Rosetta mission scientist Dr Matt Taylor persecuted by SJWs

[Keyboard Warriors]

That was very relevant to the point at hand.
In other news, SJWs are hypocrites.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people talk as if "social justice" is a bad thing. It's the same as Republicans using "liberal" and "progressive" as swear words.

More astounding is how an entire movement for nice things like equal opportunity and general well-being can be denounced upon the actions of a minority group of nutjobs. You can see evidence of this here in the very title of the thread.

[Lexcronica]

You know what really reveals it though?
If that woman on the shirt was a real woman, and she gave the interriew, and someone said
"She's dressed inappropriately."
feminists would be fucking furious that you're paying attention to her dress sense and not her scientific contribution.
But if you put that woman on a t-shirt and give it to a man?
Suddenly it's open season.
A woman can't dress innappropriately, unless she's on a t-shirt being worn by a man.

....... <3

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That was very relevant to the point at hand.
In other news, SJWs are hypocrites.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people talk as if "social justice" is a bad thing. It's the same as Republicans using "liberal" and "progressive" as swear words.

Well, honestly, "social justice" sounds stupid from the get go (the term itself, not the definition). I don't care if a Jesuit priest came up with the term, it still kind of sounds idiotic by itself. Even more idiotic is people who label it "SJW".

Egalitarianism and social justice are important aspects of our society which people are striving towards more and more, I won't deny that. However, there's a point on both sides where I just go "erm... no".

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

That was very relevant to the point at hand.
In other news, SJWs are hypocrites.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people talk as if "social justice" is a bad thing. It's the same as Republicans using "liberal" and "progressive" as swear words.

There's a difference between social justice and SJWs. SJWs have the social justice part of their title the as North Korea has the word democratic in their nations name.

[Central Slavia]

It never ceases to amuse me how some people talk as if "social justice" is a bad thing. It's the same as Republicans using "liberal" and "progressive" as swear words.

There's a difference between social justice and SJWs. SJWs have the social justice part of their title the as North Korea has the word democratic in their nations name.

Very much this.
When instead of the fact that there's millionaries who earn ten thousand times as much as a common workers, public services going down the drain, unlivable minimum wage and little protection for workers, your choice of what to fight against is a shirt showing chicks that aren't even partially nude, there's nothing "social justice" about your fight.
You act as the prolonged arm of the bourgeoisie, calling for people to look elsewhere while the capitalist plunders their metaphoric pockets.

[Xerusia]

Wasn't it feminists saying shit like they can wear what they want? or something like that

[Central Slavia]

Wasn't it feminists saying shit like they can wear what they want? or something like that

See, only if you have the right organs down below.

[Nervium]

Does the Rosetta mission have a stone?

Quite a big one actually. They claimed it.

Comets aren't stones, they're snowballs.

[Tahar Joblis]

It is decidedly non-trivial.

No it decidedly is. Being naked and being sexually suggestive are not dependent on one another.

However, being naked is legally and socially distinct from being not naked. Which in turn means that the comparison between a shirt with sexy (but "decently" dressed) women and a shirt with entirely naked men is not, in fact, a fair comparison. Inappropriate nudity is inappropriate for its own reasons.

And whether we are talking about sexually suggestive as risque or revealing as risque, the point holds: You will see more risque things in public; and an "equivalent" shirt consisting of fully nude men would be deemed more risque, both in terms of sexual suggestivity and in terms of anatomical content.

What the shirt depicts is no more and no less attire than what is deemed suitable for wearing-in-public by Jane-on-the-street, Jill-on-the-boardwalk, or Joan-in-the-park. The only gaffe for any of those are the guns, which move it to Jackie-on-the-firing-range and Juanita-at-the-SF-con. Women wear more risque outfits out in real life in public places without any but the most moralistic busybodies telling them it's inappropriate.

You'll see more risque things in a grocery checkout aisle... on the covers of magazines primarily marketed to women. On "regular" literary novels, mystery novels, SF&F novels, etc - let alone romance novels.

Full male nudity, on the other hand, you will not see in public. A naked man on the street is very likely to be arrested. Only the most risque titles will show nudity on the cover - with prudish social conservatives, including some mainstream feminists, leading the charge to require that those titles be kept covered where minors can't glimpse even the cover photo.

Therefore there's no reason for you to complain about your perceived inability to wear as few clothes as women and be judged for it. As such, I cut out the parts which I have no desire to enter into a debate about as I simply do not have the free time to discuss tangential issues.

The extensive discussion of how it's socially acceptable for women to wear a wider variety of clothing, including typically another amount of it, is in other posts. What you cut out is a very blunt discussion of why your example failed to use an equivalent case.

What you've done is nitpicked an example to the nth degree to stroke your own sense of self-superiority. Let's look at the context of my ill-fated example. Seems like what I was trying to do was relate this issue to the context in particular.

And failing to do so correctly, which is why your example was ill-fated.

As for your suggestion that a gender reversed scenario would not provoke any objections, you know damn well that is bullshit.

The only objections provoked by a woman scientist wearing an equivalent shirt to a press conference to talk about her tattoos would be a few people (mostly women) talking about it being tacky in terms of fashion. Few, if any, would frame the shirt as morally objectionable / misandrist / an instance of sexual harassment / etc, and feminists would be leaping to defend her choice to wear what she wanted if it became any kind of public controversy.

[Royal Hindustan]

Speak up? What do you mean speak up? Do feminists have nothing better to do. Oh wait, I'll answer that. No! They have no right to tell him what he should wear or what he should not. He is a grown man and as long as he is not physically hurting someone, he is given that right in the constitution as pursuit to hapiness. These nitwit feminists probably didn't even care for what he did, but as long as it's a white male doing something remotely heterosexual, attack him.

So you don't believe in freedom of speech for everyone, or just not for feminists?

Then why do they get cranky when boys insult girls who wear innapropriate clothing.

[Alyakia]

Wasn't it feminists saying shit like they can wear what they want? or something like that

Wasn't it feminists saying shit like they can wear what they want? or something like that

See, only if you have the right organs down below.

yes. in relation to women walking down the streets. a situation you will note, in addition to not actually covering literally everything they want, has fuck all to do with this one.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

Quite a big one actually. They claimed it.

Comets aren't stones, they're snowballs.

"Cometary nuclei are composed of an amalgamation of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia."

As seen below, a comet without surface ice.

[The Alma Mater]

Wasn't it feminists saying shit like they can wear what they want? or something like that

See, only if you have the right organs down below.

yes. in relation to women walking down the streets. a situation you will note, in addition to not actually covering literally everything they want, has fuck all to do with this one.

I remain unconvinced that being attacked by a mob of angry women trying to ruin your life and being attacked by a mob of rapists are completely uncomparable, especially if both attacks claim to be "provoked" by the clothes.

[Alyakia]

yes. in relation to women walking down the streets. a situation you will note, in addition to not actually covering literally everything they want, has fuck all to do with this one.

I remain unconvinced that being attacked by a mob of angry women trying to ruin your life and being attacked by a mob of rapists are completely uncomparable, especially if both attacks claim to be "provoked" by the clothes.

well actually, it's really obvious what the differences are. why don't you try it yourself? what is the difference between angry women complaining on twitter and maybe complaining to your bosses not that anyone has provided actual proof to that effect yet and, uh, rape?

[Central Slavia]

I remain unconvinced that being attacked by a mob of angry women trying to ruin your life and being attacked by a mob of rapists are completely uncomparable, especially if both attacks claim to be "provoked" by the clothes.

well actually, it's really obvious what the differences are. why don't you try it yourself? what is the difference between angry women complaining on twitter and maybe complaining to your bosses not that anyone has provided actual proof to that effect yet and, uh, rape?

There's also a big difference between rape and catcalling + unsolicited comments about appearance, yet the group in question, yet the group in question seems to be similarly pissed at both.

[Nervium]

Comets aren't stones, they're snowballs.

"Cometary nuclei are composed of an amalgamation of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia."

As seen below, a comet without surface ice.

I was right.

Dirty snowballs.

[Condunum]

That was very relevant to the point at hand.
In other news, SJWs are hypocrites.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people talk as if "social justice" is a bad thing. It's the same as Republicans using "liberal" and "progressive" as swear words.

It never ceases to amuse me that some people talk as if "social justice warrior" is a title only denoting a champion of true social justice, and not also an pejorative attached to people seen as enemies to social equality.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

"Cometary nuclei are composed of an amalgamation of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia."

As seen below, a comet without surface ice.

I was right.

Dirty snowballs.

It's still a rock. So no, you were not right. The example I provided has a surface made entirely out of rocky materials.

[Condunum]

I was right.

Dirty snowballs.

It's still a rock. So no, you were not right. The example I provided has a surface made entirely out of rocky materials.

What is joke?

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

It's still a rock. So no, you were not right. The example I provided has a surface made entirely out of rocky materials.

What is joke?

"Comets aren't stones, they're snowballs."

Pretty sure is not joke.

[Condunum]

What is joke?

"Comets aren't stones, they're snowballs."

Pretty sure is not joke.

Nervium isn't dumb. Pretty sure is joke

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

"Comets aren't stones, they're snowballs."

Pretty sure is not joke.

Nervium isn't dumb. Pretty sure is joke

One never knows in General, one never knows

[Condunum]

Nervium isn't dumb. Pretty sure is joke

One never knows in General, one never knows

There's a few times I've gone "wait don't you think he's joking" only to be proven wrong about ten second later when said person shoves my foot in my mouth

[Settrah]

My attitude and sceptism towards 'social justice' can essentially boil down to the equality vs justice debate.

In that equality treats everyone the same from the get go, but justice seeks to build up marginalized demographics up first (to give them what it sees as a fairer chance).

And I have a problem with that, because of the assumptions and objective claims it tries to make about every inch of society, that I see as a faulty practice, and doesn't actually ensure equality at all.

This is why I don't necessarily warm to SJW.

[Novorobo]

A woman can't dress innappropriately, unless she's on a t-shirt being worn by a man.

This will make a good signature.