Are we all bigots then? Or is just trump?

[5m4llP0X]

Damn. I lost that bet. It was you.

Get lost in your terminological grey veil.

Part of me wanted to claim "Rok's Law" and call you a loser but I was above that, even though you LOVE to bring up the NRA and gun rights into EVERY topic. But it's obvious now you're just going to be snarky because you cannot prove your point. You should be better than that.

[Rokchick]

Why should I? And if you had claimed Roks law I'd be even.

[5m4llP0X]

Why should I? And if you had claimed Roks law I'd be even.

Then you concede the point that **** culture exists.

[Rokchick]

Yes, I do. Of course it exists. Even if you don't understand it.

[5m4llP0X]

Yes, I do.

You just admitted you are wrong about **** culture existing. That is what matters.

[Woden]

But, just like you are complicit in the gun culture if you respond to a suggestion about control measures with hype, 2nd amendment bollocks or stats supplied by pro gun groups

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, you're part of the problem!"

Once again showing off the stupid, closed-minded side of identity politics, which seems to be growing both more prevalent and more dumb in recent years.

So keep accusing me of being an SJW as if it is a bad thing. All those Vietnam protesters were SJWs. All those CND rallys were full of SJWs. Occupy was all SJWs. MLK was one. So were the suffragettes. I'm in good company.

False. You're confusing SJW with activist, when the two are most certainly not the same. Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative term that is mocking the individual for not doing anything more than argue online to advance their pet cause, while also pointing out that they are very combative about the topic in discussions. Seriously, look at any definition from a reputable source or source popular with the internet at large: They all make mention that SJW label implies either that they are doing it for personal validation rather than from actually caring about the issue, or that the person mostly just argues about the issue without really doing anything tangible. Some, but not all, of those sources also mention an implication of hypocrisy (e.g., believing that "doxxing" women is bad, but tries to do so to men who disagree with them).

But, once again, definitions are clearly not your forte.

[5m4llP0X]

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, you're part of the problem!"

Once again showing off the stupid, closed-minded side of identity politics, which seems to be growing both more prevalent and more dumb in recent years.


False. You're confusing SJW with activist, when the two are most certainly not the same. Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative term that is mocking the individual for not doing anything more than argue online to advance their pet cause, while also pointing out that they are very combative about the topic in discussions. Seriously, look at any definition from a reputable source or source popular with the internet at large: They all make mention that SJW label implies either that they are doing it for personal validation rather than from actually caring about the issue, or that the person mostly just argues about the issue without really doing anything tangible. Some, but not all, of those sources also mention an implication of hypocrisy (e.g., believing that "doxxing" women is bad, but tries to do so to men who disagree with them).

But, once again, definitions are clearly not your forte.

Well I guess you COULD destroy the definition. But it looks like she's admitting she's wrong, finally.

[Rokchick]

False. You're confusing SJW with activist, when the two are most certainly not the same. Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative term that is mocking the individual for not doing anything more than argue online to advance their pet cause, while also pointing out that they are very combative about the topic in discussions. Seriously, look at any definition from a reputable source or source popular with the internet at large: They all make mention that SJW label implies either that they are doing it for personal validation rather than from actually caring about the issue, or that the person mostly just argues about the issue without really doing anything tangible. Some, but not all, of those sources also mention an implication of hypocrisy (e.g., believing that "doxxing" women is bad, but tries to do so to men who disagree with them)..

And I gain one back! Thanks sweetie.

Social Justice Warrior definition (it is mocking because I say it is) from the guy who is so keen on explaining why "**** culture" must conform to normal language rules. I knew you couldn't resist it!

[Cisalpine]

Wow. So many cultures! I do believe you just threw yourself into the **** culture yourself by accepting Madonna's actions as either normal or ok. So you're as much as if not MORE guilty than Pox or Woden of contributing to your **** culture. Madonna basically reduced all women to sexual objects with her statement. We should check to see if **** culture caused a higher than normal increase in **** that night. Clearly Madonna is supportive of the **** culture as she thinks it's ok to "sell" her sexual favors for payment of a vote. And don't waste anyone's time by telling me I'm wrong, or don't understand the concept, or all of the other lame excuses you've been using. I think it was vile and disgusting and have lost any respect towards Madonna now. Had she been an unprivileged woman on the street corner saying that, she'd have been arrested for solicitation. You really do have selective "hearing". When guys say it doesn't exist, they're contributing. When Madonna offers sexual favors in exchange for votes, it's funny to you. So, if, according to you **** culture exists, you just contributed to it. Shame! Practice what you preach. And you CAN'T say she wasn't asking for it, since clearly, she WAS.

[Rokchick]

Wow. So many cultures! I do believe you just threw yourself into the **** culture yourself by accepting Madonna's actions as either normal or ok. So you're as much as if not MORE guilty than Pox or Woden of contributing to your **** culture. Madonna basically reduced all women to sexual objects with her statement. We should check to see if **** culture caused a higher than normal increase in **** that night. Clearly Madonna is supportive of the **** culture as she thinks it's ok to "sell" her sexual favors for payment of a vote. And don't waste anyone's time by telling me I'm wrong, or don't understand the concept, or all of the other lame excuses you've been using. I think it was vile and disgusting and have lost any respect towards Madonna now. Had she been an unprivileged woman on the street corner saying that, she'd have been arrested for solicitation. You really do have selective "hearing". When guys say it doesn't exist, they're contributing. When Madonna offers sexual favors in exchange for votes, it's funny to you. So, if, according to you **** culture exists, you just contributed to it. Shame! Practice what you preach. And you CAN'T say she wasn't asking for it, since clearly, she WAS.

You can think it's vile or disgusting if you like. It was a media personality introducing a comedian who makes her name talking about sex. You know what **** is and it's nothing to do with being paid for, or offering sex. If a woman on a street corner offers sex for $ that also is not **** (otherwise there should be a hell of a lot more guys in jail!). It might not be something you approve of, but it doesn't make it ****. Sure there are aspects of the **** culture that make prostitution more dangerous, and prostitutes more likely to be raped. It's not selling sex that does it though, it's the social devaluing of the woman doing it. I don't think you need to worry about Madonna though. She can afford to look after herself, if any potential rapists think that she was serious.

[5m4llP0X]

And I gain one back! Thanks sweetie.

Social Justice Warrior definition (it is mocking because I say it is) from the guy who is so keen on explaining why "**** culture" must conform to normal language rules. I knew you couldn't resist it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
he accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation.[5]

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011 when the term first appeared on Twitter it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be "politically correct".[1][2]

The term has entered popular culture, including a parody role-playing video game released in 2014 titled Social Justice Warriors.

It's actually the definition. There is a difference between seeing Social Justice vs a Social Justice Warrior. Think of Keyboard Warrior, Internet Warriors (Think of White Knights) or Ultimate Warrior--the addition of the word "Warrior" is used in a condescending tone.

[Rokchick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
he accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation.[5]

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011 when the term first appeared on Twitter it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be "politically correct".[1][2]

The term has entered popular culture, including a parody role-playing video game released in 2014 titled Social Justice Warriors.

It's actually the definition. There is a difference between seeing Social Justice vs a Social Justice Warrior. Think of Keyboard Warrior, Internet Warriors (Think of White Knights) or Ultimate Warrior--the addition of the word "Warrior" is used in a condescending tone.

Denial of **** culture carries implications of support for the ongoing objectification and sexual assault of women (I could put it another way, but you'd whine a lot), but you keep doing it....

I am using social justice warrior to mean social justice warrior. As astounding as it might seem, the words have meanings. Damn, where have I heard THAT before.

C'mon pox, even you must admit that was a worthy trap.

[Woden]

Social Justice Warrior definition (it is mocking because I say it is)

Or you could actually read my post, in which you would see that I was directing you to read the definition in popular sites. So, it's not mocking because I say it is, it's mocking because most people say it is. That is, after all, how language works: the definition held by the majority of the populace is going to be the "right" one.

Seriously, your reading comprehension is unbelievably terrible. Go eat a dictionary or something; I suspect it'd still manage to help you more than reading it would.

If a woman on a street corner offers sex for $ that also is not ****

But you've said, in this very thread, that risque advertisements contribute to **** culture. Are you now saying that prostitution does not contribute to **** culture?

You're becoming so illogical that it's starting to hurt to just conceptualize how you can possibly hold all of these bizarre positions at once.

Denial of **** culture carries implications of support for the ongoing objectification and sexual assault of women

No, it doesn't. And before you try, no, you can't find popular support for that meaning, since it's a minority subscribing to the same set of inane / insane ideas as you.

What the denial of **** culture is, is a refusal to agree with your unsupported and illogical claims. It is fully possible for someone denying **** culture to not only not support **** and assault, but to actively work against them (for example, RAINN). Or are you seriously going to argue that RAINN supports ****?

Just because this concept hurts your precious little feelings doesn't make it any less true.

I am incorrectly using social justice warrior to mean social justice warrior activist

Fixed that for you.

As astounding as it might seem, the words have meanings. Damn, where have I heard THAT before.

Hmm, perhaps in nearly every thread you participate in, from all of the people telling you how wrong your word choices are?

[Rokchick]

Hmm, perhaps in nearly every thread you participate in, from all of the people telling you how wrong your word choices are?

And yet, you still miss the irony. Never mind, I'm very pleased to see you back at your predictable best!

Whoa, I missed this in my amusement

But you've said, in this very thread, that risque advertisements contribute to **** culture. Are you now saying that prostitution does not contribute to **** culture?

Are you really telling me you don't see the difference between them? Nah even you... so it's bait, right? OK then!

The way prostitution is viewed by a lot of men, is certainly part of **** culture (you know, the prostitutes can't be raped stuff) that's true.

Prostitution in and of itself is not part of **** culture any more than marriage or dating or going to college is. It's the grapey attitudes around these things by far too many which is. And riske advertisements that are blatantly objectifying women (or young men, or whoever) certainly are. But sure, have a half naked woman sprawled on a car if she's advertising blow jobs for sale (by her, or it's false advertising I would think, so they would be pretty exxy!). Just not for the car.

[Woden]

And yet, you still miss the irony.

On a more serious note, you're either horribly misusing the word, or need to be more clear about what you find "ironic" here. As it stands, the only thing I see ironic is how you're trying to pull the "words have meanings" card when you're the most-frequent mis-user of words on the forum.

And riske advertisements that are blatantly objectifying women (or young men, or whoever) certainly are.

So you think that the advertisements are more objectifying that hiring somebody for sex?

[Rokchick]

On a more serious note, you're either horribly misusing the word, or need to be more clear about what you find "ironic" here. As it stands, the only thing I see ironic is how you're trying to pull the "words have meanings" card when you're the most-frequent mis-user of words on the forum.


So you think that the advertisements are more objectifying that hiring somebody for sex?

Look harder. The irony is very easy to see. It's real.

Well, if someone is offering the service without any pressure, it's just a service. Like me hiring a guy to take to a dance would be accepting a service for a fee. It only becomes part of the culture issue because of the attitudes around it. Sure most users of the service today in the western world would be objectifying most prostitutes, and contributing seriously to the culture, but that's because of the existing culture. So the realities of prostitution in the current **** culture certainly do contribute to it. But the concept itself doesn't. Just like hiring an immigrant worker for low rates to do your garden contributes to the culture of mistreating immigrant workers. Hiring a gardener is not the issue. The belief that immigrants should be prepared to do it for low rates is.

I'm sure you have worked this out yourself (it's fairly clear) and you are just trying to get me to trip up on some throw-away comment. Keep trying, I probably will, I don't have a lot of time to re-read and edit. Then you can have a little pedantic rant again about the words having meanings. Hold on while I don my warrior gear and head out to fight for a bit more social justice.