I just went through the XKCD archive. About halfway through, I realised that the hover-captions are worth reading. Bugger. Now I have to go back through the first half...
as a girl who's been on the internet since being a girl on the internet ACTUALLY WAS unusual, i think it's a load of patronising bullshit, and he's clearly just trying to play the white knight card.
Hmm. Did yo come up with that opinion all by yourself? (http://deathboy.livejournal.com/1038473.html)
I personally would rather see a world full of white knights than people being sexist misogynists, even if they think it's for a laugh in a closeted community somewhere. One man's ironic statement is another man's role model.
agreeing with your mates is not unusual, is it? :)
honestly, though, i've very rarely seen anyone do the white knight bit out of genuinely altruistic motives - there's a not inconsiderable amount of power over someone you rescue. frankly, the selfless rescuer bit gets my back up a bit. adding a token women utterly failing to be able to speak for herself gets me MORE pissed off, but isn't really the bit that bugs me.
i'd rather see people being a bit more relaxed about the jokes they make than is always easy to deal with than faking outrage to score points off each other. YMMV.
Regardless of the motives, a world full of people doing nice things is better IMO than a world full of people being offensive. This is why you'll rarely see me trading insults in chatrooms - it's just not my idea of a fun night in, even if it's done in jest.
I worry deeply that such behaviour is seen as the norm after a while, and then people take their internet-formed personalities out in to the real world and end up acting like obnoxious twats because it's got them a few cheap laughs and made them a few friends (or 'friends') online.
As much as White Knighting might be your pet peeve, people acting like utter cockends from the safety of the other side of a screen is mine. I just think there's more to commend in being chivalrous than being misogynistic.
Regardless of the motives, a world full of people doing nice things is better IMO than a world full of people being offensive.
*shrugs* i don't see the two as really being exclusive. it's impossible to really deal with anything nasty in the world without offending someone, and sometimes you've gotta break eggs, you know? and if someone's only doing something nice out of purely selfish motives, well, it's almost worse than just being a cunt outright. eventually they don't get their way, and you're fucked.
i DO totally know what you mean about people hiding behind screens and i know a few who do just act like utter assholes on the internet because "it's not real", and who then get drunk on the thrills. and they ARE shit. but honestly, i am a social retard raised by a mouse and a screen. i do act the same in the real world as online. most of my nearest and dearest are, too. i wouldn't change them for the world.
there may be more to commend in acting chivalrous than misogynistic, but as i see it, there's FAR more to commend in not needing to "act". :)
There's breaking eggs and there's acting with a degree of tact and manners. And I see a lot of broken eggs and very few omelettes on IRC, to carry the metaphor through.
I didn't mention anything about acting. I try to be the person I'd like to meet. My recent issues have came from people showing an inconsistency in their behaviour, basically saying 'I'm being abusive because it's my defence mechanism, but don't be mean to me'. And IRC seems to be a breeding-ground for that double-standard.
It's too much like the gangs of bullies I had to tolerate at school - even though I don't get picked on much myself, I abhor any social structure that berates people merely for being new and clueless, because EVERYONE was new and clueless at some point. Again, it's about me standing up for what I believe in, which is that you should try and help people to know better in the knowledge they'll almost certainly teach you something too.
i must be lucky enough to move in different bits of the internet. :) i don't really find that too many people DO really get picked on for being simply new and clueless. i DO see a lot getting abuse for being persistently irritating and obnoxious... but that's where i run into a very basic difference of opinion. i DON'T think that everyone has something to teach, or that everyone should get infinite help. sometimes people are just shit, and tbh, the best i can hope for is that they are shit elsewhere.
but that's veered a LONG way from girls getting asked for nekkid pics. i am a woman and i do not mind the things mentioned in the comic AT ALL. i'd really very much rather no one "stood up for me" without asking...
See, there's no particular reason for swathes of ver internets to be home only to gormless wankers fizzing with pus and spunk. The excuse that 'it's always been like that' is A Lie and demands that people 'grow some skin' should me met with requests to grow some blasted manners.
I absolutely don't accept that the mistakes of Usenet should be repeated so some poor ickle lambs don't have to think before typing.
See, there's no particular reason for swathes of ver internets to be home only to gormless wankers fizzing with pus and spunk.
there's no reason for great swathes of it to be filled with soppy wet cows talking endlessly about baby names and celeb gossip either... well, except that people who aren't soppy wet cows have no urge to be in those bits.
Right, but I'm not aware that the soppy wet cows greet newbies with 'Cock pix or GTFO!'
There's a difference between subjectively uninteresting discussions (any open sores IRC channel in my case. YMMV.) and actively unpleasant communities.
i HAVE said "COCK OR GTFO" a fair number of times, but it's always been received as a joking flirtation. sometimes i got cock pics.
there are actually vast swathes of the internet where men will be greeted with either outright hate, subtle implications that their interest is unwholesome, or very distasteful attempts to get them in bed. i wouldn't dream of assuming that they actually OBJECT to the last bit, mind.
i'm not sure why, despite me as a woman saying that i really don't mind "omg a woman on the internet" or "pix pls", you feel that it's A Good Thing to wield your mighty pen against such behaviour? or why saying that women hate it is justified when PLAINLY at least one woman doesn't?
My objection in general is that, given such an amazing facility to communicate, people are so unnecessarily crass and impolite to each other, for a cheap laugh or otherwise.
It's the bravado and bullshit that offends me. There aren't enough half-intelligent conversations like this one on t'internet for my liking, and asking for cock/tit pics is something people really ought to grow out of IMO.
the loss of any of the flavour of language would be an equal tragedy to me. while it's sad that there's a shortage of intelligent conversation in the bits you are on (i'm lucky enough to not actually really find that so much - again, different parts of the internet), it'd be every bit as sad to lose some of the wonderfully salty and rough bits. life can't be all sweet, and i wouldn't want it to be. :)
well, we still get the occasional really ACE debate in the morass of crap that is alt.gothic, if you can be arsed with usenet. i hang out on a friend's IRC channel which is open, but which i'm not too eager to invite people onto to argue (it's nice and peaceful), and i have some people on my f-list who really appreciate a proper debate, for a start. there are also some web fora about historic buildings and their correct maintenance that i spend way too much time on, which frequently head into the politics associated with them.
So if a man has opinions on the way some men (the ones who are arseholes) treat women, and wants to express those opinions, is there a way he can do it without being accused of being patronising or a "white knight" or whatever? Or should he just keep schtum because it's a women's issue? Or do men not have such opinions without ulterior motives?
without reducing something simply to gender lines, it's a bit offensive for anyone to "stand up" for a group who haven't asked them to, and of which they are not a member, in this sort of way. you can't really speak for an entire group. especially one you are not a member of.
look at it this way - i have lots of transexual friends. but i'm quite happily female. if i made a post saying "you know, jokes about people turning into women REALLY aren't funny. you need to stop saying that" i'm pretty sure they'd be pissed off with me. in fact i KNOW one of them would call me a "bummer".
grouping people like that and claiming to speak for them disempowers them on a really fundamental level. you ARE basically saying that you are more qualified to speak for them than they are.
the best anyone can do if he wishes to address something like that is to express it ENTIRELY as his own opinion, not claim to speak on behalf of a group, and not speak on behalf of an individual unless they SAY they want him to.
it's not offensive for me to say "you know, that joke about someone becoming a woman makes me uncomfortable". it IS offensive for me to say that it would make trans people uncomfortable.
So if someone refers to "fucking kykes" or "stupid niggers" in my hearing, it's offensive for me to say "You're being a racist arsehole" because I'm neither black nor Jewish, and by calling someone else on their bigotry, I'm disempowering them? I really have to disagree.
See, I actually think it's a good thing to challenge ignorance and bigotry, even when it's not aimed at you; perhaps even especially when it isn't aimed at you. If some man decides to mention that treating women like crap makes you an arsehole, not only does that not make me feel in any way disempowered, but I'll buy the man a drink quite happily, because he's right. And sure, it's a pity that the arsehole in question will take it more seriously if it comes from a man than from a woman, but that's _his_ fault, and _his_ problem, not the fault or the problem of the guy who calls him on it.
I do agree that it's rather presumptuous to say "That joke about changing into a woman would make transgendered people uncomfortable", but I don't think there's anything offensive about sayig "Treating transgendered people like crap makes you an arsehole"; the cartoon that sparked this debate is pretty firmly in the latter camp rather than the former.
So if someone refers to "fucking kykes" or "stupid niggers" in my hearing, it's offensive for me to say "You're being a racist arsehole" because I'm neither black nor Jewish, and by calling someone else on their bigotry, I'm disempowering them? I really have to disagree.
*shrugs* saying that you find that word offensive would be fine. but my best friend at college was a black girl who got really pissed off with people saying that "nigger" was an inherently offensive word. she also frequently used the phrase "stupid niggers", but frankly i thought the irony was clear.
the cartoon that sparked this debate is pretty firmly in the latter camp rather than the former.
saying that you find that word offensive would be fine. Sure, but would saying "You're being a racist arsehole"?
i disagree entirely. That confuses me; it actually says "You're being an asshole", which is pretty damned close to "you're an arsehole". I don't see anything there saying "Women find this offensive". Could you explain which bit you interpret as saying any such thing, and why you're ignoring the bit that actually does say pretty much exactly what I suggested?
Sure, but would saying "You're being a racist arsehole"?
not really. not for just using a racially descriptive term which is often offensive. particularly not online, where you can't actually TELL if the person saying it is actually black themselves... if i'd said to my black friend "you're a racist arsehole", would i not have been being a bit of an arse?
That confuses me; it actually says "You're being an asshole", which is pretty damned close to "you're an arsehole". I don't see anything there saying "Women find this offensive". Could you explain which bit you interpret as saying any such thing, and why you're ignoring the bit that actually does say pretty much exactly what I suggested?
actually, you are assuming i agreed that saying "you are being a racist arsehole" would be fair enough.
i don't actually think that greeting a female username on a channel with "OMG, A WOMAN ON THE INTERNET" "pix or gtfo ;)" IS being an asshole...
as far as what bit i see as speaking on behalf, well, it says "you are the number one reason women are so rare on the internet".
that's a) innaccurate, and b) an assumption on how women feel about that behaviour, stated on their behalf. honestly, the fact that men hit on me in that exact way is one of the reasons i LOVE the internet. i am personally pissed off with someone stating on my behalf that saying those things will offend me.
if i'd said to my black friend "you're a racist arsehole", would i not have been being a bit of an arse? Fair enough, but if someone is actually being racially offensive, is it really more offensive for me to condone that by being silent, or to call them on it? Personally, I think it's worse to condone it by not saying anything.
actually, you are assuming i agreed that saying "you are being a racist arsehole" would be fair enough.
I'm not assuming anything of the sort; you disagreed that the comic is saying "You're being an arsehole" rather than "Women are offended by this"; I was responding to that disagreement, which I still don't understand.
as far as what bit I see as speaking on behalf, well, it says "you are the number one reason women are so rare on the internet". See, to me that doesn't come across as "Women are offended by this" but rather as "Many women are offended (or intimidated or put off) by that". Which I suspect is at least partially true, to be honest.
After all, one can look at the reasons there are so few women in senior management positions in business without assuming that there are _no_ women in senior management position, or assuming that the reasons there are so few apply to _all_ women; you're simply looking at factors which affect a significant proportion of women. Same thing here; You're not offended by that treatment, and it doesn't put you off, but lots of women are, and it affects the overall number of women online, and in specific fora.
There's a thin line here between Standing Up For and Pledging Support For. You seem to be saying that you can only stand up for something if you are within that subset else you will risk offence, is that correct?
Lots of people go to Gay Pride who aren't gay, they just support people's right to be gay. Sure, some gay people might be pissed off, but undeniably the strength of support for gay rights - from all walks of life - has led to its acceptance.
I also think it's dangerous for *any* of us to look at our subset of friends and go 'well, that's the way it is with them, it must be this way with everyone else too'. We are a bunch of freaks; any similarity to normal life is purely coincidental.
You seem to be saying that you can only stand up for something if you are within that subset else you will risk offence, is that correct?
not exactly, no. there are times when speaking for the entire group which you are within is also offensive. but it is NEVER wrong to state that you personally are offended. better?
Better in that it clarifies your position, but it's not a position I agree with.
Being offended is a bit of a privilege. If I think something is wrong, I'll try to do something about it. Just going, 'ooh how *awful*' and then carrying on your life is a little bit too Daily Mail reader for my liking.
So yeah, maybe I go on crusades, maybe some of those are ill-considered and not appreciated. maybe I get accused of being a liberal White Knight (There are rarely ulterior motives, but sometimes you get a reward even if your motives are altruistic).
But I also know that a lot of people have appreciate me fighting there corner and standing for what I believe in, and I know I'm not planning to stop any time soon.
fair enough - it's a tradeoff, innit? :) some girls dig guys who are quite happily offensive, and get pissed off at men who try to stand up for them unasked. some girls dig guys who stick up for them unasked and get pissed off with things which may be offensive.
i'm a bit more live and let live so far as letting people state their opinions. :)
Maybe this is the crux here - you're talking about people you fancy, I'm talking about the world in general. And in the context of the cartoon that started this, i think it's me that's off-topic... ;)
So what I think is happening here is the assumption that anyone who voices concern in re. appropriate behaviour and perceived gender is a Nice Guy (http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html) attempting to White Knight his way to a bunk-up.
Or some complicated false consciousness business wherein it's functionally impossible for a member of the testosterone-poisoned opressor class to step outside the bindings of his male privilege and attempt to develop a non-white-european-male-technocrat weltschauung.
i can't help but notice that the women in xkcd exist basically to be objects of love, or rejection. if he wants to see women not treated like sex objects on the internet, really and truly, perhaps he should be starting there. i keep doing a mental comparison to Questionable Content. that comic actually has women being PEOPLE in it, geeking out in their own ways and doing stuff women really do. seems like a much bigger blow to strike for womankind. i'm perfectly happy to accept that xkcd is a geek comic, for geeks, and that it's okay for the women to just be symbols of bits of what interests geeks in women. but then to have the "standing up for poor women" bit, that feels WRONG.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 10:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 10:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 11:54 am (UTC)I have now. And the parade of idiots. Jayzus.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 11:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 11:39 am (UTC)About halfway through, I realised that the hover-captions are worth reading.
Bugger. Now I have to go back through the first half...
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 11:54 am (UTC)My work here is done.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-29 02:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 08:40 pm (UTC)I personally would rather see a world full of white knights than people being sexist misogynists, even if they think it's for a laugh in a closeted community somewhere. One man's ironic statement is another man's role model.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 09:26 pm (UTC)honestly, though, i've very rarely seen anyone do the white knight bit out of genuinely altruistic motives - there's a not inconsiderable amount of power over someone you rescue. frankly, the selfless rescuer bit gets my back up a bit. adding a token women utterly failing to be able to speak for herself gets me MORE pissed off, but isn't really the bit that bugs me.
i'd rather see people being a bit more relaxed about the jokes they make than is always easy to deal with than faking outrage to score points off each other. YMMV.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 09:36 pm (UTC)I worry deeply that such behaviour is seen as the norm after a while, and then people take their internet-formed personalities out in to the real world and end up acting like obnoxious twats because it's got them a few cheap laughs and made them a few friends (or 'friends') online.
As much as White Knighting might be your pet peeve, people acting like utter cockends from the safety of the other side of a screen is mine. I just think there's more to commend in being chivalrous than being misogynistic.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 11:17 pm (UTC)*shrugs*
i don't see the two as really being exclusive. it's impossible to really deal with anything nasty in the world without offending someone, and sometimes you've gotta break eggs, you know? and if someone's only doing something nice out of purely selfish motives, well, it's almost worse than just being a cunt outright. eventually they don't get their way, and you're fucked.
i DO totally know what you mean about people hiding behind screens and i know a few who do just act like utter assholes on the internet because "it's not real", and who then get drunk on the thrills. and they ARE shit. but honestly, i am a social retard raised by a mouse and a screen. i do act the same in the real world as online. most of my nearest and dearest are, too. i wouldn't change them for the world.
there may be more to commend in acting chivalrous than misogynistic, but as i see it, there's FAR more to commend in not needing to "act". :)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 11:35 pm (UTC)I didn't mention anything about acting. I try to be the person I'd like to meet. My recent issues have came from people showing an inconsistency in their behaviour, basically saying 'I'm being abusive because it's my defence mechanism, but don't be mean to me'. And IRC seems to be a breeding-ground for that double-standard.
It's too much like the gangs of bullies I had to tolerate at school - even though I don't get picked on much myself, I abhor any social structure that berates people merely for being new and clueless, because EVERYONE was new and clueless at some point. Again, it's about me standing up for what I believe in, which is that you should try and help people to know better in the knowledge they'll almost certainly teach you something too.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 06:44 pm (UTC)i DON'T think that everyone has something to teach, or that everyone should get infinite help. sometimes people are just shit, and tbh, the best i can hope for is that they are shit elsewhere.
but that's veered a LONG way from girls getting asked for nekkid pics. i am a woman and i do not mind the things mentioned in the comic AT ALL. i'd really very much rather no one "stood up for me" without asking...
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 11:20 pm (UTC)See, there's no particular reason for swathes of ver internets to be home only to gormless wankers fizzing with pus and spunk. The excuse that 'it's always been like that' is A Lie and demands that people 'grow some skin' should me met with requests to grow some blasted manners.
I absolutely don't accept that the mistakes of Usenet should be repeated so some poor ickle lambs don't have to think before typing.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 11:47 pm (UTC)there's no reason for great swathes of it to be filled with soppy wet cows talking endlessly about baby names and celeb gossip either... well, except that people who aren't soppy wet cows have no urge to be in those bits.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 12:38 pm (UTC)There's a difference between subjectively uninteresting discussions (any open sores IRC channel in my case. YMMV.) and actively unpleasant communities.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 06:37 pm (UTC)there are actually vast swathes of the internet where men will be greeted with either outright hate, subtle implications that their interest is unwholesome, or very distasteful attempts to get them in bed. i wouldn't dream of assuming that they actually OBJECT to the last bit, mind.
i'm not sure why, despite me as a woman saying that i really don't mind "omg a woman on the internet" or "pix pls", you feel that it's A Good Thing to wield your mighty pen against such behaviour? or why saying that women hate it is justified when PLAINLY at least one woman doesn't?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:20 pm (UTC)It's the bravado and bullshit that offends me. There aren't enough half-intelligent conversations like this one on t'internet for my liking, and asking for cock/tit pics is something people really ought to grow out of IMO.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 08:17 pm (UTC)Since you say below that you can't speak for an entire group, you'll pardon me if I keep on calling it as I see it.
I'm still saying I think it's a bit shit. People can and do disagree with that.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 02:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 06:32 pm (UTC)look at it this way - i have lots of transexual friends. but i'm quite happily female. if i made a post saying "you know, jokes about people turning into women REALLY aren't funny. you need to stop saying that" i'm pretty sure they'd be pissed off with me. in fact i KNOW one of them would call me a "bummer".
grouping people like that and claiming to speak for them disempowers them on a really fundamental level. you ARE basically saying that you are more qualified to speak for them than they are.
the best anyone can do if he wishes to address something like that is to express it ENTIRELY as his own opinion, not claim to speak on behalf of a group, and not speak on behalf of an individual unless they SAY they want him to.
it's not offensive for me to say "you know, that joke about someone becoming a woman makes me uncomfortable". it IS offensive for me to say that it would make trans people uncomfortable.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 06:53 pm (UTC)See, I actually think it's a good thing to challenge ignorance and bigotry, even when it's not aimed at you; perhaps even especially when it isn't aimed at you. If some man decides to mention that treating women like crap makes you an arsehole, not only does that not make me feel in any way disempowered, but I'll buy the man a drink quite happily, because he's right. And sure, it's a pity that the arsehole in question will take it more seriously if it comes from a man than from a woman, but that's _his_ fault, and _his_ problem, not the fault or the problem of the guy who calls him on it.
I do agree that it's rather presumptuous to say "That joke about changing into a woman would make transgendered people uncomfortable", but I don't think there's anything offensive about sayig "Treating transgendered people like crap makes you an arsehole"; the cartoon that sparked this debate is pretty firmly in the latter camp rather than the former.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:27 pm (UTC)*shrugs*
saying that you find that word offensive would be fine. but my best friend at college was a black girl who got really pissed off with people saying that "nigger" was an inherently offensive word. she also frequently used the phrase "stupid niggers", but frankly i thought the irony was clear.
the cartoon that sparked this debate is pretty firmly in the latter camp rather than the former.
i disagree entirely.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:37 pm (UTC)Sure, but would saying "You're being a racist arsehole"?
i disagree entirely.
That confuses me; it actually says "You're being an asshole", which is pretty damned close to "you're an arsehole". I don't see anything there saying "Women find this offensive". Could you explain which bit you interpret as saying any such thing, and why you're ignoring the bit that actually does say pretty much exactly what I suggested?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:52 pm (UTC)not really. not for just using a racially descriptive term which is often offensive. particularly not online, where you can't actually TELL if the person saying it is actually black themselves... if i'd said to my black friend "you're a racist arsehole", would i not have been being a bit of an arse?
That confuses me; it actually says "You're being an asshole", which is pretty damned close to "you're an arsehole". I don't see anything there saying "Women find this offensive". Could you explain which bit you interpret as saying any such thing, and why you're ignoring the bit that actually does say pretty much exactly what I suggested?
actually, you are assuming i agreed that saying "you are being a racist arsehole" would be fair enough.
i don't actually think that greeting a female username on a channel with "OMG, A WOMAN ON THE INTERNET" "pix or gtfo ;)" IS being an asshole...
as far as what bit i see as speaking on behalf, well, it says "you are the number one reason women are so rare on the internet".
that's a) innaccurate, and b) an assumption on how women feel about that behaviour, stated on their behalf. honestly, the fact that men hit on me in that exact way is one of the reasons i LOVE the internet. i am personally pissed off with someone stating on my behalf that saying those things will offend me.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 08:16 pm (UTC)Fair enough, but if someone is actually being racially offensive, is it really more offensive for me to condone that by being silent, or to call them on it?
Personally, I think it's worse to condone it by not saying anything.
actually, you are assuming i agreed that saying "you are being a racist arsehole" would be fair enough.
I'm not assuming anything of the sort; you disagreed that the comic is saying "You're being an arsehole" rather than "Women are offended by this"; I was responding to that disagreement, which I still don't understand.
as far as what bit I see as speaking on behalf, well, it says "you are the number one reason women are so rare on the internet".
See, to me that doesn't come across as "Women are offended by this" but rather as "Many women are offended (or intimidated or put off) by that". Which I suspect is at least partially true, to be honest.
After all, one can look at the reasons there are so few women in senior management positions in business without assuming that there are _no_ women in senior management position, or assuming that the reasons there are so few apply to _all_ women; you're simply looking at factors which affect a significant proportion of women. Same thing here; You're not offended by that treatment, and it doesn't put you off, but lots of women are, and it affects the overall number of women online, and in specific fora.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 06:59 pm (UTC)Lots of people go to Gay Pride who aren't gay, they just support people's right to be gay. Sure, some gay people might be pissed off, but undeniably the strength of support for gay rights - from all walks of life - has led to its acceptance.
I also think it's dangerous for *any* of us to look at our subset of friends and go 'well, that's the way it is with them, it must be this way with everyone else too'. We are a bunch of freaks; any similarity to normal life is purely coincidental.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:30 pm (UTC)not exactly, no. there are times when speaking for the entire group which you are within is also offensive. but it is NEVER wrong to state that you personally are offended. better?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:43 pm (UTC)Being offended is a bit of a privilege. If I think something is wrong, I'll try to do something about it. Just going, 'ooh how *awful*' and then carrying on your life is a little bit too Daily Mail reader for my liking.
So yeah, maybe I go on crusades, maybe some of those are ill-considered and not appreciated. maybe I get accused of being a liberal White Knight (There are rarely ulterior motives, but sometimes you get a reward even if your motives are altruistic).
But I also know that a lot of people have appreciate me fighting there corner and standing for what I believe in, and I know I'm not planning to stop any time soon.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:55 pm (UTC)i'm a bit more live and let live so far as letting people state their opinions. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:02 pm (UTC)I'm sure you already know this. I read this at an early impressionable age and it has informed my thinking ever since.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 07:30 pm (UTC)wow.
Date: 2007-10-02 12:52 am (UTC)Proud to be the "bad guy" in this case.
Re: wow.
Date: 2007-10-02 06:30 am (UTC)Re: wow.
Date: 2007-10-02 03:13 pm (UTC)Or some complicated false consciousness business wherein it's functionally impossible for a member of the testosterone-poisoned opressor class to step outside the bindings of his male privilege and attempt to develop a non-white-european-male-technocrat weltschauung.
Happy now? ;)
Date: 2007-10-01 09:55 pm (UTC)Re: Happy now? ;)
Date: 2007-10-01 11:19 pm (UTC)i can't help but notice that the women in xkcd exist basically to be objects of love, or rejection. if he wants to see women not treated like sex objects on the internet, really and truly, perhaps he should be starting there. i keep doing a mental comparison to Questionable Content. that comic actually has women being PEOPLE in it, geeking out in their own ways and doing stuff women really do. seems like a much bigger blow to strike for womankind. i'm perfectly happy to accept that xkcd is a geek comic, for geeks, and that it's okay for the women to just be symbols of bits of what interests geeks in women. but then to have the "standing up for poor women" bit, that feels WRONG.
Re: Happy now? ;)
Date: 2007-10-01 11:25 pm (UTC)Re: Happy now? ;)
Date: 2007-10-01 11:29 pm (UTC)a point to you. :D
no subject
Date: 2007-09-30 04:23 am (UTC)p.s.
Date: 2007-09-30 04:33 am (UTC)