Upload
Login or register

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:9/01/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#10770
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2399 total,  2750 ,  351
Comment Thumbs: 8939 total,  10102 ,  1163
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 87% (87/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:111646
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2579
FJ Points:1076
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#187 - Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("f…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/07/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
User avatar
#188 - eight (04/07/2015) [-]
"Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("from the second a feminist opens their mouth" insinuating that all feminists are the same)."

I demonstrated why this is the case. I'll briefly restate it, feminism is entirely unnecessary as a movement. If this is indeed the case, then anyone that claims to be a feminist, by association falls into the same problem, because as it being unnecessary, they are joining the movement for a specific reason.

"You said you don't care, which worries me, since it says to me that you're not open to other ideas. I think that's a little dangerous. "

I said I do not care about being blunt. That has nothing to do with being open or closed to other ideas, that has to do with not caring about sugar coating the truth to avoid hurting peoples feelings. In other words, I do not care if I offend anyone, because it must be said even at the expense of looking like an asshole. I can live with that, because these issues are far more important than anyone's hurt ego. They'll get over it.
Way to take that out of context and write your own narrative.

"Anyway, very few feminists believe that women should be given more rights than men."

Thus rendering the feminism movement pointless. There's no need to favor feminism over the general equal rights movement. The latter accomplishes more anyway. One popular movement are the Humanists that do this very thing.

"ust because some of the loudest feminists on the internet say that, doesn't mean it's the majority opinion. Just because they are choosing to fight for equal rights for women, does not mean that they do not believe in equal rights for all people."

Again, singling out feminism is unnecessary when the same thing can be accomplished elsewhere.

"All equal rights movements in the past focus on one specific group (Blacks had/have their movement, Latinos had/have theirs, Asians had/have theirs, women have/had theirs, etc.) "

I suspected this, but now it's clear you did not read my comment and or did not comprehend it very well. I am talking about the present. I specifically pointed out that the feminism movement is no longer necessary and hasn't been needed for decades, thus implying that there once was a time where it was necessary, but we've progressed to an acceptable, albeit not perfect point in equal rights. There's room for improvement, but it's not dire and it hasn't been for some time. If things were never to progress from this point, women would still get on just fine with very little complaint. They already do.

"People have a hard time focusing on equal rights for the entire human population, so they focus on one group at a time, with the eventual goal of equal rights for all. "

It's really not that difficult when you consider people equally and not separate by cultural, racial or ethnic differences. When you treat them as the human beings that they are, it''s a hell of a lot more easy.

As for what the current feminism movement: You're a fool if you claim it hasn't been hijacked by the extremists. You acknowledge that it's the loudest of the feminists that get attention, well that's really all that matters, isn't it? They are the ones representing the movement in the same way that terrorists are the ones representing Islam. Obviously not every single "feminist" or every single "Muslim" is an extremist. How naive can you be to assume that anybody means that in the literal sense?

Regardless, if the loudest is what's representing the movement, then the movement should be criticized by that representation. There's clearly something wrong with the feminism movement in the same way there is something wrong with Islam. Until it's corrected, if ever, anybody who disagrees with that representation should disown and condemn it if they can't manage to speak louder than the extremists. It's that simple, especially when there are far more efficient alternatives, like Humanism.

User avatar
#189 - Deeticky (04/08/2015) [-]
Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear your tone or see your body language, but I sensed more hostility from you in this comment than I had in your previous comments (accusing me of not reading your comment, calling me a "fool", calling me "naive", etc). I am not trying to accuse you of anything, I'm just wondering how you're feeling. You seem like an intelligent person, and I am hoping that we can have a civil discussion without any ill-will, and perhaps even learn from each other.

To your first point, I have not seen you provide any evidence that feminism is now "unnecessary" as a movement. In fact, in many countries, women's rights are abysmal. Though we have not specified it, I will assume that we are talking about feminism specifically in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Though there are many reasons why I view the feminism movement as still having merit/value, I will list just a few here.

1: Women's access to safe abortions and birth-control medication is being dismantled in many states where the Christian Right has political control.
2: "slut-shaming." While I personally do not believe that overt sexual promiscuity is appropriate, women are by and large far more likely to be punished by society for promiscuity than men are. Furthermore, a decent number of police departments are still failing to properly investigate rape cases, the victims of which are far more likely to be women than men.
3: Wage inequality (i.e. women not receiving equal pay for equal work).

To your second point, it looks like I misunderstood what you were trying to say when you said "I don't care." I apologize for that. I promise you that I was not trying to create my own narrative. Thank you for clarifying what you had meant.

To your third and fourth points, I like that you brought up humanism. I think that it is a wonderful movement. I do not think that feminism and humanism are mutually exclusive. I consider myself a feminist as well as a secular humanist. Feminism chooses simply to focus on women's issues. I think that having a focus is very important when it comes to public policy. After all, a legislator cannot simply introduce a bill that says "everybody is equal" and then call it a night. Instead, laws have to generally address specific issues one by one. In addition, there are some issues that affect men and women in different ways (abortion and birth control are a good example of this). Because of that fact, policies have to address an issue's effect on women separately from its effect on men, which means that a truly "equal" policy may not be an appropriate response.

To your fifth point, I promise you that I did read your comment (multiple times). It is very possible that I misread your comment. It's very easy to misunderstand people on the internet (again, I have no tone or body language to help me). That's why it's a good thing that you can reply and clarify. Also, you say the point we're at now in equal rights is "acceptable, albeit not perfect." The problem is that it's impossible for any one person to truly define what an "acceptable" level of equal rights is. You say that women get along fine with very little complaint, yet the feminism movement has a large number of adherents, so I would say that they actually are complaining quite a bit.

To your sixth point, yes, if everybody treated everybody else fairly, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, that's not the case. One of the biggest barriers in achieving this is the fact that "fair" means different things to different people.

To your seventh and eighth points, I disagree. I do not think movements are defined by their loudest members. If that were the case, then Muslims would be defined by ISIS, feminists would be defined by man-haters, Christians would be defined by the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. If feminism has indeed been hijacked, then there's absolutely no reason for the "good" feminists to not fight for their title back.

#163 - Perhaps try and bring the term feminism to once again mean a m… 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... +1
#162 - I'd be careful if I were you. You're making a broad, generaliz…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
User avatar
#176 - eight (04/05/2015) [-]
There are no good reasons to single out women anymore. Haven't been strong enough reasons for decades. Now it's just a matter of equality among all classes. To say that women are more deserving than any other class to warrant their own movement at this point is an insult. Supporting equal rights covers womens rights.

But when you support feminism it's basically an acknowledgement that you support womens rights over or before the rights of others. Feminism is entirely unnecessary. If feminists truly cared about equal rights, they wouldn't be calling themselves feminists.

It might be a blunt opinion, I don't really care. It's an honest opinion and an observation that still continues to be proven true from the second a feminist opens their mouth.
User avatar
#187 - Deeticky (04/07/2015) [-]
Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("from the second a feminist opens their mouth" insinuating that all feminists are the same).

You said you don't care, which worries me, since it says to me that you're not open to other ideas. I think that's a little dangerous.

Anyway, very few feminists believe that women should be given more rights than men. Just because some of the loudest feminists on the internet say that, doesn't mean it's the majority opinion. Just because they are choosing to fight for equal rights for women, does not mean that they do not believe in equal rights for all people. All equal rights movements in the past focus on one specific group (Blacks had/have their movement, Latinos had/have theirs, Asians had/have theirs, women have/had theirs, etc.) People have a hard time focusing on equal rights for the entire human population, so they focus on one group at a time, with the eventual goal of equal rights for all.
User avatar
#188 - eight (04/07/2015) [-]
"Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("from the second a feminist opens their mouth" insinuating that all feminists are the same)."

I demonstrated why this is the case. I'll briefly restate it, feminism is entirely unnecessary as a movement. If this is indeed the case, then anyone that claims to be a feminist, by association falls into the same problem, because as it being unnecessary, they are joining the movement for a specific reason.

"You said you don't care, which worries me, since it says to me that you're not open to other ideas. I think that's a little dangerous. "

I said I do not care about being blunt. That has nothing to do with being open or closed to other ideas, that has to do with not caring about sugar coating the truth to avoid hurting peoples feelings. In other words, I do not care if I offend anyone, because it must be said even at the expense of looking like an asshole. I can live with that, because these issues are far more important than anyone's hurt ego. They'll get over it.
Way to take that out of context and write your own narrative.

"Anyway, very few feminists believe that women should be given more rights than men."

Thus rendering the feminism movement pointless. There's no need to favor feminism over the general equal rights movement. The latter accomplishes more anyway. One popular movement are the Humanists that do this very thing.

"ust because some of the loudest feminists on the internet say that, doesn't mean it's the majority opinion. Just because they are choosing to fight for equal rights for women, does not mean that they do not believe in equal rights for all people."

Again, singling out feminism is unnecessary when the same thing can be accomplished elsewhere.

"All equal rights movements in the past focus on one specific group (Blacks had/have their movement, Latinos had/have theirs, Asians had/have theirs, women have/had theirs, etc.) "

I suspected this, but now it's clear you did not read my comment and or did not comprehend it very well. I am talking about the present. I specifically pointed out that the feminism movement is no longer necessary and hasn't been needed for decades, thus implying that there once was a time where it was necessary, but we've progressed to an acceptable, albeit not perfect point in equal rights. There's room for improvement, but it's not dire and it hasn't been for some time. If things were never to progress from this point, women would still get on just fine with very little complaint. They already do.

"People have a hard time focusing on equal rights for the entire human population, so they focus on one group at a time, with the eventual goal of equal rights for all. "

It's really not that difficult when you consider people equally and not separate by cultural, racial or ethnic differences. When you treat them as the human beings that they are, it''s a hell of a lot more easy.

As for what the current feminism movement: You're a fool if you claim it hasn't been hijacked by the extremists. You acknowledge that it's the loudest of the feminists that get attention, well that's really all that matters, isn't it? They are the ones representing the movement in the same way that terrorists are the ones representing Islam. Obviously not every single "feminist" or every single "Muslim" is an extremist. How naive can you be to assume that anybody means that in the literal sense?

Regardless, if the loudest is what's representing the movement, then the movement should be criticized by that representation. There's clearly something wrong with the feminism movement in the same way there is something wrong with Islam. Until it's corrected, if ever, anybody who disagrees with that representation should disown and condemn it if they can't manage to speak louder than the extremists. It's that simple, especially when there are far more efficient alternatives, like Humanism.

User avatar
#189 - Deeticky (04/08/2015) [-]
Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear your tone or see your body language, but I sensed more hostility from you in this comment than I had in your previous comments (accusing me of not reading your comment, calling me a "fool", calling me "naive", etc). I am not trying to accuse you of anything, I'm just wondering how you're feeling. You seem like an intelligent person, and I am hoping that we can have a civil discussion without any ill-will, and perhaps even learn from each other.

To your first point, I have not seen you provide any evidence that feminism is now "unnecessary" as a movement. In fact, in many countries, women's rights are abysmal. Though we have not specified it, I will assume that we are talking about feminism specifically in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Though there are many reasons why I view the feminism movement as still having merit/value, I will list just a few here.

1: Women's access to safe abortions and birth-control medication is being dismantled in many states where the Christian Right has political control.
2: "slut-shaming." While I personally do not believe that overt sexual promiscuity is appropriate, women are by and large far more likely to be punished by society for promiscuity than men are. Furthermore, a decent number of police departments are still failing to properly investigate rape cases, the victims of which are far more likely to be women than men.
3: Wage inequality (i.e. women not receiving equal pay for equal work).

To your second point, it looks like I misunderstood what you were trying to say when you said "I don't care." I apologize for that. I promise you that I was not trying to create my own narrative. Thank you for clarifying what you had meant.

To your third and fourth points, I like that you brought up humanism. I think that it is a wonderful movement. I do not think that feminism and humanism are mutually exclusive. I consider myself a feminist as well as a secular humanist. Feminism chooses simply to focus on women's issues. I think that having a focus is very important when it comes to public policy. After all, a legislator cannot simply introduce a bill that says "everybody is equal" and then call it a night. Instead, laws have to generally address specific issues one by one. In addition, there are some issues that affect men and women in different ways (abortion and birth control are a good example of this). Because of that fact, policies have to address an issue's effect on women separately from its effect on men, which means that a truly "equal" policy may not be an appropriate response.

To your fifth point, I promise you that I did read your comment (multiple times). It is very possible that I misread your comment. It's very easy to misunderstand people on the internet (again, I have no tone or body language to help me). That's why it's a good thing that you can reply and clarify. Also, you say the point we're at now in equal rights is "acceptable, albeit not perfect." The problem is that it's impossible for any one person to truly define what an "acceptable" level of equal rights is. You say that women get along fine with very little complaint, yet the feminism movement has a large number of adherents, so I would say that they actually are complaining quite a bit.

To your sixth point, yes, if everybody treated everybody else fairly, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, that's not the case. One of the biggest barriers in achieving this is the fact that "fair" means different things to different people.

To your seventh and eighth points, I disagree. I do not think movements are defined by their loudest members. If that were the case, then Muslims would be defined by ISIS, feminists would be defined by man-haters, Christians would be defined by the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. If feminism has indeed been hijacked, then there's absolutely no reason for the "good" feminists to not fight for their title back.

#160 - Search for Femen, and you'll see some hot feminists. 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
#159 - Agreed. Lately, it seems like a lot of people on the internet … 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... +3
#253 - Instructions unclear: Penis caught in ceiling fan.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/01/2015 on Life hacks 0
User avatar
#256 - shinyarmor (04/01/2015) [-]
most likely not even by you
#387 - Here's a source if you're interested.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/31/2015 on Time to learn about China 0
User avatar
#400 - kingderps (03/31/2015) [-]
Ok, so I was right, it wasn't just to "help" boost the US pop, it was for self severing reasons. The wording int eh comp made it seem like it was an act of generosity.
#169 - I respectfully disagree. Again, I think it happens on both sid…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/23/2015 on das racis 0
User avatar
#173 - durkadurka (03/23/2015) [-]
I would suggest it surprise no one that the political class says and does anything it pleases.

#157 - I'm sure you've seen that people will complain without taking …  [+] (3 new replies) 03/22/2015 on das racis 0
User avatar
#162 - durkadurka (03/22/2015) [-]
It's not really rewarded on the right.

If anything, the right's thing is complaining about shit the government does but then just letting it go. But you don't get points for how you feel or how compassionate you are. The philosophy doesn't allow for that, or at least doesn't reward that.

For example, someone like Al Gore is not lauded by the left for what he's done but rather for how much he cares. The guy's actions are actually rather contradictory to what he says. But it's not about his actions, it's about what he says.

User avatar
#169 - Deeticky (03/23/2015) [-]
I respectfully disagree. Again, I think it happens on both sides. Take Newt Gingrich for instance, the man talks about "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage", yet he himself has had three marriages and has cheated on his spouses multiple times. This is an example of a man on the right who is being rewarded for his words instead of his actions.
User avatar
#173 - durkadurka (03/23/2015) [-]
I would suggest it surprise no one that the political class says and does anything it pleases.

#156 - They're only liberals in the same way that the Westboro Baptis… 03/22/2015 on das racis +4