Galavani

Which of these 'popular' lablels do you associate with?

After scouring the internet for most of my life, its only in the last 5 years I've seen socio-politcal labelling as a real thing, people seem to stand by titles in a way they never did before, so for a bit of interest I've compiled a small list of some titles that I come across the most on the internet, so please let us know if you do or dont identify with the label or not and why.

Are You A........

Men's Rights Activist (MRA) (kinda)
Technically I am, though I dont feel like I partake in much activism if any so i prefer the term Men's Rights Advocate. Under only under the broad umbrella of egalatarianism. I find the MRA movement of recent times on the internet to fit the 'Male Reactionary Asshole' backronym a lot better. Blaming feminists for absoulutely everything and mindlessly supporting anything that happens to oppose tumblr. So I adopt this title with a lot of caution.

Anaracho Capatalist (No)
This would be a big resounding NO from me. Its a very edgelordish doomsday ideology rooted in wacky conspiracies about how anything that the government does is evil and making your life worse. I'm fairly authoratarian and I dont believe that the NAP (Non Agression Principle) is realisitic. Also Stefan Molynuex is a cult leader.

SJW (Social Justice Warrior) (No)
This is a very easy NO for me. Firstly I think that anyone who calls themseleves a 'warrior' outside of a combat setting is an absolute cringelord. Also the 'justice' administered by these people seems to just boil down to calling people bigots on twitter, its a fad and it'll die, sooner the better. If I want to challenge inequality I can advocate without that moronic group label.

Feminist (Kind of, Yeah)
This one is a little easier, its another careful yes. I do consider myself a feminist in the more reasonable understanding of the term. Again this is under the umbrella of Egalitarianism, so I do hold mens rights advocacy and feminism at the same time. But I'm also very very careful to shy away from the Jezebel brand of feminisim which seems more about opression olympics and disproportionate retribution.

Brexiter (Indifferent)

I'm totally ambiguous on this one, I dont care about brexit and this comes from someone who has lived in the UK their whole lives. Life goes on either way. Its slightly annoying to see misinformed non-british people have such a damn opinion on it when they dont fully understand the nuances of this country though.

Gamergater/Pro Gamergate (Hell No)

Hell no, gamergate is bullshit. 'Ethics' in game journalism has been flaky and crap from day one. I dont even want to say I'm anti gamer-gate because I dont want to allign myself with the idiots that say that Zelda should be a hispanic girl or something like that. But the very premise is ridiculous.

Race Realist (Dont accept the premise of race)

So this is a no for me but I should qualify that this isnt because I'd be too emotional to accept hard facts, it stems from my belief that race doesnt exist so any sort of biological study on these groups would be from a faulty premise. It also doesnt help that a lot of these 'race realist' scientiests also happen to be massive racists. You cant say 'just the facts' when saying blacks or mexicans have inherintly low IQs but then be proclaiming 'race mixing is a crime against morality' in the next article. I think a lot of RR just stems from a reactionary effort to piss liberals off, which is really childish.

Libertarian (Not Really)

I approach this one with caution, I would say mostly no, because I am fairly authorotarian in my beliefs but it could be said that I am 'culturally' libertarian on some social issues and some of the broader stances I can at least see some good ideas behind. But much like the An-Cap stuff above, too much of this has turned into to smug, edgy ways to be conservative but rebellious at the same time. I would stay away from this label wherever I could, especially on the net.

Your turn, let me know where you fall with these labels.

Rant about 'teaching men not to rape'.

@Buddha Most of your speculation is fine. But that's exactly what it is, speculation, a gut feeling. We dont 'prove' rape statistics with feelings, that what the tumblr lot you hate so much do. We use facts. And so far the facts dont support your original claim that, "most rapes reported to the police are PROVEN false' so just drop that fallacy and stick to the main argument.

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

@Buddha The example was specifically about people holding hands, if two men are holding hands then people can see that. Not an infertile womb of a straight woman holding the hands of a straight man with a faulty dick.

Gay prides resembled normal people? Well if you are in agreement that gays are normal, what exactly is abnormal what they are doing?

Dancing? Music? Crazy Outfits? Sexual Display?

This is all VERY prevelatnt in straight parades as well any sort of carnival, festival or mardi gras is probably the same.

Maybe not south park in particular but there have been 'concerned parent ' for things that they have deemed innapropriate for children, but thats just one example, people protest all different types of shit until they get used to it.

Society is heteronormative and that in itself is very expected and mostly fine, but it does mean that the minority are not being treated equal until they are further intergrated. Heteronormative=/=Homophobia, we can be majority straight and just be accepting and tolerant, but the question is how do we get there.

To summarise, Gay pride parades are fine, not hurting anyone, if anyone doesnt like them they can cross the street and avoid it.

Shine City IV: Romance Forever!

has anyone seen @Knight of Doom?

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

@Dynamo Frokane Historically infertile women were given a lot of shit actually, and so were men that were considered infertile (because it wasn't possible to prove it back then). So you are wrong in that department. It has nothing to do with 'considering it normal' because infertility for straight couples historically resulted in shit too. In fact for a woman it was considered dangerous too. Because women didn't work = women didn't earn income = women relied on husbands to earn = husbands wanted a child to further their family line. No child = no food on the table = death.

The overall impression, though, is that infertility has often been a frightening and societally damaging experience — and that women usually suffered for it.

In a pre-IVF, pre-feminist world, where motherhood and the ability to carry sons often proved a woman's worth, childlessness was challenging and dangerous — for everybody involved. So nowadays, if you're struggling to get pregnant, give a thought to the women in the past who've shared your fight. You're all part of the same surreal, difficult club.

bustle.com/articles/76161-how-infertil..

<Snipped quote>

Read a history book my man.

Generationally (that word comes up a lot when discussing social issues) we have gotten past that just like we will get past homophobia. But applying pressure like the LGBT community does now by forcing people to get over it is counteractive and makes it take longer to get over it. It makes people feel forced to do something and if anything, people don't like to be forced to do things.

I am unsure how protesting social acceptance would do any good. 'WE DEMAND YOU ACCEPT US' that's great, but.. who is going to listen to that? Do you expect to sway the hillbilly Christian who totes guns at homosexuals that steps too close to his property? How? He's not gonna have an epiphany, come on.

Race relations also don't improve with government bills but they're a start. Equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome. But it can lead to equal outcome. For example, lets say blacks were now getting educated (which they are more and more) meaning they're legally and socially on more equal footing with other races (let's say whites, because that's the prime target group I guess).

Not only that but it brings them into areas that were previously predominantly white, and perhaps Asian and Euro-Hispanic. That makes them mix with white people and other races, and it begins the fostering of the understanding of different cultures and the feeling that perhaps they are not so different after all. The in-group is no longer defined by skin color alone, but also by just sharing the same space, talking, etc.

Now imagine the same for homosexuals. They have the same rights and equal access to the same agencies and possibilities. Instead of mingling with the majority and fostering the growth of the in-group relations, they choose to out themselves at gay prides to show 'look how different we are!' Do you think that straight people will go 'well damn, they're kinda like us after all!!!' Fuck no.

Most people will no care, and those hard-liners that were already against homosexuals will see the.. half naked men.. and go 'GOD DAMN WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG' and continue toting guns. Like I said before, acceptance is already at a very high level in city areas, and as mentioned by Jigg, the areas that do not have a lot of acceptance are full of hard-liners that are not going to chance their mind with gay prides.

@Buddha

Right first of all the inferitlity thing still isnt comparable, no one ever got thrown in prison for being infertile and straight whatever 'shit' they got isnt comparable to what the gays have went through. Also, you cant 'see' infertility, if an infertile couple walks down the street they arent going to be harassed on an assumption and DEFINATELY not in the modern world.

Yes government bills are a start and yes there are many different ways to intergrate, sadly, social intergration isnt a hard science, there is a lot trial and error, and gays arent nessecarily going to all be experts on how to market themselves to be accepted by a majoriy yes HETERONORMATIVE society.

Gay prides are all very different, some are very sexual, some are obnoxius, some are profuoud, some are loud, some are very quiet, some are musical and some are artsy, it all depends on who is organising it and what the public choose to react to indivudiually. But we can agree that most people arent in gay pride parades on most days. Pretty much for the majority of the year, gay people are going to work, going to the store to pick up groceries and paying bills just like everyone esle. This characterisation of them being Go-Go dancing psychopaths trying to slap society in the face with a pink dildo is just unhelpful and stupid.

If they want to celebrate their difference as part of their movement to acceptance then they should have at it, is it going to convince EVERY christian hillbilly to leave his NASCAR and go hug a twink? NO

But there are people in the middle of the extreme fringes who are maybe sitting on the fence about how they feel, and a tried and true method with western society is that the more we see something the less we care it gets BORING but improtantly it gets NORMAL.

Do you see people getting outraged at south park anymore for having naughty language? The concerned parents from the late 90s and early 2000s? NO because its been around for 19 years and we are all used to it. Its a slow process but more and more of the world will get used to gays, its already started happening, and its not a smooth or perfect process but it will work on some level and if you are against general homophobia you shouldnt want to get in the way of that.

Rant about 'teaching men not to rape'.

@Dynamo Frokane Citation depends 100% on which sources you read (duh). The research methods are also really off, and the subject groups are also too small. Scroll down to Rumney (2006) and see for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation..

There has yet to be a solid research into these numbers, therefore my statement is based entirely upon my own speculation. Perhaps I should have added that, but eh. I'm convinced a large part of the 'proven' rapes are also false.

Especially looking at those cases that make it into the media. Those are a big indicator for me. First of all, if someone doesn't seek the media for their rape case, I find their claim to be raped that much more believable. I don't think a real rape victim would speak to the media openly about what happened, especially if it's a celebrity.

There are many case studies recently that show exactly what I mean. Media-covered 'rapes' are already discredited in my eyes.

@Buddha

Well if the citations are speculative at best then thats not really proof is it?

I see a poll from 10 years ago with some very flimsy numbers I mean the 90% false rape report only has 18 people even reporting.

You say you are 'convinced' that LARGE part of proven rapes are false so what is your non-speculative non-anecdotal logic for that?

And as far as the media goes I would agree that the camera spotlight allows the public to buy into a story but that is seperate from a court process or a legal standpoint, judges are trained to stay impartial from what CNN has to say, its not perfect but thats the system we have to prove or disprove anything else.

And even if what you were saying were true, the amount of rapes are reported in the widespread media are only a fraction of the rapes that actually happen, most people who are raped or rapists arent celebrities and the vast majority of people dont give a shit.

What you think a 'real rape victim' would do is again flimsy assumptions at best. Even if you were raped yourself, everyone thinks and behaves differently and the circumstances of each rape are wildly different. Being raped by your husband of 20 years is a different deal to being jumped buy a knife weilding rapist in a bush. And the reactions would be different accordingly.

You can 'feel' however you want about what you think is true and isnt true, but dont throw around words like 'vast majority' and 'proven' unless you can do just that: Prove it.

Rant about 'teaching men not to rape'.

@Cynder I have two addendums. First of all I want to address that a large amount of the rape claims that are filed at the police are actually not true. Before you go batshit crazy (not you specifically but anyone reading this) about how that is sexist and victim blaming (lol victim blaming plz..) let me explain why this is bad for rape victims and men.

First of all if false rape claims are filed a lot more often than real rape claims, it becomes prerogative to assume a new rape claim is fake. 'Oh, most of them are fake.. this one probably is too.' Sounds mean, is reality. Police people do not see people in front of them, they see statistics and numbers. It's important to remember that.

So the more false rape claims, the more skeptical people become of rape claims in general. I can attest, I am very skeptical of rape claims especially when high profile people are involved. The reason is I am a man and I imagine it's hard for women to imagine, but even a false rape claim can permanently ruin a mans life to the point of not ever getting a job ever again.

If a false rape claim was ever filed against me, I'd probably never be capable of living my life out.

So, I am skeptical. Guilty until proven innocent is often how it goes with rape, because the media picks up quick and they have no issue filing your full name, picture and calling you a rapist before a conviction already.

So false rape claims are bad for both sides. Tumblr likes to advocate that there's no such thing as a false rape claim however so apparently I am wrong.

@Buddha

Citation Needed?

False rape claims are absolutely a terrible thing but how are you able to determine that a majority are not true?

@Unfortunately

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Please read. Including me I wrote.

@Buddha

Please read: AND a few others in this thread.

Cheers Mate.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

And the point I was making was that being homosexual is just one of the problems a couple can face, not the problem a couple can face. It's a variable within a relationship and the outsider response to that relationship, not the single defining factor, and therefore, there are many different ways for a couple to be endangered in public.

One such reason could be as simple as looking at someone in public.

Violence doesn't need a reason, a lot of the times. You are correct in saying that heterosexuals don't get shit for being heterosexual in the world. There's not a single country that gives people shit for that.

Because that'd be - quite literally - the stupidest thing to ever exist. The reason being that if you are anti-heterosexuals you are anti-human nature, because fact of the matter is heterosexual couples make babies and therefore every society looks at heterosexuals favorably.

A society that is anti-heterosexual can't exist because that society would die out within one generation.

The entire point I'm making is that the legal rights of LGBT people have been established, therefore there is not much more the LGBT crowd can protest for. Bar maybe the bathroom rights (which I find a ridiculous thing to feel the need to argue for to begin with). Socially yeah, there's a lot we can still establish and improve on.

Such as homosexuals not being targeted in public.

Sadly you can never eradicate homosexuals being targeted - not because of religion, not because of hatred, not for any reason, because even if you remove those factors, senseless violence for no reason other than the desire to be violent still exists, and it is not unlikely in my eyes that this is a large cause for the violence against homosexual couples.

Protests won't help you with that.

@Buddha

Well I think that it doesnt just boil down to 'baby making' there are infertile straight couples and they dont get shit either, or genreally straight people who just dont want kids, but the idea of a man and woman is so normal to everyone we dont persecute it.

Yes people can get shit for a range of reasons. Just like the jew example I gave.

You can protest social acceptance, legislation isnt the be all end all. Race relations dont get automatically correct just by a government bill, the Rap music you listen to speaks volumes about this. Killer Mike said that just because you arent legally allowed to own slaves or segregate it doesn't mean youll start having black folk over for dinner.

So if gays want to 'push' themselves into the public spectacle by having their parades, because they want thier sexuality to become more normalised like hetorosexuality is, then let em have it, they have a right to platform just like anyone else. Is it annoying and loud sometimes? Absolutely but so was the damn brexit movement or the Milo Yianouppolus fan club or those cringey slut walks, its annyoing, but then a lot of things are annyoing,I could cry on the internet but, I stick my headphones on and keep it moving.

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

@Dynamo Frokane except this is a serious thread where as yours is a thread full of edgy people doing their best to throw shade what 'subtle' unpopular opinions. That includes me.

Cheers mate.

@Buddha

Surely you realise that you AND a few others in this thread, have also posted in unpopular opinions. Glad to see we are all part of the same edgy pirate ship.

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

I also want to note that while heterosexuals DO have problems, do they have to worry about holding hands in public? Just a thought I had.

@Neurovoid

@Neurovoid depending on ethnicity, cultural background and their age, yes, they may have that problem.

@Buddha

I think the point that the Neurovoid was making that people dont have to worry about holding hands ont the basis of being heterosexual I'm sure a hetero jewish couple in an anti-semitic area might get shit for holding hands, but that would be because of their faith not because they are straight.

Hetero people just dont get shit for being straight in most of the world in the modern world and in history.