Vader182 wrote:First off, let me say I'm way too lazy right now to quote each thing properly. Second off, I don't remember necessarily advocating what Keegan said, or how he said it. Keegan's a blunt soul, which he explained everything in his second post. Basically, he had an issue with her broader behavior, some of which you supposedly claim she totally doesn't care about (like being called a whore for posting naked images on the internet), and that was merely the latest run of things she was doing. See, unlike most users on the board that flirt or whatever, she doesn't show up often, but when she does, a huge number of her posts concern sex in some form or another, it sexualizes her general 'persona', and that persona itself begets invitations of attention and so forth. This is obvious stuff and surely you would not disagree. It's the same way Armand pretty much only posts fairly serious definitive statements with logic and vocabulary, and so forth. It creates a pretentious persona (one he's proud of) as a credible and informed member of the film community, or at least the one that exists on this website. How you post and behave in general basically is how 'you' are, i.e. actions are what define you batman face. Now, I'd be hesitant to speak directly for Chee stating she's accepting of comments including the usually inflammatory word 'whore'. But, enough of that, I think you can understand Keegan's point of view and what ultimately let to his colorful language (which also had his typical Keegan charm, even if more mean spirited than we're usually used to). I'm not sure it's a 'good' persona to have, since sexualizing yourself for attention- well, it's not a becoming persona according to most. I mean, one of my ex-girlfriends is a 'dancer' and we're still close and so on, so don't rush out and accuse me of harsh moral judgements.
Okay but why should we care? We're not chee's moral police. If you really think her decisions are wrong, then let her take responsibility for her reactions by herself.
Maybe I'm looking at this in a different way simply because I'm more of a progressive thinker. I am more sex positive, which means anything concerning sexual stuff, as long as it's not illegal or dangerous or whatever, is totally fine. I mean it's just a body, it's just a human body, what's the big deal exactly? Why are we so afraid of ourselves? People like prince0gotham freak right the fuck out at that shit and then go on a rant about how it's "morally wrong" or something. My main point is Keegan's "issue with her broader behavior" made little sense. Keegan really shouldn't have been surprised to be called sexist. I think this speaks more on Keegan's possible mild insecurity.
Actually, it accomplishes everything, that's the whole point. If I walk into an impoverished neighborhood (a ghetto) decked out in obviously expensive clothing and I, shockingly, get robbed, well shit. It's 100% the mugger's fault! Fuck no, that's ridiculous. "Culpability" implies there were things you could do to avoid the reaction you didn't want. So, if I'm not paying attention to the road and somebody hits me that was at fault, well, I'm probably at least partially to blame since, had I been paying attention, I could have potentially taken maneuvers to avoid the accident, and thus relieving the situation of much cluterfuckedness. If you can do something to relieve or help the situation and you don't, by the nature of all rationality and language and logic, some of the percentage of the blame falls on you, objectively. So, this basically means if you're aware of this stuff, you can necessarily take measures to make your life easier, and the life of people around you, while pushing your own agenda in a deliberate and smart manner.
It accomplishes nothing because victim blaming itself advocates the act of violence or perpetration. It says the victim somewhat deserved to get their ass kicked. If I'm not paying attention to the road and cause a crash then it's my fault entirely because an oncoming car simply cannot be avoided and they're doing everything right. If you're walking into an impoverished neighborhood with the
express intent of getting mugged, then yes you're asking literally for it, but otherwise you're not. The mugger is not doing everything right, he's making a decision to be violent, and this is not an act of nature. Action can be taken to try and prevent that violence in the first place, which is more important.
Uhm, I thought I already did? And I meant the latter.
Basically, feminism, queer theory, whatever, put special emphasize on the specific singular characteristics of your identifier group. It's pretty difficult to assimilate when you're so busy emphasizing how much you're different and unique, it's ideologically self-defeating. And make no mistake, assimilating is what you want-- to be a functioning member of society where you're just 'somebody else' that has special 'differences' just like 'everybody' totally does. There's no potential for 'special' discrimination if you market yourself as one of a community, and go about that in a smart way. I mean, I'm a Catholic (woohoo, I just lost anyone still reading this!), and these days that's basically taboo in 'thinking' circles. But, I don't go about it in this jarring and attention grabbing way, I do my best to present my faith when it's thematically appropriate, and in as reasonable a way as possible that people can empathize with. Empathy is the key here, and how on earth can the 'status quo' empathize with you if you're 'so' different. Marxist philosophy changes/fixes all that. It's basically about how the disempowered need to gain status quality culturally, and so on. So, this is how feminism, and things like it, have done shit loads of damage. It is necessarily alienating to people, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen even liberal friends puke at even modest feminists, and I attend a university that 'celebrates cultural diversity." Yeah.
That's not an example of "shitloads of damage", that's the point of those movements. Those groups need to specifically point out the singular characteristics because those characteristics are discriminated against or oppressed. If this doesn't happen, nothing would get accomplished. The purpose is not to assimilate, it's to be accepted as different. You're looking at this from the perspective of "these groups need to move closer
us" when the better alternative is to adapt the
us in order to accept differences or accept change.
You don't really need to be jarring about being a Catholic because Catholics really haven't been oppressed or restricted in broad ways. In fact, no offense to you Vader, but Catholics have traditionally been part of the oppressor group. It's very easy for someone who's already part of the status quo to tell these movements to calm down. It's also easy for you because you're someone who accepts arguments if they are presented well, however many people don't think like that. We don't live in an ideal world where rational arguments are accepted without dismissal. Many parts of the status quo believe so strongly in tradition or convention that anything that questions that is immediately dismissed.
The point is not to be part of the status quo, the point is to dissolve the status quo to some degree so marginalization won't occur in the future. The point is not to move closer to conventional society, the point is to break down the conventionality in the first place. I think the fact that the movements can be alienating is because, like I mentioned before, quietly "assimilating" simply wasn't enough.
Because of this stubbornness of society, there needs to be a way for movements to oppose that force in a way that inspires change. As we learned from
, people need dramatic example to shake them out of apathy. That's a big part of what these movements do, they are necessarily loud and provocative because the opaqueness of the status quo requires it.
If she plays cranium she gives good brainium.
