privilege as a meme

b-but I'm demisexual

every time I read that word, I think http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/stylewatch/gallery/red_lips/demi_moore.jpg

oh man, that tumblr

^ review of her work on striptease?

http://aseasonedplateofmurder.tumblr.com/post/57764676625/idk-how-frank-is-supposed-to-help-me-pay-rent-if

I have to step away from that tumblr

and actually that was the post that made me realize I needed to step away, lol

it's ok, the next 200 posts are about Dr. Who

ok this is an obvious troll because there's a REALLY NSFW picture

http://aseasonedplateofmurder.tumblr.com/post/57764676625/idk-how-frank-is-supposed-to-help-me-pay-rent-if

― mh, Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:13 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is the most important piece of writing i have ever read on the internet

lmbo

focusing on the most extreme, earnest, insane examples of the subject is ALSO a diversionary tactic imo

conservativeginger likes this

there's no way in crap this isn't a parody blog. seems to have a large following from the kind-of conservatives who make macros about Obama congratulating people for being gay instead of saving Benghazi

sorry abt Benghazi I was getting gay married

smoking gun's in the description, don't even have to read a post:

I am a socialist who believes that more government regulation is the best for all people.

find me a socialist who puts it like that

also this

I like how she's all "have morals, go socialist" in her header but capes up for democrats whenever anyone criticizes them from the left.

― s. cloverlandthug (The Reverend), Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:50 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

suggests that it's someone from the libertarianish right who is anti-nsa but thinks "leftist" means "Democrat" (means "socialist"), like the people who thought occupy was obama astroturf

or idk maybe it's a college girl, people are weird

thirteen-minute gap between those posts clearly belying my "don't even have to read a post"

Who the fuck are you as a white person or straight person (or man, able person, etc.) to tell me as a black person or queer person (or woman, disabled person, etc.) that I can't be angry or sad about the things I or other people in those groups experience?

i feel you here for sure, and that's what i was getting at when i was like

like i recognize and honor the validity of all kinds of emotional responses to heavy information

i don't think anybody gets to tell people who've been subject to the violences of patriarchy or white supremacy or ableism how to feel about their experience.

separate from that fact, apart from the notion that no one gets to tell (i was gonna say you, then i was gonna say us, then i was gonna say you--fuck me, this shit is complicated for me) how to feel or whether those feelings are justified or useful or reasonable--shouldn't we be willing to ask ourselves if anger is our best response? anger can be cleansing, in lots of times and places its the only thing there is to feel, but in other times and places there might be ways *better for our damn selves* to approach the things that incite rage. catharsis notwithstanding.

but like i said, i don't fuckin know.

like call me a corny motherfucker but i know that as much as anger can empower the angered love can transform the one loving and the one loved, and i just wonder what it would look like if we tried to build our engagements with one another on that instead

i'm not tryin to whitesplain nothin to nobody or anything i'm just trying to feel my way through this shit cause its complicated to me

like my dude saw the zimmerman verdict come down, and the big discourse about racism it jump started, and he was like "ok, what's the best thing anti-racist white people can do right now to educate other white people about racism?" and he decided to start the i am not trayvon martin tumblr, where people started talking about white privilege and how the experience of POC is different in a society based on white supremacy and why a white boy in a hoodie could never say "i am trayvon martin." before long folks on tumblr put him on blast for "putting white people's white guilt front and center AGAIN," and it's just like damn, i don't think my dude deserved a medal or whatever ("do you want a cookie??" came up a lot) but he was operating from a place of love on an anti-racist impulse and the internet outrage machine just shat all over him, and i just don't understand why it has to be that way. i think that criticism--"ay white people, stfu for once, this one is ours" is on point, even! i just don't understand why that has to make my dude the target of hate mail from the permanent internet outrage hurricane.

"apart from the notion that no one gets to tell"

ppl "get to" do what they want tbh. this "u don't get to..." thing is tilting at windmills

p sure u dont get to say that tbh

at least when the state says you don't get to do something they can back it up w/ violence, criminal system, etc. what are you going to do if i tone police you? tweet angry things at me?

Want to see more posts tagged #tone policing?

mordy does what he wants you guys, you can't stop him

Decide you aren't worth arguing with? xxp

mordy just blew my mind

i... i had never thought about it like that

ppl "get to" do what they want tbh. this "u don't get to..." thing is tilting at windmills

― Mordy , Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:57 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's not an argument from threat, legal or physical or rhetorical or otherwise, it's an argument from an ethics that rests on history: an oppressor class's definition of the oppressed class's experience can never be the truest definition of that experience. it's only one that serves the oppressing class's interests, which can't be aligned with the reality of the people being pressured by the weight of a culture aligned against them.

here "you don't get to xyz" means you have no standing to do what you're doing, not "i will break your face with my state violence."

i'm pretty sure it is just whinging signifying nothing

YOU DON'T GET TO TELL ME WHAT I FEEL

There's an assumed shared discourse in a lot of these conversations.

Approaching the discourse like its absurd on its face without making any good faith effort to understand the obvious relevant context is sort of silly.

But have you heard of the Internet, your capital letters will fit in well here

I read once that typing in all caps is like shouting on the internet, and that it's impolite.

"you don't get to" as an quick but flawed shorthand for calling out logical fallacy, false authority, & other flaws in argument. it's an idiomatic expression and thinking it has anything to do with free will is fucking dim thinking indeed

We also have a thread called I'M DRUNK if that helps.

here "you don't get to xyz" means you have no standing to do what you're doing, not "i will break your face with my state violence."

― there are more than 3.5 HOOS per steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:47 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well i think you're ignoring the powers granted to the tone police under subsection six of the patriot act, article twenty two.

The tone police, they live inside of my head.
The tone police, they come to me in my bed.

it's not an argument from threat, legal or physical or rhetorical or otherwise, it's an argument from an ethics that rests on history: an oppressor class's definition of the oppressed class's experience can never be the truest definition of that experience. it's only one that serves the oppressing class's interests, which can't be aligned with the reality of the people being pressured by the weight of a culture aligned against them.

^

did you see when that fake tumblr vegan socialist had a "first time frank and I had sex" pic and it was an actual p in v pic

i did not

but lol at 'in v pic'

p in v pic is a pvmic

boo yah

Yeah I was scrolling past at work at the end of the day and hopefully the cleaning crew didn't see when I went past that, sheesh

shouldn't we be willing to ask ourselves if anger is our best response?

Sure, but as with the pronoun trouble a sentence or so back, we should be willing to ask ourselves, but you don't get to ask me* and therein lies the game. Like, there is a difference between recognising that something (such as 'rage is not the best educator of your allies') is true, and thinking "I should say that, then". Unfortunately the internet was built on the latter impulse.

*I am straight white male, anybody gets to ask me anything

yeah

arguing politely and reasonably is also a learned strategy - and one where the end goal is not to learn something new or even "win" the argument: it's to retain the moral high ground. i see people - usually those in positions of power, arguing the lol liberal case for the status quo - deploy a kind of pig-headed "reasonableness" all the time, using pedantry and this weird kind of faux-logic that refuses to take into account real-world complexities or nuances, all the while maintaining a politely superior tone and refusing to understand the basic ideas that the other person is trying to communicate. and then claiming the moral high ground when the other person gets frustrated - and then in subsequent arguments when the other person starts off rudely because they already know arguing won't be constructive, dismissing the entire argument based on that

manners have pretty much always been a form of social identification and exclusion - being mannerly was the mark of gentlemen and a means of middle class self-elevation above the mob. not that i personally want to go out of my way to not get along with people - usually, lol - but that instinct has been taught me since childhood and isn't necessarily innate

whenever somebody addresses the way a person expresses themselves, whether that be grammar pedantry or complaints about tone, they are - deliberately - refusing to acknowledge the content of what's being said. the cheapest kind of power game tbh.

yeah but deep down everybody knows that they're right if only everyone else would shut up and listen and writing yourself blank cheques wrt how you address or engage others in any contentious topic with this in mind...idk.

kind of pig-headed "reasonableness" all the time, using pedantry and this weird kind of faux-logic that refuses to take into account real-world complexities or nuances, all the while maintaining a politely superior tone

--lex pretend

In a nutshell here for sure! Implicit assumption of logical correctness or objectivity. And the sort of passive voice - it also reminds me a bit of people who criticize protestors and say "they'd be better off going through the proper channels" like some sort of deference is in order