AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I don't think they need to be called anything, paying attention to people like that just diverts attention from the issues that are worth discussing.

Well that's kind of the problem, extremists call themselves feminists, and people who want something as crazy and unheard of as, say, women making the same pay as a man for working the same job (yes I'm being sarcastic) also call themselves feminist.

Personally I'm ok with using a disgusting word to describe a disgusting group of people, but I can see why it would be offensive. It's probably immature of me to think that way, but at the same time these people (the extremists) are responsible for pushing unreasonable agendas that causes more reasonable people to end up waving off all discussion, including actual legitimate social rights concerns, which in my eyes is a pretty terrible thing to do.

If you look at it from the flip side of the argument, (Not trying to invoke Goodwins law here) there were probably quite a lot of "moderate" nazis as well, but the word stuck to the ones driving the war machine and committing the acts. At some point, the now moderate label will migrate to the extremists and you wouldn't be able to call yourself "feminist" without also being labelled as an extremist. (Again, I'm not trying to compare nazis to feminists.) At some point it will be useful to have an agreed upon term to refer to the extremists before it becomes "feminist".

A decent argument, but what sense does it really make to discuss what term should be used? The term used for them will solely be determined by the media.

I guess the counterpoint would be "why argue against calling them something"? We have seen it happen quite a lot the last few pages where people are arguing about what someone has called them and how that is either inappropriate or insensitive or some other argument. My point was rather that people are using terms to refer to them and instead of arguing about those terms and trying to get others to call them something else, why not discuss the issue because everyone knows who you are referring to when you say "femi-nazi", "extremist" or "misogynist". The term isn't what is important.

I think terminology is important in discussing ideas, and that having terms too vague lumps together differing viewpoints that might not necessarily belong together. That being said, having a term to describe a (ridiculous) point of view is probably not the best way to get both sides to adapt that term.

I find it horrifying that Bill Cosby has been thrown under the bus so fast. I strongly dislike the guilty-until-proven-innocent approach that other comedians and entertainers have taken just so they can throw out a few cheap and easy jokes to get shock laughs. Both parties involved in these allegations need to be treated with respect.

Comedians do that all the time though

I understand that they do it all the time, but that doesn't make it sit any better with me. It just shows how shallow Hollywood relationships are, how fast people are willing to turn on one another to save face and be seen as righteous.

Doing it all the time doesn't necessarily make it right. If anything, it just makes it more likely that the whole thing is giving in to the appeal to tradition fallacy.

You know..."Why change the current system if it works just fine?" "Because the new system might just be better."

I haven't been following this case at all, but at first glance it seems the accusations are incredibly serious. 15 women have stepped forward pretty much independently. You said something about him being thrown under the bus so fast, but I read the first accusation dates back from 2002.

That said, the media circus is of course disgusting as usual, and everybody has the right to a proper trial. Sadly though, this type of behaviour is hardly surprising any more.

I can hardly believe it. I'm too creeped out by it to look into it. Though it does make me wonder if the 15 women coming forward are really telling the truth. I'm all for anonimity when talking about horrifying events that you don't want to be personally tied to you, but it still makes me wonder if they're real.

Not all of them have remained anonymous, and I think the court at least has to know their identity for their testimony to have weight in court. There's absolutely no need for the supposed victims to receive further stress from having their identities made public. Ideally, I'd like it if the identity of every one involved in a trial (including the prosecuted) is kept secret until it's resolved, but unfortunately media is too big of a business for that to happen (also there might be some concern raised over the validity of the court without transparency).

You know what really gets on my nerves? Double standards.

Examples (I'm posting this here because Current events will go apeshit)

tumblr users being racist against white people and claiming it "isn't racism" because "white people are awful"
Racism defined int he oxford is:



if we apply that to people saying fuck all whites and insert the "ones own race" with POC and other non white bianaries what do we get?

Textbook racism.
What makes it okay for people to say that about someone who's not a POC or other minority
I'm not advocating the case in Ferguson. This isnt about that. I'm just a little fed up with people demonizing other people. It just makes no sense when people are whining about "ohh people are so racist!" and then go turn around and play the "fuck white people" card.

Its considered "acceptable" to say that about white people because white people are prviliged enough that they almost never encounter actual institutional racism in every day life, which is how most people think of the term "racism" these days.