AWKWARD ZOMBIE

@The Idiotic Oracle, what is the point of your post? I mean, what is the point of taking a direction like "I will explain to you what is the truth" when you took all the people here who aren't okay with your idea for some idiots who don't want to hear the truth? (And this is the "nice example" from your post, you are way more harsh on it)

If you are like an oracle, you better use some mirror if people are so stupid. Don't waste everyone's time to explain thing to them when you will, in the end, treat them like they are the most stupid, stubborn idiot in the planet.

There is a difference between "Constructive debate, criticism" and "Arrogance and disrespectful behavior", you just showed it right here.

Ps: I don't feel touched by your post if it is what you think. Actually, the topic of this debate doesn't interest me but the form and the tone of your post actually bother me.

What she's saying is that the people who were mainly in charge of academia for centuries were straight, white, cis men, and that people are making a stink when people who aren't straight, white, cis men provide their valid research and their findings and their words. She never once claimed that there are absolutely no non-tumblr sources, there are plenty. Most of the time they just go ignored.

I'm not entirely sure that's what the stink is about, Lolita. If someone posts research related to this topic, it's usually more that the research is used to say things like "kill all white people" or other rediculously miguided, and drastic statements. People are taking the research and using it to justify their shitty actions, like being rude to white people BECAUSE they're white "because this research says white people are shitty people". The color and gender of the person who made the research usually isn't even known, it's the guy using the research.

There are always misinterpreted studies, texts, quotes, etc. Non-white people don't have the monopoly of that. Don't forget that this happened the other way many times in the past, and still happens, to black and white and straight and gay and cisgendered and non-cisgendered people. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
However, it is hardly disputable that it still happens more to non-white, non-cis people. Being angry at this is understandable.

I also never said that POC were the ones doing it. I said "people", as in "people in general".

You implied it, as most white people won't say "kill all white people".

We don't know who's saying it, because the ones saying it are usually behind an anonymous, faceless profile. I didn't imply anything, you took my statement as an implication.

If anything, you guys are generalizing by saying they HAVE to be people of color if they're saying statements like that.

It was unclear. Now that you've clarified that it wasn't your intention, we can leave it at that, I believe.

While I disagree with generalizing the forum as being completely incapable of incorporating proper terminology when referring to trans* or other minorities, Oracle brings up valid points in what is actually a nicely-worded, calm manner. You have grown a lot, Oracle.

I see people claiming that users on this forum only disagree/criticize/make fun of these terms when they're used to validate hatred or seem to come from a case of "special snowflake", but I have been on this forum long enough to have seen people complain about the term cisgender, mock the variety of sexual orientations, and see lots of genuine SJ posts as laughable. I know when I was first introduced to the terms I thought they were strange and superfluous, but constant exposure to them has helped me see them for what they are - correct.

Oracle's post may come off a bit soapbox-like and unwarranted, but as I said, she makes very valid points and I think it's a good read.

Just remember, discussion and debate are fine, but be civil.

Oh definitely. The words themselves don't bother me. I've actually (believe it or not) heard them used outside in more academic settings myself. What irks me is the use.

What the real problem could be is that most of the SJ content we see ARE the ridiculous ones, where someone is intentionally rude to people "because privilege," and we see very little of the legitimate cases.

This is true. It's why I sometimes think the "Dumb Comments/Screencaps" thread can be a bit toxic. It seems to only validate people's views while offering nothing to support the other side. For those that don't do research, or don't expose themselves to SJ environments, it is very misleading and can cause people to see things in a very narrow-minded manner.

(Not suggesting the thread be locked, just saying people need to get out on the internet more.)

But all of my stuff is here...

I'm not sure it's fair to claim that thread is 'toxic'; isn't the point of it to show over the top dumb stuff because its over the top and shouldn't be taken as the average?

The biggest issue I have with anything related to SJW stuff is hypocrisy and extremism. Sexism does not just target women. Racism does not just target POC. "Reverse racism" isn't "racism against whites". Wearing a sari or woven sandals or even a headdress doesn't make you a culturally rapacious cis monster. Being white doesn't mean you're automatically better off. It doesn't mean you're automatically racist any more than any other race is. Japan still proudly displays "no niggers admitted" style signs on their properties, but it's okay because they're ~mystical~ and ~gentle~ and ~beautiful~! People hold America up as a bastion of entrenched racism and glorify other nations for an insultingly bland American stereotype of their magical enlightened cultures, yet are also the first to tell you that when other countries discriminate against foreign (or fuck, even non-foreign) races (including non-white ones!) the victims deserve it because it because... history? Or sometimes even no reason. But if history tells us anything, it's that taking your personal impression of an entire group and running with it is a-okay! That's why black slavery worked out so well. If they were so smart, why couldn't most of them read? Check-mate.

When I see sentiments like misandry and "kill the whites" and "push pregnant bitches over, traitorous whores" and statements that claim restricting everyone to their own race and their own assigned culture as construed by blood content and skin color would be best (segregation?), I feel this sucking sense of horrified hopelessness. They react the same way to someone who says "hey it's not really reasonable of you to pigeonhole all people with <whatever>skin as being such and such a way, even if it's 'positive'" as they would to a slew of meaningless insults. They respond to things like "if you're really in favor of equality and ending racism, why do you continue to bash this or that group exclusively, and with such violent sentiments" with a put-down that explains away how selective equality makes any sense. They boil legitimate questions down to toddler-esque drooling replacements, "i heard that if you're fat you're dumb and doctors don't even agree with you so there!" and then respond with overly verbose, official explanations that themselves boil down to "No YOU'RE dumb!"

Something being part of "academia" doesn't make it automatically legitimate either. Eugenics was the big beloved thing in America for a long goddamn time. It had government support and everything. Academics were all in a tizzy for it, researching the best ways to sterilize uppity women and minorities and handicapped people and other "undesirables."

I'm not saying Oracle is wrong. The preceding stuff was thoughts on the current state of the most vocal parts of the movement in general. But I am saying everyone is subject to bias, and the second you start trying to justify a double-standard (I know I said everyone should be treated fairly, but...) you are going down a dangerous path. And I'm saying that SJW, if parts of it have been formed by legitimate and reasonable people, has been twisted, corrupted and taken over by an angry mob. If people associated with those ideals want to be taken seriously anymore, the unfortunate truth is that they need to put a bigass fence between them and the people demanding a blood sacrifice. Will people still find the reasonable parts anyway? Of course. I've said multiple times on this subject that SJW, even the extremist ones, have excellent ideas that deserve to be heard out and considered. That doesn't mean they are always right, though, or overall reasonable.

I think this is not what Oracle meant with her post. It's not about people that want to "kill the white", it's about respect towards people that think long and hard about these issues, where they come from, what to do about them, and want these issues, these differences, to be recognized - and what better way to recognize them, if not by actively supporting these people, than to integrate the words they use to your language?
Some people are stupid, some of them use generalization or bad arguments to push their hateful ideas - but why stop at these people? Just because they're the most vocal ones? Isn't that unfair? What reasons could there be to not accept these words? They describe things that exist. Just because they're used by people you dislike doesn't invalidate them.