I have seen the future.

Wow. Somebody really, really doesn't like their own skin color.

It always saddens me when self-loathing learns to read books.

From:

missysedai.livejournal.com

Reverse racism is not a valid concept [...] Reverse sexism is not a valid concept

No kidding,you illiterate fucks. That's because there are only "racism" and "sexism". Words mean things, please do sit down and read the fucking dictionary so you can refresh your memory.

From:

jsbowden.livejournal.com

Oh but Maggie, the dictionaries are written by evil white men who hate everyone else, so they have no credibility.

The circular logic some of these morons manage to come up with...it's like crack, I'm reading the threads and the insanity is mindboggling, and strangely compelling...like a train wreck in slow motion.

From:

ursulav.livejournal.com

*grumblemuttersloppyfriggin'thinkinggrumblestupidparanormalidiotsfrothmutter*

From:

Did you see the wombat mating dance (http://www.livejournal.com/users/theweaselking/1307315.html) yesterday? I figured you'd appreciate that.

From:

They've disabled commenting for non-freinds. This means that they are now prejudiced agaisnt me, because they have power over me in this situation.

Fucking hypocrits.

IF FEMINISIM WAS COMPLETELY NON SEXIST IT WOULD BE CALLED ANDRONISIM!

ugh...

From:

ursulav.livejournal.com

Yes! That made me very happy.

From:

Feminism is inherently a gender-based notion - it is a movement that holds that women are equal to men and should be treated as such, and so it works to elevate the status of women.

Of course, I've just disqualified Andrea Dworkin from being called a feminist because of the "belief in the equality" part of that statement. Quick poll: Should there be a different word for people who work to raise the status of women *regardless* of the status of men? Should "feminist" cover both those seeking to raise women to equality and those seeking to raise women as superiors? Should a different word be for the equality-seekers as well, leaving "feminist" as "someone who works to raise the status of women" without regard for the eventual goal condition?

From:

It really comes down to semantics. Theoreticly, feminisim is based on the idea that women are equal to men, however, if it was an overall philospohy based on the idea that the sexes are equal, or should be equal, if wouldnt use an inherantly gender-biased term. This is not to say that I hate, or even dislike, the feminist movement as it were, I just think that, for the most part, they're using the wrong word.

These women are not feminists, however. These women are interested in using de-humanizing terms to better assault what they feel is "the other side" and in doing so, limit the abilities for a minority, and for a woman, to be capable of being a full person.

I may be a white male American, but my african-american wife feels the same way.

From:

kali-kali.livejournal.com

It's overcompensating in a way. People are so afraid to be called racist that they'll do everything that they can to appear the opposite. Though in reality, I find it is the people who trumpet everywhere "I'm so tolerant! I'm so tolerant!" who really aren't, because the second that someone disagrees with them on even a minute detail, they leap on them and scream "fascist!".

From:

The initial post actually didn't seem to be circular. It just redefined racism and sexism to be things which were inherently the result of people/institutions with power acting on their prejudices.

This has nothing to do with the ~~commonM~~[1] actual definitions of the terms, but if you're willing to use the words they use (or use Wilson's more sensible tactic of replacing them with words not yet defined), it's not circular.

Which is not to say it would not have me headdesking if I weren't otherwise engaged.
---
[1] I hesitate to say actual, but I want to. Oh, hell with it. Actual.

From:

Really? I find that behaviour only from the extreme lunatic fringe, like the "Libertarians" on the crazy-right end and the ultra-feminists and eco-loonies on the crazy right.

Got an example of what you're talking about?

From:

I think that if it were an overall philosophy based on the idea that the sexes were equal in a gender-neutral world, it would use a different term.

As is, I figure "feminism" is a handy term to use to indicate "we seek gender equality by promoting the lot of women until it is equal to that of men" as opposed to, say, "we seek gender equality by reducing the lot of men until it is equal to that of women".

From:

Right. This particular instance bothers me because it's so *obvious*. Rather than relax and promote universal tolerance (which, by the way, is the ONE TRUE WAY, though I'd be a hypocrite if I said I was anywhere *close* to that -- I have very little tolernace for several people, though it has nothing to do with race, color or creed), let's descend into a tedious verbal gymnastics competition.

Necause it's eaier to regurgitate somoene else's literary diarrhea than to admit, once and for all, that I hate myself.

Wait... let's not.

From:

None that don't meet your criteria, personally.

From:

> Wow. Somebody really, really doesn't like their own skin color.

I recommend tattoos.

From:

Better yet, let's use words that don't even exist, like "Necause".

I suck.

From:

Well, since we're busy re-defining words to mean things that they don't we may as well just throw out the entire dictionary.

From:

No, no. Then they'd be accused of trying to *hide* the fact that they're white people. And nothing's worse than that. It would put their deep-seeded shame out there for all to see.

God. Why can't they just put on some black lipstick and blare the NIN like everyone else?

From:

The modern dictionary is irrelevant anyway. So many words are only in there because the popular culture has used them so often that they've infected the language.

Fo' shizzle, ma nizzle.

From:

I can see the idea, and it makes sense. To a point. The problem comes in "when" the balance is reached. Do we just then toss the term? Not to mention the (not sarcasm!)tiny little effect it has on excluding males.

From:

<>"Should there be a different word for people who work to raise the status of women *regardless* of the status of men?"

The word you're looking for is "Ovaryan".

(Totally made that up.)

It's "sexist", plain and simple. If you fall into the trap of assigning new words to concepts that should apply regardless of what side of the fence you're on, it makes you no better than these anal-retentive bigots.

From: