x
Click to expand

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:7/28/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9356
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2400 total,  2750 ,  350
Comment Thumbs: 8835 total,  9968 ,  1133
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 9% (9/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:110055
Times Content Favorited:164 times
Total Comments Made:2486
FJ Points:940
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

#565 - I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small… 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover +1
#39 - I really only chose that picture because it offered a good ang…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/14/2015 on Black Social Media Pt. 3 0
#40 - thismustbeseen (04/14/2015) [-]
Yeah, I'm starting to think it doesn't happen that often.
#32 - I think that both you and angelusprimus bring up some good poi…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/14/2015 on Black Social Media Pt. 3 0
#36 - thismustbeseen (04/14/2015) [-]
Makes sense. Your picture looks like a victory rally. There would be less chance a potential assassin was in a crowd of people who are cheering that he just won the election or some such.
User avatar #39 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I really only chose that picture because it offered a good angle to see that there was no glass. Feel free to search for more pictures of the president speaking at non-victory rally events. You'll find that there's no bulletproof glass in the vast majority of them.
#40 - thismustbeseen (04/14/2015) [-]
Yeah, I'm starting to think it doesn't happen that often.
#561 - You're right, they don't listen to people, they listen to vote…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover 0
#564 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
the problem with the seniors though is that they're easily swayed, talk to any elder person and they're VERY old fashioned and old minded, they tend to be very ignorant of what's going on around them, it's not like young people aren't involved in politics either, the problem is that young politics are different from old people's, they clash, a little too hard times. Young people also tend to be more cynical and less trusting because they know how corrupt the government can be, and they feel that no matter what they do or what they try they feel ignored.

Consider the Following,

I think of the government like the WWE, when they do listen, they tend to misinterpret it. In the 2014 Royal Rumble, the people wanted wrestler Daniel Bryan to win the royal rumble, he wasn't even in it, then the people got mad because the WWE was going with Batista, so they cheered for anyone that wasn't Batista, including Roman Reigns (the guy who main evented this year's Wrestlemania), WWE thought that the people cheered for Reigns because he was cool, not because they didn't want Batista. So this year, they went with Roman Reigns, and again, gave Daniel Bryan (the wrestler people wanted) the snub. The results, were not only the same, but it's hurt WWE twice in a row now, and it hurt Roman Reign's credibility as a future great pro wrestler. WWE like the government is trying to cater to a group they want to control instead of being listened to, most of Pro Wrestling fans are like me, nerds, but WWE is trying to cater to kids, a small portion. The government is trying to cater to the seniors, like you mentioned, and it's a small portion of the population. The reason is pretty much the same thing, they can both be controlled because they don't know any better.

Seniors can be in politics all the want, doesn't mean they'll be listened to, how many times do I hear about Seniors not wanting social security being taken away, but yet benefits keep getting taken away anyway? The only time I can remember the people actually doing the right thing was rejecting a Wal-Mart wanting to be built in my hometown's downtown area, the fact that our Mayor even considered and liked the idea of Wal-Mart there hurt his credibility, yet he still holds office. The people are not being listened to, and when they are listened to, the government misinterprets it, or just flat out ignores it.

As for our economy, I agree, it has recovered, gas prices are down which imo affects how much people can spend, by saving $1 a gallon of gas that's an extra $10-$30 a fuel up people can save and spend on something else. People I feel have also figured out not to shop at Wal-Mart anymore because they don't support local economies. I feel however that we have a lot more to do however if the US is to re-establish any credibility as not only a stable super power, but not a laughing stock in terms of our pop and government towards the rest of the world.
#565 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small businesses as well. Yes, there are many examples of people not being listened to by politicians. There are also many examples of people being listened to by politicians. Social Security has been on the chopping block for a long time, because it costs a huge amount of money. Even though it has been reduced, the activism of senior citizens has helped to keep it from being eliminated completely. Gay marriage is another example. As the public has become more and more accepting of homosexual people, more and more states have legalized gay marriage. In fact, in my state, Minnesota, there was a ballot question, that if passed, would have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. However, pro-LGBT activism groups fought really hard, and not only was that proposed amendment defeated, but gay marriage was actually legalized very shortly afterwards.
#38 - Actually, Japan has a very strong meritocratic bureaucracy (th… 04/14/2015 on good guy 0
#516 - Well, in a democracy, it's impossible to build a world that co…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover +2
User avatar #541 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
they don't listen to the people to begin with

you're points are great, but lets face it, our government and this upcoming election, are fucked.
User avatar #561 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
You're right, they don't listen to people, they listen to voters. Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to cater to senior citizens all the time? That's because senior citizens tend to not only have the highest voting rates, but because they are often retired, they also have a lot of time for political activism. If other groups were as active in politics as seniors are, they would be better listened to.

Also, I don't think the government is fucked. We're relatively stable right now. The economy has recovered decently, and international relations are starting to come back to pre-Bush era levels.
#564 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
the problem with the seniors though is that they're easily swayed, talk to any elder person and they're VERY old fashioned and old minded, they tend to be very ignorant of what's going on around them, it's not like young people aren't involved in politics either, the problem is that young politics are different from old people's, they clash, a little too hard times. Young people also tend to be more cynical and less trusting because they know how corrupt the government can be, and they feel that no matter what they do or what they try they feel ignored.

Consider the Following,

I think of the government like the WWE, when they do listen, they tend to misinterpret it. In the 2014 Royal Rumble, the people wanted wrestler Daniel Bryan to win the royal rumble, he wasn't even in it, then the people got mad because the WWE was going with Batista, so they cheered for anyone that wasn't Batista, including Roman Reigns (the guy who main evented this year's Wrestlemania), WWE thought that the people cheered for Reigns because he was cool, not because they didn't want Batista. So this year, they went with Roman Reigns, and again, gave Daniel Bryan (the wrestler people wanted) the snub. The results, were not only the same, but it's hurt WWE twice in a row now, and it hurt Roman Reign's credibility as a future great pro wrestler. WWE like the government is trying to cater to a group they want to control instead of being listened to, most of Pro Wrestling fans are like me, nerds, but WWE is trying to cater to kids, a small portion. The government is trying to cater to the seniors, like you mentioned, and it's a small portion of the population. The reason is pretty much the same thing, they can both be controlled because they don't know any better.

Seniors can be in politics all the want, doesn't mean they'll be listened to, how many times do I hear about Seniors not wanting social security being taken away, but yet benefits keep getting taken away anyway? The only time I can remember the people actually doing the right thing was rejecting a Wal-Mart wanting to be built in my hometown's downtown area, the fact that our Mayor even considered and liked the idea of Wal-Mart there hurt his credibility, yet he still holds office. The people are not being listened to, and when they are listened to, the government misinterprets it, or just flat out ignores it.

As for our economy, I agree, it has recovered, gas prices are down which imo affects how much people can spend, by saving $1 a gallon of gas that's an extra $10-$30 a fuel up people can save and spend on something else. People I feel have also figured out not to shop at Wal-Mart anymore because they don't support local economies. I feel however that we have a lot more to do however if the US is to re-establish any credibility as not only a stable super power, but not a laughing stock in terms of our pop and government towards the rest of the world.
#565 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small businesses as well. Yes, there are many examples of people not being listened to by politicians. There are also many examples of people being listened to by politicians. Social Security has been on the chopping block for a long time, because it costs a huge amount of money. Even though it has been reduced, the activism of senior citizens has helped to keep it from being eliminated completely. Gay marriage is another example. As the public has become more and more accepting of homosexual people, more and more states have legalized gay marriage. In fact, in my state, Minnesota, there was a ballot question, that if passed, would have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. However, pro-LGBT activism groups fought really hard, and not only was that proposed amendment defeated, but gay marriage was actually legalized very shortly afterwards.
#509 - "Refusal to vote is not an act of protest, it's an act of…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover +1
User avatar #511 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
>doesn't matter what party, even independents

it doesn't matter who we vote for, we all get fucked in the end, that's the problem
User avatar #516 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
Well, in a democracy, it's impossible to build a world that conforms completely to what you want. Because people want different things, finding compromise is important. A presidential candidate has to pander to the entire American public. By default, that means there are going to be certain parts about each candidate that you like, and certain parts that you do not like. Maybe try looking into the more local elections (such as State House and State Senate)? Those candidates represent a smaller community, so maybe there will be some who come closer to your views.

Either way, if you choose not to vote, then politicians will have absolutely no reason to listen to you. After all, they don't need to take non-voters thoughts into consideration. That's one of the reason that young people/students are so often given the short-stick in politics. --They tend not to vote.
User avatar #541 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
they don't listen to the people to begin with

you're points are great, but lets face it, our government and this upcoming election, are fucked.
User avatar #561 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
You're right, they don't listen to people, they listen to voters. Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to cater to senior citizens all the time? That's because senior citizens tend to not only have the highest voting rates, but because they are often retired, they also have a lot of time for political activism. If other groups were as active in politics as seniors are, they would be better listened to.

Also, I don't think the government is fucked. We're relatively stable right now. The economy has recovered decently, and international relations are starting to come back to pre-Bush era levels.
#564 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
the problem with the seniors though is that they're easily swayed, talk to any elder person and they're VERY old fashioned and old minded, they tend to be very ignorant of what's going on around them, it's not like young people aren't involved in politics either, the problem is that young politics are different from old people's, they clash, a little too hard times. Young people also tend to be more cynical and less trusting because they know how corrupt the government can be, and they feel that no matter what they do or what they try they feel ignored.

Consider the Following,

I think of the government like the WWE, when they do listen, they tend to misinterpret it. In the 2014 Royal Rumble, the people wanted wrestler Daniel Bryan to win the royal rumble, he wasn't even in it, then the people got mad because the WWE was going with Batista, so they cheered for anyone that wasn't Batista, including Roman Reigns (the guy who main evented this year's Wrestlemania), WWE thought that the people cheered for Reigns because he was cool, not because they didn't want Batista. So this year, they went with Roman Reigns, and again, gave Daniel Bryan (the wrestler people wanted) the snub. The results, were not only the same, but it's hurt WWE twice in a row now, and it hurt Roman Reign's credibility as a future great pro wrestler. WWE like the government is trying to cater to a group they want to control instead of being listened to, most of Pro Wrestling fans are like me, nerds, but WWE is trying to cater to kids, a small portion. The government is trying to cater to the seniors, like you mentioned, and it's a small portion of the population. The reason is pretty much the same thing, they can both be controlled because they don't know any better.

Seniors can be in politics all the want, doesn't mean they'll be listened to, how many times do I hear about Seniors not wanting social security being taken away, but yet benefits keep getting taken away anyway? The only time I can remember the people actually doing the right thing was rejecting a Wal-Mart wanting to be built in my hometown's downtown area, the fact that our Mayor even considered and liked the idea of Wal-Mart there hurt his credibility, yet he still holds office. The people are not being listened to, and when they are listened to, the government misinterprets it, or just flat out ignores it.

As for our economy, I agree, it has recovered, gas prices are down which imo affects how much people can spend, by saving $1 a gallon of gas that's an extra $10-$30 a fuel up people can save and spend on something else. People I feel have also figured out not to shop at Wal-Mart anymore because they don't support local economies. I feel however that we have a lot more to do however if the US is to re-establish any credibility as not only a stable super power, but not a laughing stock in terms of our pop and government towards the rest of the world.
#565 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small businesses as well. Yes, there are many examples of people not being listened to by politicians. There are also many examples of people being listened to by politicians. Social Security has been on the chopping block for a long time, because it costs a huge amount of money. Even though it has been reduced, the activism of senior citizens has helped to keep it from being eliminated completely. Gay marriage is another example. As the public has become more and more accepting of homosexual people, more and more states have legalized gay marriage. In fact, in my state, Minnesota, there was a ballot question, that if passed, would have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. However, pro-LGBT activism groups fought really hard, and not only was that proposed amendment defeated, but gay marriage was actually legalized very shortly afterwards.
#205 - Good to hear. I wish you luck. 04/14/2015 on Judgmental cunt 0
#191 - I'm honestly not sure why fat-shaming has become so popular on…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/13/2015 on Judgmental cunt 0
User avatar #193 - laces (04/14/2015) [-]
I know for a fact my eating habits have been controlled by my own ways to cope with reality. I've found methods in less healthy things, sadly, smoking mainly. I see a therapist often for my issues, and I do know my issues reach deep down. And I am getting better for every minute, it just takes time. Just like losing weight does.
User avatar #205 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
Good to hear. I wish you luck.
#125 - I think that's exactly the point though, people often notice t…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/08/2015 on can't trust book covers man 0
#127 - miasimon (04/08/2015) [-]
It probably would help their case if there was something to tell you what you were looking at. Something along the lines of "Spot the terrorist" would have helped.


I understand the point, but only after being told I was wrong, because I wondered
"What the fuck is a giant biker doing in the middle of a group of schoolboys?"
#131 - ExorArgus (04/08/2015) [-]
Going to school you fucking bigot JESUS. all of the sarcasm
#189 - Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear y… 04/08/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
#31 - God, this site has become **** ...I miss the days when F…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/07/2015 on NOW She's Perfect 0
#50 - anon (04/07/2015) [-]
the site never really changed until about a year ago when it started becoming completely obsessed with being a bunch of self righteous retards who repost a bunch of crap about feminists but other than that literally nothing has changed
#78 - xxmemosxx (04/07/2015) [-]
#43 - theruinedsage (04/07/2015) [-]
Welcome to /pol2.0/
#42 - anon (04/07/2015) [-]
I think you might have made a simple mistake, FunnyJunk was never tumblr.
#30 - Comment deleted 04/07/2015 on NOW She's Perfect 0
#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
#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
#97 - You've seen how skinny the models in fashion magazines are, ri… 03/22/2015 on Under 6 feet 0
#188 - There have been hundreds of hostage situations that have been … 03/18/2015 on police the fuck -1

items

Total unique items point value: 1870 / Total items point value: 2370
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - atomicman (01/17/2014) [-]
If only we got to meet each other in person. I'm sure we'd be become great friends.
#4 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
**traffy rolls 65**
**traffy rolls 65**
User avatar #1 - CannonFodder (10/26/2012) [-]
I hadn't been on FJ for ~ 1.5 years so I don't know what has/hasn't been done. Just couldn't be ****** studying so drew that instead. Didn't mean to annoy peeps but cheers for the feedback man
User avatar #5 to #1 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
you should shut the **** up
User avatar #6 to #5 - CannonFodder (01/04/2014) [-]
Lol care
 Friends (0)