Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

Can confirm from reading Feministe for some time in the early to mid-2000s that "Google it" and "I'm not here to educate you" developed in response to trolling and kind of... expanded outward.

fierceawakening answered:

Thanks!

[the-grey-tribe]

Parallel evolution: Unix nerds tell people to read the man pages all the time and often make you prove that you tried to solve it on your own before they help you.

Interestingly, geekfeminism hates it when Unix nerds tell newbs to ask pertinent questions and figure stuff out on their own.

Trolls can get answers from the most jaded and busy hackers by giving the wrong advice.

You can apply this kind of trolling to feminism as well: Ask feminists something trivial about internet feminism 101. Use a sock puppet to give a subtly wrong answer. Tag several online feminists (the ones you asked in the first place maybe) in your “thank you for the answer” tweet. Suddenly it is their job to educate you…

[mitigatedchaos]

Ah, the irony.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[apprenticebard]

“if you really thought that abortion was murder, you would be starting a civil war over it” ….orrrr, as someone who opposes abortion on the grounds that killing humans is bad, I think killing more humans would also be bad

[transgirlkyloren]

it’s like the ‘why have you not personally adopted all babies’ argument except 5 million times worse

the baby-adoption argument is the worst argument! people are not having abortions because of a shortage of adoptive parents! there are very, very few people who want to go through all the suckiness of being pregnant without the benefit of having a baby after, if they are not coerced into having an adoption

[shedoesnotcomprehend]

yes yes yes thank you those arguments make me want to scream every time

I hate the “if you REALLY think it’s murder you’d DO SOMETHING” vs “a doctor who does abortions was assaulted NOT SO PRO-LIFE NOW HUH” dichotomy

(not that it’s okay to assault doctors! obviously!)

abortion seems to be one of the worst issues for ideological turing test passing? “you know perfectly well deep down that you’re murdering babies” vs “you just want to Control Women’s Bodies” or maybe everyone is actually trying to do the right thing!

also, the “why aren’t you distributing contraception then?” argument (because a lot of pro-life people believe that contraception is ALSO morally wrong and that the ends don’t justify the means!)

and the ever-classic “if you’re REALLY pro-life you should be [opposing war/providing post-natal support/fighting malaria/etc]” argument (a lot of pro-life people do??? and also that’s a bad argument when people pull it out against any particular cause??)

[sigh] [/rant]

[theopjones]

Agree with this. 

Although, it is probably a pretty big testament to the strength of political norms against violence that there aren’t really more cases of violence occurring over this issue. Because the stakes are so high.

I don’t mean that in an “it would be the consistent/good thing to do” way, I mean it in the “I’m surprised that some idiot hasn’t yet given a violent pro life group enough tacit political support/cover to exist as a not completely fringe entity” way. Because politics makes people do stupid things (cf. the antifa types on the left, or the stuff that happened at Trump rallies). 

[cromulentenough]

yeah holy shit ‘if you were really pro file you’d go to war, not just trying to change legislation’ vs. ‘pro life person isn’t actually ust talking online and went and killed someone who routinely does abortions? wtf? they’re obviously not REALLY pro life because they took a life of someone who has previously in their mind killed people and plans to kill people in the future, you should do it peacefully’ what do you actually want people who are pro life to do apart from ‘admit that they don’t actually care about babies and one care about controlling women’?

[nuclearspaceheater]

If you’re going to point out contradictions between people’s action and professed beliefs, why not go the other way and point out that according to most of them being aborted isn’t even fatal because it doesn’t destroy the soul? I’m not sure where exactly you would go with that line of argument if you did, but it at least isn’t a call to violence.

[mitigatedchaos]

Doesn’t matter - it’s against the Will of God according to most Pro-Lifers, and the same people that oppose both abortion and contraception do so for that reason.

Which, the last time I read about why contraception was considered unholy, I remember the reasoning being rather stupid, but if you get rid of that previous ruling it starts unwinding the authority of the rest of the church.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

you are a legitimate, bona fide fascist. i bet if i wrapped you in Wonder Woman's lasso of truth rn and told you to vocalize your thoughts it'd be "meta levels of feminist sjw cringe last night when those feminazis got triggered over muh privilege; LUUUL" none of that witty counter signaling you train your rationalist housewife to do for you on normal posts

argumate answered:

goodness this ask was a journey

[mitigatedchaos]

I don’t get who’s sending these.  Maybe it’s because they know you’re not a real fascist, since a real fascist wouldn’t care.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

I know the US has been a global force for insatiable greed, corruption, lust for control, etc. I dont see how encouraging a more "progressive" or inclusive military matters in the grand scheme of things. We should be decreasing the military and discouraging "service," not encouraging everyone to contribute to it. Also, *choosing* to opt into such an organization is far worse than being forced to live in a regulated US economy where choice and alternative economic systems are suppressed by design

diarrheaworldstarhiphop answered:

It’s an extremely common coastal/affluent american perspective to think it’s best to discourage military service in favour of some other vague alternative, with the idea that it’s inherently for the best with regards to any young man or woman seeking work.

But when the economic core of countless, countless US towns look like this:

How can one simply discourage service? For most communities, it is the only exit from poverty or the only guarantor of stability and planning to establish a family. For many towns the options are fast food, walmart and army. Which do you choose when you want to start a career?

like what are these alternative economic systems you envision without an organization such as the army in the meanwhile?

And then for most, say, transgender people from these communities who headass into the military (be it for muh income security or hypermasculine pursuits to deal with trans denial/awareness), before realizing AW sHiT IM A GILR/GUY, where the fuck else do they turn?

While alot of “progressives” are pissed about this situation, they too often forget that army service isn’t a choice but a necessity in getting out of places like this for reasons inherent to daily threats of violence or bigotry ON TOP of poverty, substance addiction and otherwise. Many people on the left misconstrue military service as a simple “queer rights” issue or something akin to fighting for representation in media when it is entirely more complex than that.

We should be decreasing the military and discouraging “service,” not encouraging everyone to contribute to it. Also, *choosing* to opt into such an organization is far worse…

The US armed forces is not an inherently evil organization. The evil arises from schemers in the political strata completely detached from the realities on the front line and the reality in these communities most recruits come from.

A military is a natural and obvious part of any organized nation state. That military doesn’t have to be constantly engaged in warfare. Yall are mad at the army and not the politicians that utilize it to fulfill their agendas.

[mitigatedchaos]

Essentially, they have decided that since they are too incompetent to stop the politicians, they will attempt to stop the Army instead.

That won’t work.  If you can’t stop the politicians, then you can’t stop the Army.

And if you won’t punish the MSM for shilling for war in Syria (looking at you, Democrats I’ve met IRL) and actively believe them that this is somehow remotely a good idea, then you apparently aren’t clueful enough to stop the politicians.

Also if you think Democracy flowers easily in all soils because you’ve bought into the idea that Democracy is The Moral Order of the Universe, you won’t be able to stop the politicians.

The US Democrats need to get smarter.

Europe has lost leverage vs Russia even though they have a bigger economy and a larger population, because they won’t actually spend enough on their militaries ,and they discourage military service.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[bonesleo]

this is the single greatest meme i have seen from any of my facebook groups and frankly y’all need to step up your game

[hedon-hoarder]

@birdblogwhichisforbirds

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[im-just-a-reaction]

They should be frontline suicide wave units.

[mutant-aesthetic]

Wow so edgy

[im-just-a-reaction]

What do you want them to do? Keep undermining society?

[mutant-aesthetic]

>implying transgenders “undermine society”

[mitigatedchaos]

Frankly even if it were a sinister plot to undermine society, which it isn’t, there just aren’t enough of them to effectively do so.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

I can understand the concern, but were there every that many trans people in the military to begin with?

mutant-aesthetic answered:

that’s the other question, yeah, like how many trans people were really looking forward to military service?

[mitigatedchaos]

More than you might think, apparently.

Word is they try extra-hard at masculinity, hoping it will fill the hole.  But of course, it doesn’t, because it’s likely caused by hormone levels at key points in brain development or something like that.

How many is that?  I dunno.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

@ranma-official

I think @mailadreapta is correct that part of the motive on the conservatives’ part was to point out the contradiction in their progressive and liberal opponents’ actions.  Up until this election, the progressive juggernaut had pushed so far forward (or ‘forward’) that it had started throwing white gay men under the bus, which, combined with the fact that the left/liberal plan is to import people of an ideology which is actively hostile to LGBT people wherever it rules, and at rates so high that it risks displacing the native population within a handful of generations, without doing what is actually necessary to defang and atomize that ideology, and constantly making excuses for it, created an opening for attack.

In this case it’s no different than left-wingers pretending they give a sht about countries or the army.  The “lul fuck u army’s just an imperialism machine” response may be more honest WRT their actual beliefs.

For my part of course, I disapprove, much like I disapprove of terminating that military-service-for-citizenship program which is apparently ending soon.

It puts me in an awkward spot.  Last administration, I spent a lot of effort trying to defend the Obama Administration even when it did dumb things for which there was no defense, and honestly after a while I gave up on that kind of party loyalty because pols will betray you every time.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mutant-aesthetic]

So, uh, before we get mad about the army ban on transgendered people, can I get a rundown on what the ban actually consists of? It doesn’t look good, but I’m not going to rush to judgement here.

[mitigatedchaos]

I mean we’ll see, but from the article I read it looks like it will be as simple and dumb as it sounds.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[nuclearspaceheater]

With China and Russia distracted in the South China Sea and Europe respectively, we can swoop in and accept Mongolia as the 51st state.