What is this I don't even

"they said i could do anything if i put my mind to it; so i did, and it broke."

Saw a Pueo the other night on my run. Lucky.

Certainly not quite politically correct, and off by a day, but…

Certainly not quite politically correct, and off by a day, but…

In a thread some time ago about ringworlds, /tg/ has a small, touching moment amidst a discussion about primitive people’s ability to discern the shape of their world. (Might be a bit indiscernible without opening the high-res version)

In a thread some time ago about ringworlds, /tg/ has a small, touching moment amidst a discussion about primitive people’s ability to discern the shape of their world. (Might be a bit indiscernible without opening the high-res version)

Some people… some people are just born more poetic than others, I guess.

Some people… some people are just born more poetic than others, I guess.

Thoughts: Privilege Theory

A friend of a friend invoked the “check your privilege” cliché in an argument today, and I felt I hadn’t the time to properly elucidate upon why, as someone in academia, the concept and more importantly the practical execution of privilege theory is so repugnant to me. So I think I’ll try to encapsulate things here, because, unlike with University papers, I needn’t worry as to anyone reading this.

Privilege theory is anathema to intellectual integrity because it perpetuates around those departments who invoke it a bubble within which those rules and conventions which normally dictate proper academic behavior no longer apply. We are taught that free speech is the gold standard by which good societies are measured, that the making of any topic taboo is indicative only of an individual or group’s cowardly desire to render themselves immune from censure, that ideas should be judged by their intrinsic qualities and internal consistency, not their extrinsic circumstances; Circumstances such as gender, creed, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, or class.We recognize that ideas matter, and that the person who put them forth should not – to wit, “The author is dead.”

Everything changes when your ideas can be preemptively silenced or questioned solely on merit of who authored them. In a space where someone can simply decide that you are unqualified or unable to understand a subject because of who you are and your history or your family’s history, free speech becomes impossible. Worse, as those ideas which are acceptable to voice invariably become smaller and smaller in number as more and more subjects and modes of thought are disbarred from the conversation on grounds that their advocate or content is “too cissexist”, “too privileged”, or any other convenient variant of “not close enough to the dogma”, discourse and the quality thereof diminishes into the state of an echo chamber. Speech differing in any way from that of the instructor’s becomes more and more rare as students are negatively reinforced against such behavior by watching their peers who dare to engage in such speech torn apart by someone who has the power to exempt you from the conversation at will for daring to question. Fear precludes the possibility of interesting and innovative thought, especially when voicing an opinion the instructor does not like negatively influences all exchanges of information in the future, as well as one’s term grade.

Fear of expression should never be a part of academia. Being judged as to the particulars of your random, unbidden circumstances of birth as opposed to the quality of your thought should never be a part of discourse. Yet, we cannot touch these departments, as the very nature of their adherence to such theory makes them resistant to any input, painting any criticism, constructive or otherwise, as a threat. They are the sacred calf that cannot be discussed in any light but the positive, protected by the skewed-and-backward-in-any-other-setting argument that anyone who does so will be automatically branded as a racist and/or sexist.

There is a reason for the distancing of other departments from those in question, and it is not sexism, racism, or any of the other –isms that the lazy and ignorant would care to invent in order to attack persons as opposed to their arguments. It is that those departments who subscribe to privilege theory and actively employ it have forsaken the pursuit of free thought and intelligent discourse for a neo-luddite, August Comte-esque regimen of “cerebral hygiene”. It is that those who openly question as to why the Emperor has no clothes have an alarming proclivity for losing their jobs before they are tenured. It is the setting of the geocentric college kicking the heliocentrist out without directly addressing their ideas, only their label, and it frightens me that so many buy into it without realizing that. 










this never gets old

I met the creator of this a month ago and he said he got a lot of hate mail from dudebros who thought that he was a woman complaining about these problems.

If you haven’t seen Scott Benson’s “But I’m A Nice Guy” watch it here.

"Earl Silverman, the owner of Canada’s only shelter for male victims of domestic abuse, killed himself Friday, according to several media reports.

Silverman was found hanging in the garage of his own home in northeast Calgary, where he had run the Men’s Alternative Safe House (MASH). He had just sold the property because he could no longer afford to operate the shelter, The National Post reports.

He had paid for the shelter out of his own pocket, but could not raise enough money from either government or private donations, reports The Calgary Herald. The shelter accommodated about 20 men and some children while it was open.

In a four-page suicide note, Silverman blamed the government for failing to recognize male victims of domestic abuse and for not providing enough services to help those in need of, the Post reports. MASH was not recognized by any government agency, according to The Beacon News”“

Tell him how he’s ‘laid low by matriarchy’.

Tell every male abuse victim how they’re ‘laid low by matriarchy’ and how you drink their ‘male tears’.

I hate this post and everytime I see it, I cringe so hard my teeth hurt.


this has nothing to do with male domestic violence victims?? besides domestic violence towards male victims is covered in the feminist movement and i do send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of this man, but his death has nothing to do with the original message

You realize feminism was the reason Silverman’s shelter did not receive funding, right? It’s also the reason statistics about gender symmetry in DV is being suppressed and why many laws restrict men from accessing services as DV victims. They can even get arrested when they call the police for help when they are being abused. Earl Silverman wrote in his suicide note that he hoped his death would bring attention to what he went through just to create a single safe space for men. So if you actually care about his death, you’ll educate yourself about what’s actually going on. 

The point of sailorsoldierofjustice’s post is to point out that misandry isn’t a cute little tumblr joke; its a real thing affecting people’s lives and this “lol male tears” attitude is just reinforcing the traditionalist idea that men should not express their emotions— that when they complain about ill-treatment they’re being whiny and pathetic. Please tell me the “original message” or this animation was if not to mock people like Earl Silverman, who are bringing attention to how men are disadvantaged (which feminism is actively contributing to whether you like to believe it or not) and men’s right’s issues. 

the reason that his funding was denied was because the dehumanizing and harassment of male DV victims. do you have any idea /who/ propagates the idea that men can’t be abused because their supposed to be “stronger” than females and be able to defend themselves? do you know it’s men who spread the stereotypes that they should enjoy sexual abuse

men dehumanize male DV victims. men are the ones who refused to fund this man money because of the stereotype than women need to be saved and men can’t be hurt. your stupid mentality of picking out the most radical and ignorant of a movement and then invalidating the whole movement pisses me off to no end.

the feminist movement actively supports the destruction of the gender roles that invalidate a man’s emotions and abolish the thought that a man can /ever/ be hit by their partner with no reasoning behind it

as for the point of the video, if you perceive it that way be my guest but if you were to actually look at the first scene, it has nothing to do with the men who fight for gender equality or valid points of the men’s rights movement, but rather the men who /do/ benefit more than women from things like the pay gap and gender roles and, when a women attempts to fight that or call them out, claim misandry.

of course the feminist movement focuses on female rights, as that’s what the movement was originally created for and still surrounds, however it /does/ care about male abuse victims and men’s rights and contributes to that movement whenever possible

Wrong. The provincial government and the Minister responsible for Status of Women  were the authorities which denied funding. Guess who’s in charge of that latter? (hint:it’s not men). When he tried to get a discrimination hearing, who was he facing off against but an attorney from the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters. Oh, and who gets to vet reports on DV to make sure they don’t show findings that are detrimental to women—Minister for Status of Women again. Are you really so naive as to think that feminist don’t run these organizations? Heck, did you read the links or even my actual post? It’s feminists, not men, who are actively trying to suppress studies that show gender symmetry. This is not theoretical; these are actual feminist individuals doing actual things to hurt the cause for recognition of male victims.This evidence destabilizes the feminist axiom that DV is an extension of misogyny and patriarchal power. Recognition of male victims hurts them politically. Who do you think runs the shelters (often run on taxpayer money) that deny services for male victims? Do you think it’s just some people? Many of them are set up in accordance with feminist ideology. Who the hell do you think are responsible for the discriminatory policies in VAWA!? And who was fighting against that gender neutral version of VAWA. Well, the largest feminist organization in America for one thing. 

You linked two examples of “active” support. And I’m left wondering if you understand what “active” means. Both those articles are just feel good “feminism helps men” nonsense that never gives a single concrete example of feminists actually doing anything to help men. I didn’t even see an acknowledgement of male victims. You can’t just say “oh we’re helping you!” while simultaneously doing a combination of nothing and blocking any attempts made to help men. That’s like me saying I don’t want any animals to suffer while I feed a bag full of puppies through a woodchipper. Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. I’m actually insulted by the horrible transparency of both of those “examples” you linked. 

"abolish the thought that a man can /ever/ be hit by their partner with no reasoning behind it"

Oh I see. So it’s okay to hit your male partner if there’s a reason. That sure is a big change from "you should never hit a woman". But I guess I can see what your saying. Like, I don’t know, if a woman is using “preemptive self defense because she’s scared of the big violent man oh I’m sorry “primary aggressor” who is terrorizing her even without initiating violence, right? 

"but rather the men who /do/ benefit more than women from things like the pay gap and gender roles and, when a women attempts to fight that or call them out, claim misandry."

a)how many people need to debunk the "pay gap" before people stop acting like its real? 

b) women also frequently benefit more than men (the massive sentencing gap, more reproductive rights, no conscription, more attention to women’s health issues than men’s, being preferred in child custody and divorce settlements). Why then are men being targeted in this animation? Just about every feminist I’ve ever addressed female privilege with has tried to claim these are all actually because of “misogyny”. Let that sink in. Their privileges are a result of them being hated and discriminated against. The irony of this animation is that is a more accurate portrayal of feminists than any man I have ever met. 

"however it /does/ care about male abuse victims"

Here’s a woman claiming Silverman’s death wasn’t feminism’s fault by citing the same biased statistics the man spent years fighting against. (Men don’t ~really~ need shelters)

Here’s a popular feminist site joking about women beating their boyfriends. Check the women justifying their abuse in the comments section!

Here’s feminists in India blocking gender neutral rape laws because women could be prosecuted as rapists and that “silences the real victims” (i.e. women) 

This is a strange way of “caring” about male victims. 

"and men’s rights and contributes to that movement whenever possible"


I’m serious; name one time. 

Point of fact;
"the feminist movement actively supports the destruction of the gender roles that invalidate a man’s emotions and abolish the thought that a man can /ever/ be hit by their partner with no reasoning behind it"
It sure is funny how, when women are thought to be at risk, feminism directly addresses their victimization as well as the alleged gender roles, yet when it comes to men, they’re just addressing the gender roles.
Also, how does calling DV ” (men’s) violence against women" and " (M>F) gendered violence" help improve recognition of male victims again? Or, for example, how does a cartoon literally depicting men who actually talk about their problems as whining, spoiled children encourage men to talk about their problems? The guy who made this basically said that if his cartoon was a straw man, it was MRA’s fault for being so strawmannable, and he had no responsibility to be accurate.
The animator makes it pretty clear he was mocking what he thinks MRAs are. He made no reference to any “good ones” or suchlike. The video does not imply that there are any “good MRAs”. It’s clearly a parody of all of them, as most people have interpreted it. And if most people have “misinterpreted” it, that’s his fault.
It’s also interesting that your next to last paragraph, which I’ve bolded, only describes men as MRAs. Which is wrong. And sexist against women*. And, sadly, quite commonly found in feminists trying to defend “satires” of MRAs which make the exact same mistake. You just demonstrated that you don’t really know much more about MRAs than the animator does.
PS: I especially like how you use a website that says society stigmatizes and silences male abuse victims, using almost exclusively non-gendered language, as evidence that men stigmatize male abuse victims. (It also refers to boys abused by adult women, not adult F>M DV victims.) I just skimmed the linked PDF, and Page 8 (#532) clearly describes a kid going to his mom for protection and she just ignores him. The rest of it doesn’t really seem to gender those who stigmatize male abuse victims one way or another.
You just presented evidence that weakens your position. And makes you look like you’re lacking in reading comprehension. Perhaps you shouldn’t respond while tired.
* Unless you didn’t actually know there are female MRAs, in which case I think you should probably stop typing before you embarrass yourself even further.

(Source: arrdeearr)


SYABM #comic 04 “Undercover Color Commentary”

"I Shouldn’t Have to Dip My Nails In a Drink to Reduce My Risk of Rape"; Time.com editorial by Soraya Chemaly

Here’s the Imgur thread that inspired this comic, which has some lovely comments, including the suggestion that it should come in a men’s version. I had thought that SJWs were supporting Undercover Colors, but according to Know Your Meme, reaction among them has been…mixed.

I find it appalling that there are so many feminists who want rape to be fought, as long as it doesn’t involve treating women like adults with any responsibility for their own safety. I’ve even seen some argue that teaching women anti-rape tips just means some other girl is going to be raped. No only is this a Perfect Solution fallacy, it treats rape as some sort of hot potato that’s passed from one woman to the next.

A lot of college programs that teach students how to be safer are pushed for and run by feminists who sincerely want to make women safer. Which means that the people getting called misogynist, Patriarchal victim-blamers for giving safety tips may well be other feminists.

Elsewhen, in Soraya Chemaly.

Highlight of the day: Conversation on /tg/ somehow turned to the subject of  fat knights. Someone suggests the best nickname: "The Thick of Battle."

You’re a loose cannon, Detective Reddit. But you’re a damn good cop.

You’re a loose cannon, Detective Reddit. But you’re a damn good cop.


The Carpool lane for bikes — bikepool lane?

"Onward, steed!"


The Carpool lane for bikes — bikepool lane?

"Onward, steed!"





Guys Do You Realize that when this kid grows up he’s going to see these

yeah cuz the future king has nothing better to do than waste his life on this shithole of a website

You really think this website will be here in 10 or 11 years?

All these reblogs will be lost in time, like #KONY2012.

Time to 404

(Source: karinaisab)

Reddit's Law Enforcement Community

r/ProtectAndServe gives an interesting perspective into law enforcement professionals’ mentality as to the goings-on in Ferguson at the moment. For better or worse, worth a brief look.

Another gem from the archives.

Another gem from the archives.