@Azereaux
>I am not, however, [..] something in the came category.
By telling people to lead by example, giving up wealth (pope) and actually do what they claim to do (feminists), I am telling them to act consistent in what they say and how they themselves behave. I don't force my beliefs on them or tell them to force their beliefs on others. I'm just telling them to follow the rules they set for themselves. I can't really follow here, sorry.
>If silence IS complicity, then your silence on the subject of homosexual men referring to bisexual men like myself as 'breeders' and 'frauds looking for attention' clearly means you echo those sentiments.
My life would be empty indeed if the only place I voiced my beliefs and opinion were this website. On to you point:
I do call out people for baselessly speculating on what goes on in the sex life or behaviour of others, when it goes on around me. Before I speak for others I usually ask if they actually are offended, lest I presume to speak for others when it is not warranted, wanted or actively annoys the protectee. So when someone insults you again, feel free to tell me. I'll write up a passive-agressive letter you can show that person or keep for your own amusement. (Chances are that they are envious. You can have children while they likely can't, barring adoption or other long and complicated methods. Or their boyfriend cheated on them with a woman once. You know, please do tell me. I feel I'd like writing that letter).
If I had to protest everything all the time I'd be constantly offended on behalf of others who might not even need or want me to be so. Seeing that this is something that annoys me about feminists, I usually try asking whether I'm wanted.
You use "seem" too much in your rebuttal. Perhaps some clarification is in order? If a group is aware that someone inside of them is commiting some sort of crime (let's say, doxxing) and they don't do anything about it... yes, I would say they're complicit. They aren't as guilty as the one who committed the crime, obviously but they're loathsome because they abet that persons behaviour. A catholic churchgoer gives money to a church, who uses part of that money to support child molesters. That's like giving money to NAMBLA, it makes you a shitty person even if you aren't a child molester yourself.
>There is a such thing as 'picking your battles'.
A wise choice, in some regards. I'm just less picky. I've seen "picking your battles" used as an excuse for "I'm too lazy to get off my ass" too often. Just make sure that your action is wanted or you'll look like that non-asian feminist explaining to a japanese woman why a white person wearing a kimono should be offensive to them.
>(well, we are part of: the LGBT crowd) does not throw out its extremists or nutcases, largely because they do not represent the majority.
No. I'm a bit confused which part you mean (admittedly this is becoming rather lengthy) but if it's the first sentence: A HRC founder appears (well, is confirmed) to have committed statutory rape with his then boyfriend. He was promptly disowned by anyone not living under a rock. And by "disowned" I mean people distanced themselves very clearly in quite a lot of publications instead of quietly shuffling it away. They didn't form a mob at the HRC to spray paint graffiti or throw stones at the frathou- I mean building. They also didn't tweet, say, #Istandwithterrybean.
I know there isn't a special gay or feminist card you can revoke, but make some effort to spread the word at least.
>There exist LGBT groups that spout EXACTLY what you say they don't (Person X is Gay, therefore, we must unconditionally support them).
Truly? Well, now I'm honestly curious. Please, show me such a group. The actual group please, not some account of "This happened to me at one point." I'm especially doubtful of the "unconditional" part. In my experience extremists abandon those who criticise them, no matter how well ment the criticism. Please, show me those groups, I'll denounce them and if I don't find enough gay people disavowing them I'll concede the point.
>EVERYONE should get a fair deal and the chance to play their hand how they see fit
I fully agree. This is exactly the motto I live by, yet for some reason this ruffles some feathers.
Tell me: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the firefighter department in New York to let a woman become a firefighter after repeatedly failing the physical, even though all men who failed were not given the same courtesy beforehand? Do you think that this is disrespectful to the women who did make it with their own power and hard work? Perhaps I should mention that complaints by the same woman also caused the NY administration to move their age limit upwards so she could attend firefighter training in the first place.
Please be honest, I beg you: Do you think this same treatment would have been given to a man who was over the age limit?
And lastly, do you think "I think the most competent person should get the job, even if they're a white male." is oppressive? This is something I've seen thown around quite a bit.
>On gay bars: Girlfriend of mine (the ex...) brought me to one. No one complained.
Were you incredibly obnoxious while you were there? Tried to flirt with any lesbians or oogled them from your seat? If no, you're a better and more polite person than roughly 90% of all straight women I've ever seen at a gay bar.
Would you have accepted them refusing you entry if they told you they wouldn't let you in? That's partly what my point depends on.
>Short version: I do practice what I preach
Yes, you called her out. Thank you for being consistent. And she apologized too, after you pointed the hypocrisy out. I did indeed not see that.
>Much like someone that decries 'ghetto/gang culture' as representing black people while ignoring the existence of Stormfront or claiming 'we're not all like that'.
Last reply, I promise. Oh dear, this is getting long.
The comparison is not quite apt. Race is not the same thing as ideology. I'm calling out feminists on stuff other feminists do on behalf of feminism. What I say is that someone uses the ideology they share to do something harmful, the other person sees and acknowledges this yet doesn't do anything.
Perhaps I should give a better explanation: I don't know much about Stormfront (they're white supremacists, that's it).
Let us assume, for a second, purely HYPOTHETICALLY that someone on Stormfront hasn't physically attacked a black person. Hell, let's lower the bar. Say, not every person on there has attacked a black person period, using either force, writing, expression of some kind. I'm pretty sure there are "closeted" racists.
When someone on Stormfront kills (or harms, or drives to suicide, take your pick) a black person, would you agree that the people on the forum abbetted that behaviour? Would you agree that the other person on the board share some guilt for their peer's actions, even if they themselves never talked to him or her? (Let's assume here that there are no people on Stormfront calling the others out on their racism, those would be excempt and probably banned anyway)
Admittedly this isn't a perfect comparison either since feminism is founded on gender, not race. I'd argue that both view themselves as oppressed though. Feminists blame the patriarchy for all of women's ills, white supremacists blame everyone who isn't caucasian (and presumably all caucasians who don't support them, while feminists accuse women who are against feminism of being gender traitors).
Again, can't comment on Stormfront too much since I'm not that well informed on them. And yes I'm pretty sure there are far more good feminists than good Stormfronters.
Lastly, racists are roundly condemned. It's in the news practically every day. I'd say most white people aren't very silent about their dislike of racism.
I'm sorry if I missed a point, it's late where I am.
