NATION

PASSWORD

The NationStates Feminist Thread III

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 62658
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:18 am

Jello Biafra wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:
None of the ads I have seen were about exchanging sex and board.

Oh, I see. I thought Craigslist might be different. Are there any in English that you'd be willing to share?


No, the vast majority of ads are in German.

On that note, I saw one specifically asking for a man today.

Ach und da wir schon 2 Mädels sind, suchen wir am liebsten noch etwas männliche Unterstützung


A place for four, and they want to keep the gender balance.
1. The Last Tech Modling
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Size matters. Bigger is forbidden and won't give the mods pleasure.

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19883
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:06 pm

Last edited by Costa Fierro on Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

Donut section
 
Founded:

Postby Donut section » Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:19 pm

New Edom wrote:Two recent articles i read make my points for me.

1. Emma Watson apparently recommends these five books to read. This appears to be a general mainstream approach to feminism, and these books are generally popular and well known among feminists. So are these books rather definitive or not?

2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:

Patriarchy (as defined above) doesn’t just hurt women by treating them as property. In fact, the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts. Unfortunately, we’ve done a terrible job at understanding and communicating this, to the point that most men in this situation are convinced that feminism, not patriarchy, is actually the root of their problems. So long as middle-class feminists ridicule and demonize them while enjoying relatively pampered lives, these men will continue to hate us. And who can blame them?


I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.



As a "low status, unmarriageable man" who engages in dirty dangerous work i have a bone to pick with claiming we earn peanuts. Sure alot of us earn whatever we can get, but it's not due to some "patriarchy". It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets. And aside from the picking things up, putting them down over there part, our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.

We don't see feminism as the root of our problems, human nature is the root of our problems, our own failings. If anything our antagonism towards feminism is the threat to our futures.

Complaining changes nothing and should be ignored no matter who is doing it. Fixing it yourself is worth more than being given a solution by complaining. All we want is the freedom for all to fix themselves, without help.

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7316
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:11 am

Donut section wrote: It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets...., our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.
Sounds similar to gender studies graduates, aside from the physical labour.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19883
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:20 am

"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7316
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:29 am

One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?

Anyway, Huff-po have been getting some flak over it and decided to post a response, including this gem.

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article -- or perhaps none at all.
What huff po is trying to argue here is that this kind of view has often been expressed by feminism - in fact it's "pretty standard" - and therefore should be accepted. Maybe on that basis this particular blogger doesn't deserve the attention and vitriol we are seeing posted as an example. But what I also take away from that is an implication that "pretty standard" feminism is acceptably (at least to Huffpo South Africa) racist and sexist by default.
Last edited by Hirota on Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Jello Biafra
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6401
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jello Biafra » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:36 am

New Edom wrote:2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:

Patriarchy (as defined above) doesn’t just hurt women by treating them as property. In fact, the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts. Unfortunately, we’ve done a terrible job at understanding and communicating this, to the point that most men in this situation are convinced that feminism, not patriarchy, is actually the root of their problems. So long as middle-class feminists ridicule and demonize them while enjoying relatively pampered lives, these men will continue to hate us. And who can blame them?


I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.

I agree with her on this issue.

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19883
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:12 am

Hirota wrote:
One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?


Of course it wouldn't. The problem is, people these days have redefined racism, and sexism for that matter as "power + prejudice", which really has very little merits by itself. The HuffPo has defended the article. But here's what really got my attention the most:

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory.


Tying in with Gallosim's post about what feminists have done in relation to "gender equality", if this is now considered standard feminist theory, then feminism as a social movement is well and truly out of touch with society.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7316
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:13 am

Costa Fierro wrote:
Hirota wrote:One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?


Of course it wouldn't. The problem is, people these days have redefined racism, and sexism for that matter as "power + prejudice", which really has very little merits by itself. The HuffPo has defended the article. But here's what really got my attention the most:

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory.


Tying in with Gallosim's post about what feminists have done in relation to "gender equality", if this is now considered standard feminist theory, then feminism as a social movement is well and truly out of touch with society.
I agree - I edited my post you quoted with similar observations.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19883
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:27 am

Hirota wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
Of course it wouldn't. The problem is, people these days have redefined racism, and sexism for that matter as "power + prejudice", which really has very little merits by itself. The HuffPo has defended the article. But here's what really got my attention the most:

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory.


Tying in with Gallosim's post about what feminists have done in relation to "gender equality", if this is now considered standard feminist theory, then feminism as a social movement is well and truly out of touch with society.
I agree - I edited my post you quoted with similar observations.


We can only hope that such attitudes do not become part of regular political discourse.
Last edited by Costa Fierro on Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32061
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:48 am



That is an article written by one person for Huffington Post South Africa's blog. She has never written anything before and the extent of her qualifications appear to be being a student. I disagree with Huffington Post a lot but I don't think this is an indictment of the entire organization.


Hirota wrote:
One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?

Anyway, Huff-po have been getting some flak over it and decided to post a response, including this gem.

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article -- or perhaps none at all.
What huff po is trying to argue here is that this kind of view has often been expressed by feminism - in fact it's "pretty standard" - and therefore should be accepted. Maybe on that basis this particular blogger doesn't deserve the attention and vitriol we are seeing posted as an example. But what I also take away from that is an implication that "pretty standard" feminism is acceptably (at least to Huffpo South Africa) racist and sexist by default.

Suggesting that someone be permitted to go to radical places and be corrected by public discussion rather than censorship is noble. I don't believe Huffington Post actually stands behind it but that's another matter.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7316
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:20 pm

Des-Bal wrote:


That is an article written by one person for Huffington Post South Africa's blog. She has never written anything before and the extent of her qualifications appear to be being a student. I disagree with Huffington Post a lot but I don't think this is an indictment of the entire organization.
<shrugs> I'm more interested in their unintended indictment of an entire ideology.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
New Edom
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23241
Founded: Mar 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New Edom » Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:50 pm

Donut section wrote:
New Edom wrote:Two recent articles i read make my points for me.

1. Emma Watson apparently recommends these five books to read. This appears to be a general mainstream approach to feminism, and these books are generally popular and well known among feminists. So are these books rather definitive or not?

2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:



I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.



As a "low status, unmarriageable man" who engages in dirty dangerous work i have a bone to pick with claiming we earn peanuts. Sure alot of us earn whatever we can get, but it's not due to some "patriarchy". It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets. And aside from the picking things up, putting them down over there part, our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.

We don't see feminism as the root of our problems, human nature is the root of our problems, our own failings. If anything our antagonism towards feminism is the threat to our futures.

Complaining changes nothing and should be ignored no matter who is doing it. Fixing it yourself is worth more than being given a solution by complaining. All we want is the freedom for all to fix themselves, without help.


I don't agree with the article, but I do find it interesting and worth looking at and discussing. What I personally believe is that the tensions surrounding feminism are about a few things:
1. That men and women are competitors in a lot of areas where they were not before
2. That generally people still accept the idea that men and women should fulfill certain gender roles in society
3. That these two factors clash a lot

I thnk you could sum up allmost all modern conversations about feminism as being about those three things.

I don't agree with you about complaining. I think what you may be referring to though is chronic complaining--where you have complaints but never do anything about it. If you think about it, the basic impulse to complain isn't bad if you're looking to change something. Every inventor, entrepreneur etc has started out complaining that something in the world doesn't suit them. The same goes for people who fought slavery etc.
"The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's far more expensive to do things cheaply, and it's more democratic to do things in secret." - Jim Hacker "Yes Minister"

User avatar
New Edom
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23241
Founded: Mar 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New Edom » Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:50 pm

Jello Biafra wrote:
New Edom wrote:2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:



I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.

I agree with her on this issue.


So what is it exactly that you agree with in the article and in that section in particular and what do you think can be done about it?
"The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's far more expensive to do things cheaply, and it's more democratic to do things in secret." - Jim Hacker "Yes Minister"

Donut section
 
Founded:

Postby Donut section » Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:52 pm

New Edom wrote:
Donut section wrote:

As a "low status, unmarriageable man" who engages in dirty dangerous work i have a bone to pick with claiming we earn peanuts. Sure alot of us earn whatever we can get, but it's not due to some "patriarchy". It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets. And aside from the picking things up, putting them down over there part, our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.

We don't see feminism as the root of our problems, human nature is the root of our problems, our own failings. If anything our antagonism towards feminism is the threat to our futures.

Complaining changes nothing and should be ignored no matter who is doing it. Fixing it yourself is worth more than being given a solution by complaining. All we want is the freedom for all to fix themselves, without help.


I don't agree with the article, but I do find it interesting and worth looking at and discussing. What I personally believe is that the tensions surrounding feminism are about a few things:
1. That men and women are competitors in a lot of areas where they were not before
2. That generally people still accept the idea that men and women should fulfill certain gender roles in society
3. That these two factors clash a lot

I thnk you could sum up allmost all modern conversations about feminism as being about those three things.

I don't agree with you about complaining. I think what you may be referring to though is chronic complaining--where you have complaints but never do anything about it. If you think about it, the basic impulse to complain isn't bad if you're looking to change something. Every inventor, entrepreneur etc has started out complaining that something in the world doesn't suit them. The same goes for people who fought slavery etc.



I was more talking about complaining to government/whoever is in charge, to change how things are done instead of doing it themselves as the inventor/entrapranure would. I work in a world where effort is king. To see people demand improvement in their life, without expending the effort to earn their place, and others agree to just give them it, builds a lot of resentment. And a lack of trust in their ability.

User avatar
Mattopilos II
Minister
 
Posts: 2596
Founded: Feb 03, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Mattopilos II » Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:35 am

Donut section wrote:
New Edom wrote:
I don't agree with the article, but I do find it interesting and worth looking at and discussing. What I personally believe is that the tensions surrounding feminism are about a few things:
1. That men and women are competitors in a lot of areas where they were not before
2. That generally people still accept the idea that men and women should fulfill certain gender roles in society
3. That these two factors clash a lot

I thnk you could sum up allmost all modern conversations about feminism as being about those three things.

I don't agree with you about complaining. I think what you may be referring to though is chronic complaining--where you have complaints but never do anything about it. If you think about it, the basic impulse to complain isn't bad if you're looking to change something. Every inventor, entrepreneur etc has started out complaining that something in the world doesn't suit them. The same goes for people who fought slavery etc.



I was more talking about complaining to government/whoever is in charge, to change how things are done instead of doing it themselves as the inventor/entrapranure would. I work in a world where effort is king. To see people demand improvement in their life, without expending the effort to earn their place, and others agree to just give them it, builds a lot of resentment. And a lack of trust in their ability.


Well, I agree with this to a point. There is a point where law no longer has the desired effect, and it comes down to the tweaking of societal norms and attitudes.
Anarchist without adjectives, Post-Leftist, Anti-theist, STEM major.
“Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self.” - Max Stirner
“The victory of a moral ideal is achieved by the same ‘immoral’ means as every victory: force, lies, slander, injustice.” - Nietzsche
“Our duties - are the rights of others over us.” - Nietzsche

User avatar
Jello Biafra
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6401
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jello Biafra » Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:55 am

New Edom wrote:
Jello Biafra wrote:I agree with her on this issue.


So what is it exactly that you agree with in the article and in that section in particular and what do you think can be done about it?

She more or less explains it better in a different paragraph:

In patriarchal societies, elite males are able to support and protect multiple mates, enabling a renewal of polygyny; an underclass of unmated, low-status males make useful slaves and cannon fodder. Low-status males are duped into accepting their fate via manipulative social norms. Being treated as property is bad for women, but at least they are generally a valued resource in patriarchal societies; low-status men have it worse.


As far as what can be done about it, obviously ending patriarchy is the goal, but the steps along the way are the tricky part.

User avatar
Giovenith
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 21395
Founded: Feb 08, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Giovenith » Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:58 pm

I thought of a bit of a rhetorical query:

If you say "women should be treated equally to men" and then put men down, what does that say about how you want to treat women?
⟡ and in time, and in time, we will all be stars ⟡

User avatar
Bakery Hill
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11973
Founded: Jul 03, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Bakery Hill » Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:17 am

Giovenith wrote:I thought of a bit of a rhetorical query:

If you say "women should be treated equally to men" and then put men down, what does that say about how you want to treat women?

Nothing essentially. Should =/= is.
Founder of the Committee for Proletarian Morality - Winner of Best Communist Award 2018 - Godfather of NSG Syndicalism

User avatar
New Edom
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23241
Founded: Mar 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New Edom » Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:26 am

Giovenith wrote:I thought of a bit of a rhetorical query:

If you say "women should be treated equally to men" and then put men down, what does that say about how you want to treat women?


tiresomely: 'men are not systemically oppressed so blah blah blah' is what I'm sure one response would be. Anther would be accusing men of whining about feminism. There's very little honesty and fairness in the mainstream movement.
"The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's far more expensive to do things cheaply, and it's more democratic to do things in secret." - Jim Hacker "Yes Minister"

User avatar
Swith Witherward
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30350
Founded: Feb 11, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Swith Witherward » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:23 pm

★ Senior P2TM RP Mentor ★
How may I help you today?
TG Swith Witherward
Why is everyone a social justice warrior?
Why didn't any of you choose a different class,
like social justice mage or social justice thief?
P2TM Mentor & Personal Bio: Gentlemen, Behold!
Raider Account Bio: The Eternal Bugblatter Fennec of Traal!
Madhouse
Role Play
& Writers Group
Anti-intellectual elitism: the dismissal of science, the arts,
and humanities and their replacement by entertainment,
self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility. - sauce

User avatar
Neo Balka
Minister
 
Posts: 3124
Founded: Feb 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Balka » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:26 pm

Jello Biafra wrote:
New Edom wrote:
So what is it exactly that you agree with in the article and in that section in particular and what do you think can be done about it?

She more or less explains it better in a different paragraph:

In patriarchal societies, elite males are able to support and protect multiple mates, enabling a renewal of polygyny; an underclass of unmated, low-status males make useful slaves and cannon fodder. Low-status males are duped into accepting their fate via manipulative social norms. Being treated as property is bad for women, but at least they are generally a valued resource in patriarchal societies; low-status men have it worse.


As far as what can be done about it, obviously ending patriarchy is the goal, but the steps along the way are the tricky part.


That has got to be the biggest pile of Near psychotic levels of Illuminanti level bullshit i have ever seen.
The mere fact that i pissed someone off either means i stood for something or i said something offensive.
in this day and age it's both.
#garbagehumanbeing

User avatar
Philjia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11555
Founded: Sep 15, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Philjia » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:29 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:The "Shelley Garland" backstory has finally come to light.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/04/19/revealed-here-is-shelley-garland-and-why-he-did-it_a_22046533/

Validating my claim that anyone can write for the Huffington Post, which includes people who aren't real. Clearly I need to get in on this. I know I won't get paid but damn I could have some fun.

I especially like that the profile photo was just him in drag.
Last edited by Philjia on Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JG Ballard wrote:I want to rub the human race in its own vomit, and force it to look in the mirror.

⚧ Trans rights. ⚧
Pragmatic ethical utopian socialist, IE I'm for whatever kind of socialism is the most moral and practical. Pro LGBT rights and gay marriage, pro gay adoption, generally internationalist, ambivalent on the EU, atheist, pro free speech and expression, pro legalisation of prostitution and soft drugs, and pro choice. Anti authoritarian, anti Marxist. White cishet male.

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76676
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Conserative Morality » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:31 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:The "Shelley Garland" backstory has finally come to light.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/04/19/revealed-here-is-shelley-garland-and-why-he-did-it_a_22046533/

"I'm sorry I got caught"

Don't write 'satire' unless you're willing to claim it.
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
Jello Biafra
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6401
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jello Biafra » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:44 am

Neo Balka wrote:
Jello Biafra wrote:
As far as what can be done about it, obviously ending patriarchy is the goal, but the steps along the way are the tricky part.


That has got to be the biggest pile of Near psychotic levels of Illuminanti level bullshit i have ever seen.

Which part of it do you disagree with, and why?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aguaria Major, American Legionaries, Atrito, Bradfordville, Diopolis, Equai, Floofybit, Gragastavia, Greater Miami Shores 3, Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum, Hauthamatra, Kubra, La Xinga, Leranea, Molchistan, Mtwara, Perchan, Phage, Port Caverton, Stellar Colonies, Tarsonis, The Jamesian Republic, Xind

Advertisement

Remove ads