Even if we accept that she has PTSD and is not lacking in some basic resiliency skills, she has benefited enormously from combat veterans suffering with PTSD. Over a decade of war has led to over a decade of research in how to treat the disease, and while I won't say the treatment is perfect, it has certainly advanced. I can't say I'm terribly insulted (knowing, as I do, many victims of PTSD and veterans) by what she says, but that's just my own personal attitude. It wouldn't shock me to learn that she was in fact mentally ill in some way, and had issues that pre-dated this harassment. That said, mental illness isn't a competition, and she - like many other people - wants to try to make it one. There are more than a few military/veteran-themed Facebook groups and the like that denigrate other people's mental illness, even towards other military members. Somehow, the sincerity of someone's mental health is dependent upon whether they saw combat, or how much of it, or when, or where, or whatever other criteria someone wants to make. Like it or not, mental health issues don't exist for valid, objective, rational reasons. Everyone responds differently. Some people really enjoy roller coasters, and other people really hate them. The fact that you might enjoy a roller coaster isn't objective proof that someone who doesn't like them is being a drama queen.
This Melody broad runs the same SJW social media play book as the one that got that Gerod guy fired. Read her last Twatter post quoted above by Crown, she intends to stiffle dissent by threatening people with going to their employers.
That's the main issue I have with them. Instead of engaging in discussion about various subjects and listening to what others have to say, they like to classify people into these categories like sexist, or racist or misogynist or what ever other -ist word you can think of and reduce and entire other viewpoint to a single word. They don't want to hear anything but their own ideas. This is happening at places like Harvard where people don't want to have professors lecture a viewpoint that differs from their own because it makes them uncomfortable. Fuck all of this living in a stupidity bubble bullshit. These people are also a bunch of humorless cunts. I went to go see Bill Burr last week and he was amazing. He gets so much backlash for Caitlin Jenner jokes or anything remote non-pc. No one is allowed to joke about anything anymore because it might offend someone somewhere. Fuck all that.
Yeah. Because this is how those you mentioned would totally handle it: Neptune Fallen @NeptunFallen 8 Apr 2014 @MelodyHensley My friend just showed me a video with this tweet. How is it as painful as my PTSD from rape, sexual abuse, and molestation?jw Melody Hensley @MelodyHensley @NeptunFallen You are very insensitive to question someone that has a life altering disorder. This is harassment. You will be blocked. You don't dare question her about anything because it's HARASSMENT.
Yeah, which is why whenever this board tries to have a discussion about Feminism it doesn't eventually have to be locked. Wait a minute... I'm not trying to call you out specifically, nor am I defending the likes of this Melody woman, but I feel the need to point out that there's enough close-mindedness here that calling out someone else's close-mindedness in this fashion seems hypocritical.
Just my two cents, but what are we doing talking about this Melody character? I kind of agree with Trakiel in the sense that if we want to talk about feminism, or even have a serious discussion about the impact of the "social justice movement," let's do that. Making obvious jokes about someone who's obviously ridiculous doesn't serve the purpose of this thread in any way.
I don't know about this Melody person but what's Anita done to get lumped into that category? All I know is that she made some youtube videos about sexism in videogames and got absolutely pilloried for it. And, frankly, it seems to me that in most cases as soon as someone like Malala stops playing along with Respectability Politics they immediately get lumped in with the SJWs everyone derides and dismisses.
This sounds like whining. 1. Very few people care about some twit talking about sexism in video games. There are certainly more important things to concern yourself with, it looks like a desperate bid for attention, as in whining about something nobody else has thought about whining about yet. Congrats to her in her ground breaking complaining. 2. So are you saying that when people stop behaving in a respectable manner they don't receive respect back? Now that is a ground breaking hypothesis.
No, there is a huge difference between the SJW's of today (which are really people taking political correctness to a dangerous extreme) and the people you mentioned. The people you mentioned were seeking the right to live their lives the same as everyone else. They were not asking for everyone to act in a certain way of their moral belief, they were asking to be left alone by the government to live their lives as they chose, so long as those choices didn't interfere with the liberties of others. The current SJW movement is vastly different, and just as dangerous as the view they espouse to rectify. For instance, I think Bruce Jenner is weird. Do I think he should have the right to live his life as he sees fit, and enjoy the same rights as I do? Yes I do. However, I don't approve of every choice or viewpoint he may have. That's what actual tolerance is: accepting someone DESPITE not having the same views. This is not what the SJW's are doing. They are vilifying anyone that says something they don't like, and by 'don't like' I mean is not exactly the same viewpoint as their own. Which is in itself fine, don't like me. But when they seek to interfere with someone's life and livelihood, because they have espoused a view (not an action) that they don't like, then we are on scary ground. Freedom is not choosing what I'd choose, it's choosing what I wouldn't. And yes, my choice of 'Bruce' versus 'Caitlyn' is intentional. As far as I know, he still has a dick, so to me he's still a man. That's my point of view. Would I discriminate against him? No, not at all. He's free to live as he wants, love who he wants, and form whatever bonds bring him happiness. But I don't want other people's choices imposed on me, and then if I don't agree, be ostracized and face sanctions from the government or society - so long as my choice and view doesn't impede their rights and ability to live their lives as they see fit. That is a huge difference.
I mostly agree with this, but I think that a lot of people use the SJW acronym to dismiss legitimate civil rights, harassment etc. grievances. I felt like I saw this a lot with the #blacklivesmatters movement. People that didn't want to admit that we still have race issues in this country lumped that movement in with the ridiculous SJW people, and then were able to continue on in there comfortable bubble. The same with Anita Sarkeesian. While I don't agree with a lot of things she says, that woman has faced death threats and near constant harassment because she criticized some video games. That's pretty fucked up. People should be free to disagree with her, and speak their mind about it, but not be free to threaten to rape or kill her. You can disagree with the extents she wants to go to, but to completely dismiss her is just sticking your head in the sand.
I'm not sure you're necessarily getting what I'm saying. Anita is free to say whatever she wants about video games. I am free to disagree with her. However, that disagreement does not mean I endorse sexism in video games, or death threats, or rape threats. All it means is I disagree, and should be free to do so as she is free to voice her opinion. The problem is when the political correctness gang shows up and says 'you're evil and should be hurt financially, personally, and professionally' because I disagree with her. Tolerance works both ways.
I completely agree with that. My main point was that people use the SJW acronym to dismiss people with legitimate complaints that make them uncomfortable. In the Anita example, they dismiss the idea that harassment online is a problem because she said some dumb things about video games. This translate to bigger issues. Like in the race discussion people have dismissed the whole blacklivesmatter movement because "oh it's just those SJW at it again." It think we're mostly on the same page with this though.
Jesus. Another school shooting.This time at Northern Arizona University, 1 dead, 3 wounded. What the fuck is wrong with folks?
I read the story and think it's shootings like these that broad gun-control reforms [that reduced the number of guns out there] could actually have a real impact on. To whit: So basically you have some hothead who (probably) lost a fight and with clouded judgment ran to get his gun. If he didn't have a gun, or hell, just didn't have it in his car, I think it would've been more likely that he might've cooled off and made a better decision before he would've/could've gotten his hands on a gun.
I agree. Now, how do you go about it? More laws? Stricter punishments? He was already carrying a gun in a gun free zone, so on top of Murder, Attempted Murder, Assault With a Deadly Weapon, and God knows what else charges he's facing, somewhere at the bottom of the list is "Having a firearm in a gun free zone." More gun control laws won't fix the problem, just add more charges. While this story made national headlines because everyone in the country is against school shootings, there were probably at least 50 people shot in this country today with a stolen firearm. Instead of passing laws to make it more difficult to legally obtain a firearm, I think we need to make it more difficult to illegally obtain a firearm.
The first thing that needs to happen is to repeal the bullshit law that prevents the CDC from conducting studies on gun violence in this country. Before we start talking about gun control policy changes we first need to get a better picture of which guns are committing the crimes.
Ok. How do you find out which guns are committing the crimes? Let me give you a scenario that's played out every day in this country: A guy is shot. No one saw anything. The gun is tossed in a body of water, a trashcan, whatever. Exactly how do you find out if the gun was obtained legally?
A couple thoughts on the "gun tragedy" du jour: -So what? This shit happens every day in every urban center in America but nobody so much as batts an eye when it is black on black crime. #blacklivesclearlyDONTmatter. The SJWs in the blacklife camp must be wondering why this is a big deal? Why does the media squeal like a stuck pig when white folk kill each other in an argument and you can fill a morgue with black people killing each other in this fashion and nobody cares. The reason, which nobody in policy will admit, is the Government doesn't care at all about human life. They care about changing policy, incrementally, toward a final solution, which is disarming the public. -Was this guy, a freshman frat boy, drinking? Why not ban alcohol? Why not ban Greek life? Why not ban underage drinking? This is all just arbitrary just like the South Carolina shooting aftermath.
And to go with that, that wouldn't sell papers. Someone shooting up a school does. It is all about ratings. I really likes I believe it was sheriff in the Oregon shooting he said "we are not going to say his name, we don't want to glorify the shooting. "
Come on, you're smarter than this. The majority of shooting (and violence in general) victims are shot by people they know. It doesn't take a lot of police work to figure out who shot who in the majority of situations. I'll venture the majority of shootings don't occur when nobody sees anything. It's not about catching every last outlier; being able to survey the majority of shootings is valuable enough in itself.