hers are a large reason in why I am with her. The only reason? No, not even close, but that reason isn't insignificant. I'm sure both of us have come across many perfectly wonderful people who just weren't what we consider attractive in the way you need to think of someone as to move things beyond the friendship sphere.

Kevin Samuels is one of many people, on both sides, who mix in hard truths people need to be reminded of with cringe and questionable advice at times because they confuse what they see with the entirety of the word. But is his brand of odd opinions any less damaging than those on the other side that feel that men should on average somehow be 2 or 3 standard deviations above average, as though that makes any sense? There's nothing wrong with being with an average man or an average woman, just as there is nothing wrong with being an average man or an average woman. On average, people are average. I don't even know why this is considered controversial nowadays. Society really has lost the plot.

Sir, the problem is not women dating slightly older or men dating slightly younger, the issue lays on the reasons behind it. He is not saying that men should date younger because of biology and child rearing (which is still questionable, but hear me out), he is saying that because young women are considered to be more beautiful, but specially because they are more easily manipulated and their personalities are more malleable.

The problem here is that this man wants women to be a blank canvas for a man to paint on, have the personality, hobbies and religion that a man expects them to, be willing to give up on their friendship and family relationships for the sake of a man and have sex on command with him. These are all elements of an abusive relationship.

His advice is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Asking a woman to put a man as the center of her world even above herself and her children is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Justifying cheating on her gaining weight, getting pregnant or not having sex on command is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Telling a woman to cut ties with friends and family and to only focus on her man is not conducive to a healthy relationship. There is virtually cero talk about how to deal with the issues that will arise in a relationship, what will you do when tragedy knocks at your door? When you or she looses a family member? When your wife gets postpartum depression? When you loose your job? Do you have a character to be able to be someone else's rock or will you cheat and exercise your options and not take care of your responsibilities?

He also goes as far as denying women's suffering by the hands of men, claiming that the feminists made that up or something, as well as compare women based on racial stereotypes older than the dinosaurs.

And that is on that.

Sir, the problem is not women dating slightly older or men dating slightly younger, the issue lays on the reasons behind it. He is not saying that men should date younger because of biology and child rearing (which is still questionable, but hear me out), he is saying that because young women are considered to be more beautiful, but specially because they are more easily manipulated and their personalities are more malleable.

Kevin Samuels is one of those people who gives different reasons for what he says in different podcasts/shows/whatever, and this is one of the complications that is introduced when someone attempts to address what he says with why he says it. Kevin Samuels has cited the decline in fertility with age and the increase in health risks associated with geriatic pregnancy, which begins at age 35 according to medical standards. He certainly gives other reasons, some of which--as I alluded to before--are cringe to me, but as far as the child rearing argument, that is his strongest one by far. It's unfortunate that Kevin Samuels has to be one of the main people on YouTube today drawing attention to it, but that's a societal failure.

I can see how one could say that he recommends younger women because they are more malleable, but it's harder for me--at least for what I've heard him say--to see him as recommending younger women because they're more easily manipulated. I've seen a lot of his content (mainly to check whether what his supporters or critics are saying is accurate in context), but I think both of these are less accurate than "agreeable." To me, this is different from "easily manipulated." You can be agreeable, but still have hard boundaries for what is truly important to you. This is especially important when you're in the role of selector. Sure, easily manipulated people often often agreeable, but generally extremes in either direction can make you easily manipulated by someone who knows what they're doing. It's quite easy to use a highly disagreeable person's nature against them as well.

The problem here is that this man wants women to be a blank canvas for a man to paint on, have the personality, hobbies and religion that a man expects them to, be willing to give up on their friendship and family relationships for the sake of a man and have sex on command with him. These are all elements of an abusive relationship.

While he at times comes close to this, I think that's a bit more extreme that what he has stated. However, to me the more damaging aspect is that he pushes that this is what "high value men" want. I don't know what circles he travels in, but it's not an accurate picture of what I have seen is commonly wanted. There are some things he gets right, and the rest is handwaved away. I don't know any who wants his wife/fiancee/girlfriend to give up on her friendships (even male friends), unless there's something negative going on. I suppose I'd be considered a "high value man" by his standards, as would many of my friends, and none of us takes this position with the women we are with. We look for "helpmates" sure, but not robots. Also, I'm an atheist, so his religous arguments fall flat with me anyway, and it all smells more like something rooted in religious fundamentalism rather than gender and being a "high value man."

His advice is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Asking a woman to put a man as the center of her world even above herself and her children is not conducive to a healthy relationship.

Some is most certainly unhealthy, sometimes even on the face of it. And you have to consider each piece of advice in isolation (something that should be done anyway, regardless of who is giving it). Kevin Samuels says a lot of crazy shit on his show, but it's this lack of filter that also allows him sometimes to say the truths that most are afraid to say in these times, along with all the bullshit of course. It's unfortunate, but making these observations taboo is what allows people like Kevin Samuels to thrive, and the uncomfortable truths become trojan horses for all of the ridiculous shit. When you create a society where it's considered an insult to call someone "average" or a breach of social decorum to suggest that someone could be delusional for thinking they're a 10, then you create an environment for Kevin Samuels and similar people to be seen as rebellious truth-tellers fighting for sanity. Being realistic about these things has become an extremist position, and now the extremists are in charge of the delivering the message.

There is virtually cero talk about how to deal with the issues that will arise in a relationship, what will you do when tragedy knocks at your door? When you or she looses a family member? When your wife gets postpartum depression? When you loose your job? Do you have a character to be able to be someone else's rock or will you cheat and exercise your options and not take care of your responsibilities?

I think Kevin Samuels has intentionally limited his scope, and honestly I am glad for it. Is having him speak on these really what is wanted? I would say, that is not the type of education that should be outsourced to "influencers" anyway. You're better off finding a mentor in the offline world who can advise you and show you through practice instead of listening to people chasing internet clout as a "guru."

He also goes as far as denying women's suffering by the hands of men, claiming that the feminists made that up or something, as well as compare women based on racial stereotypes older than the dinosaurs.

While I've heard him be skeptical of the scale of abuse claims, I, personally, haven't heard him deny women have suffered at the hands of men. Maybe he did, and I haven't seen it. If he did, I'd love to give that show a watch through.

And as far as comparing women based on racial stereotypes, he's just pissing in an ocean of piss at this point. This is everywhere in black media & entertainment, and there's no shortage of racial stereotypes directed at black men. I can barely watch a podcast with black female influencers without being told that we black men aren't shit, are constant cheaters, are broke, uneducated, dusty, have 3+ baby mommas, need to be thugs to be seen as masculine, are hobosexuals, must be gay if we don't like a woman who likes us, etc. It's a decades long problem in the community. The black community doesn't need white folks for racism and racial stereotypes against it anymore; we're doing a great job of it ourselves. And it's so insidious, most of us still don't see it and don't even want to.

It baffles me when Male dating coaches talk about how women hit the wall, but they don't. Buddy, trust me when I say we get better with age, and also trust me when I say that a 25 year old is not looking for a 58 year old man as her first choice to have a family and children with (I am looking at you, Kevin Samuels). Some women in their 20s may like to date men who are slightly older for whatever reason, but not that old. At your age you don't have spermatozoids no more, you have spermatosaurus. So chill.

There is also zero discussion about how to be a good husband and father, it is all just about how to have relations with women with the least effort and about shaming those very women for their looks, age or whatever. Like, buddy, what will you do when tragedy inevitably knocks at your door? Do you know how to take care of your wife if she happens to get post partum depression after giving birth? What if she has a miscarriage? What if one of her parents die or get really ill? Are you a shoulder to cry on? A rock to lean on? Or just a dude who will "exercise his options" whenever push comes to shove?

It is all about beauty, they don't see women as people, they truly don't. And on top of that, they seem to think that the way they see the world is the way the world is, period. Apparently their "logic" and "reason" makes them able to see the world in a specially mysoginistic, disgusting and "realistic" way, and when somebody questions their world view, they call them "emotional" or "in their feelings".

Anyway, I am blocking all channels that have this narrative, at first they used to be entertaining, but now they are just downright depressing. They are occupying mind space that should go to more valuable things. If I have learnt something this year is that my mental space is sacred and that I shall protect it from stupid shit like this. Also, if I have to hear Kevin Samuels say "pApi ChUloo" one more time in that latina accent, there will be issues.

Let me say, I understand where you're coming from, but positive or negative, they're trends that were recognized long before Kevin Samuels was chilling in the womb. He developed a reputation for not pulling any punches (not that he's the first or the only one), but there are uncomfortable realities in what he says. Indeed, it's far more common for women to date a generation older than the reverse, and this has been true in the majority of societies throughout recorded history.

Hell, an example is even in my personal life. One of my good friends of nearly 20 years has always been with guys much older than she is. Once she hit 22, I don't think she dated a guy that wasn't at least 20 years her senior, and the guys are just average dudes, so she was never looking to be a sugar baby. Is that common? Well, I wouldn't say the degree she takes it to is "common," but it's not "rare" either.

And if a woman does have the goal finding someone "financially secure" as we'll euphemistically phrase it, well, unless she's at least 40-something herself, she is going to have to expand her search into the could-be-her-father range because that's where the overwhelming majority of men in that category are. Could she find a well-to-do 20 or 30-something? Sure. She could win the Powerball, too, but she'd be a dumbass if she planned her future around that and wasted valuable years on gunning for it, especially to the exclusion of better strategies. And to be real, trying to get one period, of any age, is a hail mary play, even in her prime.

Now as for men considering a woman's value with age, if an older man is looking to have kids (perhaps because he has none yet), then a woman < 35 years old is going to be the best choice for making that happen, even with modern technology and taking on the additional expense that comes along with that. And the goal of having your own biological children with the woman you are with is powerful enough to blow everything else out of the water on its own. If merely having kids is the goal, and whether they are your biological children or not is not important, then you may be less strict on the age. Now while I'm a man, I can speak only for myself and how I approached things. Since I wanted to have kids (my own, biological children), but I also wanted to have a woman, not a girl inside of a woman's body, when I was still looking, those desires boxed me in with a hard upper and lower limit, and a pretty narrow range since I haven't met many below 25 I'd consider to be mature women, so that was my floor.

As far as beauty goes, both men and women weigh physical attractiveness heavily. Men have witnessed this first hand from women and vice versa; although, strangely, it seems very hard for one side to empathize with the other. Now I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that my looks don't play a large role in why my fiancee is with me. And I admit fully that hers are a large reason in why I am with her. The only reason? No, not even close, but that reason isn't insignificant. I'm sure both of us have come across many perfectly wonderful people who just weren't what we consider attractive in the way you need to think of someone as to move things beyond the friendship sphere.

Kevin Samuels is one of many people, on both sides, who mix in hard truths people need to be reminded of with cringe and questionable advice at times because they confuse what they see with the entirety of the word. But is his brand of odd opinions any less damaging than those on the other side that feel that men should on average somehow be 2 or 3 standard deviations above average, as though that makes any sense? There's nothing wrong with being with an average man or an average woman, just as there is nothing wrong with being an average man or an average woman. On average, people are average. I don't even know why this is considered controversial nowadays. Society really has lost the plot.

ENTPs be like:

"Deadlines are so damn near, yet I still had the audacity to procrastinate."

Hey, I do my best work on the way to the meeting. 🤷

Isn't it interesting that the people who decry "identity politics" are always the first to get so hilariously wounded over anything which threatens their own identities?

If you are getting mad about a character in a production of some kind being portrayed in a manner which has nothing to do with the inherent character development or story arc, chances are it's because your feeling of "group identity" has been pricked and you feel cheated out of your majority status.

T

I'm fairly emotionally reserved, but I can understand how someone could, if they were actually huge fans of a character, not want the character to be changed in anyway (including but not limited to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and so forth) and possibly be upset if the character was. Now if it's a new character or character where that facet of themselves hasn't been made clear, then yeah, bitching about it is pretty silly.

What I find strange, and this comes from both sides, is feeling unable to relate to someone who doesn't look like you or share your sexuality. I don't have any issues empathizing with white characters, Latino characters, Asian characters, gay characters, bi characters, trans characters, mentally ill characters, etc. I've always related to and empathized with the characters based on their experiences, their struggles both internal and external, their approaches to solving their issues, and so forth. I didn't find it any easier empathize with T'Challa than I did with Tony Stark purely because we have similar complexions.

Elder abuse is a genuine issue that needs to be accounted for within social justice spaces. Yet on the rare occasion it’s brought up on here, hundreds of Gen zennials flock in to dump their grandparent trauma in the notes or to spew the preposterous “old people are all bigots actually so we should let them die to end discrimination :)))” myth. The absolute lack of concern y’all have is inexcusable tbh

Yes, there definitely is a pretty high baseline of hostility on Tumblr towards older people, so I'm not surprised tbh.

If you are a virgin with rage, the problem is not your virginity, it’s your rage.

I was once a virgin with rage. I am still a virgin, and I still have an anger problem, but they are not linked anymore. I am a virgin at peace, and one day, when I am with my future wife, I will become a sexually active person at peace, with her alone, and no one else.

There are no direct routes between virginity with rage and sexual activity as peace. Virgins with rage who become sexually active do not lose their rage, because the fact that their virginity was a source of rage indicates that they were not mature enough to have fulfilling sexual relations. They become sexually active people with rage, jumping between partners until they contract STDs or become disgusting perverts whom even prostitutes have no interest in indulging.

Become virgins at peace, and the rest will follow.

“But Jaaaaaaaaaaake, you’re still a virgin!” Yes, but after I became a virgin at peace, telling women about my virginity (when asked) with pride rather than shame, they became more attracted to me.

I think people make sex out to be way more significant and more important to their identity than it actually is or should be, and beyond the anger problems they may be developing, they're setting themselves up for disappointment and a whole other lot of future hangups around sex post-virgin status.

Because of the environment I grew up in and the people from that environment I had unfortunately chosen to follow as a young teen, I ended up losing my virginity at a pretty young age, so it had been hard for me to relate to guys who seemed to be so focused on it. But it does give guys complexes, I've seen.

Beyond this advice, I'd probably also tell them to stop building things up in their minds, and when it happens, to enjoy it for what it is. Go into it happily not knowing what to expect nor expecting anything, because it's bound to be different. And it's not really the type of thing where you want to be too in your head before or during.

Another example of 'defending free speech' bullshit being used to oppress and hurt LGBTQA+ people

Once again if your argument is that 'We HaVe To DeFeND AnD SuPPoRT FREe SpEech INcLuding tHe RiGhTS TO OppRess MInOrity AnD tHe OppResseD' you are not a good person, you are not moral nor you are an intellectual.

It's not actually about free speech, you just want to use it as an excuse to be a bigot.

Imagine having the audacity to claim that you are for inclusivity but then removing a safe fucking space sticker for LGBT people. That school is not and never strive for inclusivity, it's just pr speak bullshit and at the end of the day they still defending oppression

Freedom of speech also includes freedom to be an asshole, bigot, general tool, etc. If a person wants to prevent others from voicing these opinions, that's fine, but they need to admit that they are not for freedom of speech. Period. Speech that is of the mainstream opinion and non-controversial or totally innocuous speech, by its very nature, doesn't need protection. Only speech society considers distasteful needs protection. That said, nothing also prevents you from also speaking out against them and telling them exactly what you think of the ideas they're putting forth.

Yes, no country has truly free speech, not in the idealized sense anyway. Different countries have made different practical trade-offs. For instance, a few limitations in the U.S. are: You cannot call for acts of violence or insurrection, cannot defraud others, cannot make false reports of crimes, you cannot reveal privileged/classified information, cannot make false claims or representations to the U.S. government, cannot use your speech with peace officer in such a way that it obstructs their investigation, etc.

I think that the more speech that is allowed, the better. I'll take the hard fought, slower advancement won through debate and intellectual battle instead of the fragile, illusory peace created by censoring speech and preventing people from hearing different opinions.

@ugh-sjws oppression is oppression and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, seriously wtf are you even doing in Tumblr? You are wasting your time complaining about 'sjw' as if you are not an sjw yourself? But for the conservative side

Fucking chuds

@mywitchcultblr The consequences you would face would be others using their free speech to combat yours with equal vehemence, which--if you actually read and understood what you were replying to--was mentioned already at the end of the first paragraph. If it moves from verbal to physical, then you run into the legal framework meant to address that. If, for instance, you talk about how you wish you could punch someone in the face, then you're all good, but it'd be understandable if they started talking shit back to you. If, on the other hand, you actually attempt to punch them in the face, they're well within their rights to sock you in the face and/or get you locked up.

Allowing someone to speak is not the same as tolerating, let alone accepting, their ideas. The conflation is disingenuous at best and seems to be made only by people who wish to blend them for political expediency. Those of us who have matured beyond child-like black & white thinking realize that there are not only two options: endorsement and censorship. There are myriad people who are able to allow others to express ideas and hold those ideas within the mind without immediately accepting them. In fact, it wasn't until coming to Tumblr that I found people who considered this ability unusual.

Inserting a web comic and an appeal to "authority" by referencing Karl Popper is not an argument, especially when this web comic just makes an assertion without substantiating it. In fact, when I read it, I can imagine its view easily becoming an extremely slippery slope as ever less extreme statements appear comparatively extreme against what's allowed until all discussion is shut down. Perhaps you may be content to live in an ideologically pure dystopia, but I am not.

And I have to say that it's pretty interesting that you view freedom of speech as a conservative position specifically.

@ugh-sjws oppression is not morally grey and a lot of things are actually black and white, stop hiding behind grey morality to hide your vileness. Seriously here's a simple counter argument to your rant. Respecting the rights of LGBT people will cost you NOTHING, LGBT people equality will cost you 0 $ and wouldn't harm your life in any way.

But oppression LGBT people and refused to respect our basic human rights will lead to the suffering and even death of LGBT people.

You are one of those insecure guys who is fit to be the poster child of r/iamverysmart

Don't tell me that you are bitter as well because no woman wanted to lay with you lmao

Trust me you don't sound intellectual at all and you keep missing the point. Dude... You are embarrassing

@mywitchcultblr You're not only missing the point but arguing completely random ideas that are popping in your head that have nothing to do with what I have written--on top of just making baseless accusations of my "vileness." Although, if arguing for free speech makes me "vile," consider me a proud wearer of the label.

You're so far away from anything I have said in your response, I don't even know if I could call it wrong, just nonsense. Basically you've written a 5 paragraph temper tantrum. If anything, I'm the one embarrassed for you.

I know word of the day calendars are great and all, but when you've finished overusing "oppression" like it actually is argument unto itself for anything, feel free to try again.

And I know you wish that I were a bitter incel, but I'm engaged and not interested. Thanks.

Another example of 'defending free speech' bullshit being used to oppress and hurt LGBTQA+ people

Once again if your argument is that 'We HaVe To DeFeND AnD SuPPoRT FREe SpEech INcLuding tHe RiGhTS TO OppRess MInOrity AnD tHe OppResseD' you are not a good person, you are not moral nor you are an intellectual.

It's not actually about free speech, you just want to use it as an excuse to be a bigot.

Imagine having the audacity to claim that you are for inclusivity but then removing a safe fucking space sticker for LGBT people. That school is not and never strive for inclusivity, it's just pr speak bullshit and at the end of the day they still defending oppression

Freedom of speech also includes freedom to be an asshole, bigot, general tool, etc. If a person wants to prevent others from voicing these opinions, that's fine, but they need to admit that they are not for freedom of speech. Period. Speech that is of the mainstream opinion and non-controversial or totally innocuous speech, by its very nature, doesn't need protection. Only speech society considers distasteful needs protection. That said, nothing also prevents you from also speaking out against them and telling them exactly what you think of the ideas they're putting forth.

Yes, no country has truly free speech, not in the idealized sense anyway. Different countries have made different practical trade-offs. For instance, a few limitations in the U.S. are: You cannot call for acts of violence or insurrection, cannot defraud others, cannot make false reports of crimes, you cannot reveal privileged/classified information, cannot make false claims or representations to the U.S. government, cannot use your speech with peace officer in such a way that it obstructs their investigation, etc.

I think that the more speech that is allowed, the better. I'll take the hard fought, slower advancement won through debate and intellectual battle instead of the fragile, illusory peace created by censoring speech and preventing people from hearing different opinions.

@ugh-sjws oppression is oppression and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, seriously wtf are you even doing in Tumblr? You are wasting your time complaining about 'sjw' as if you are not an sjw yourself? But for the conservative side

Fucking chuds

@mywitchcultblr The consequences you would face would be others using their free speech to combat yours with equal vehemence, which--if you actually read and understood what you were replying to--was mentioned already at the end of the first paragraph. If it moves from verbal to physical, then you run into the legal framework meant to address that. If, for instance, you talk about how you wish you could punch someone in the face, then you're all good, but it'd be understandable if they started talking shit back to you. If, on the other hand, you actually attempt to punch them in the face, they're well within their rights to sock you in the face and/or get you locked up.

Allowing someone to speak is not the same as tolerating, let alone accepting, their ideas. The conflation is disingenuous at best and seems to be made only by people who wish to blend them for political expediency. Those of us who have matured beyond child-like black & white thinking realize that there are not only two options: endorsement and censorship. There are myriad people who are able to allow others to express ideas and hold those ideas within the mind without immediately accepting them. In fact, it wasn't until coming to Tumblr that I found people who considered this ability unusual.

Inserting a web comic and an appeal to "authority" by referencing Karl Popper is not an argument, especially when this web comic just makes an assertion without substantiating it. In fact, when I read it, I can imagine its view easily becoming an extremely slippery slope as ever less extreme statements appear comparatively extreme against what's allowed until all discussion is shut down. Perhaps you may be content to live in an ideologically pure dystopia, but I am not.

And I have to say that it's pretty interesting that you view freedom of speech as a conservative position specifically.

Another example of 'defending free speech' bullshit being used to oppress and hurt LGBTQA+ people

Once again if your argument is that 'We HaVe To DeFeND AnD SuPPoRT FREe SpEech INcLuding tHe RiGhTS TO OppRess MInOrity AnD tHe OppResseD' you are not a good person, you are not moral nor you are an intellectual.

It's not actually about free speech, you just want to use it as an excuse to be a bigot.

Imagine having the audacity to claim that you are for inclusivity but then removing a safe fucking space sticker for LGBT people. That school is not and never strive for inclusivity, it's just pr speak bullshit and at the end of the day they still defending oppression

Freedom of speech also includes freedom to be an asshole, bigot, general tool, etc. If a person wants to prevent others from voicing these opinions, that's fine, but they need to admit that they are not for freedom of speech. Period. Speech that is of the mainstream opinion and non-controversial or totally innocuous speech, by its very nature, doesn't need protection. Only speech society considers distasteful needs protection. That said, nothing also prevents you from also speaking out against them and telling them exactly what you think of the ideas they're putting forth.

Yes, no country has truly free speech, not in the idealized sense anyway. Different countries have made different practical trade-offs. For instance, a few limitations in the U.S. are: You cannot call for acts of violence or insurrection, cannot defraud others, cannot make false reports of crimes, you cannot reveal privileged/classified information, cannot make false claims or representations to the U.S. government, cannot use your speech with peace officer in such a way that it obstructs their investigation, etc.

I think that the more speech that is allowed, the better. I'll take the hard fought, slower advancement won through debate and intellectual battle instead of the fragile, illusory peace created by censoring speech and preventing people from hearing different opinions.

1. Attacking them for hypocrisy doesn’t make the argument wrong.

2. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals. The only way this works is if “help the poor” means “support welfare and handouts”, which is the usual false equivalence.

I would bet money that by "don't want to help our own poor," the tweet author means "doesn't agree with what I think will help the poor."

I really don't want to interact with woke people. That goes double if I hadn't had my coffee yet.

Wow, I never met someone from an alternate reality before. How are you finding the adjustment?

Well, enjoy your stay here.

The party of tolerance and racial justice should be the only way forward.

Radical anti racist training SHOULD ALWAYS BE FUNDED BY THE STATE FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND THE WORKFORCE.

RACISM HARMS INNOCENT PPL.

Whoever disagrees should have their genitalia cut off, repeatedly punched in the head, and their fingers crushed by an anvil.

Though my skin happens to be a significantly darker-than-average tone where I live, this isn't something I'd feel comfortable signing off on because it has an extremely high likelihood of total disaster.

The attitudes and behaviors we call racism are themselves largely result of learned behavior (social "training" if you will), and some of the more extreme forms of behavioral racism are the result of indoctrination/brainwashing. I'm not sure creating a kind of brainwashing to combat brainwashing is going to lead to the best outcome.

There are way too many uncomfortable questions. Who decides this "anti-racist training" comprises? What would qualify such people to judge? How will the effectiveness of this training be measured? Who decides even what these criteria are? What steps will be put into place to make sure data is not cooked to manipulate the measured outcome by ether side? If it is deemed not effective, how will it be changed? How are any changes decided? Will this training focus on regional problems? If so, how will the regional problems be determined? If not, how can we be sure that this training is one-size-fits all? How can we ensure that the program, even if unintentionally, is not causing people to become even more entrenched in racism? And these are only the beginning.

Because I have encountered racism in my daily life many times (more often while I was growing up), I care about only tangible, real world effects. Inventing programs that have no practical effect or even carry unintended consequences that make discrimination even worse is a total waste of effort at best. For instance, thanks to affirmative action affecting admission S.A.T. scores at the university I had graduated from after I had already graduated, my admission to the university and the degree I had earned didn't carry the same weight as it did for people who were, say, white or East Asian. This is what happens when hopeful activists with rose-colored glasses don't think things all the way through and keep to the party line. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.