Recent posts by Sharangir on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is my being a white, cisgender, heterosexual male a bad thing?

People don’t seem to understand privilege and assume it’s an unwanted thing. The reason why you’re told you’re privileged is because you already have the things that minorities don’t have yet. It is a desired state and you just need to be aware to not forget that some people don’t have the same privileges as you yet.

Kind of like how most of you don’t have the privileges that rich people have. It’s as simple as that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

LGBT people They feel oppressed by people who are against them – which is understandable – so they oppress people who don’t really mind them/don’t have an opinion/simply don’t care – which is just stupid and only makes the situation worse.

Pretending LGBT people oppress straight people.

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

It’s against common sense, or reason at all. By extension, I should be now legally forced to address this woman as “mare”, just because she wishes to be treated like a horse. Well, too bad. If refusing to give a cube of salt to an adult woman is what it takes to get me locked up, so be it.

Equating trans issues to someone having fun by dressing up like a pony.

Tolerance, sure. Acceptance, sure. But some consider it bad manners when someone “new” to a society demands special, beneficial, treatment just for being new (transsexuals, in this context, are relatively “new”, both factually and as legal subjects).

Claiming LGBT people demand “special treatment” when at the same time, you already have all of your special treatment. You’re also saying that trans people are new, rather than just now starting to be accepted/allowed to participate in society. That’s like saying gay and black people are new because we’ve only recently started talking about allowing them to participate.

Tolerance should be “given”, not “demanded”,

Claiming oppressed people should stfu and wait till people like you give permission.

I draw the line at reconstructing a language so that it suits the needs of a group at the cost of everyone else

Using other people as a shield to hide behind because you don’t want to do a little effort to meet minimum standards of human decency.

as the author of that article points out here:
I feel sorry for heterosexual men and lesbian women in the future. I never, ever condone violence, but really, it’s going to get difficult. Someone is going to have to figure out how to ask, delicately, that all-important question: “Are you the kind of woman with a vagina or the kind with a penis?” Because really, lesbian women and straight men don’t care about any “cotton ceiling.” They’re attracted to adult females with the parts they expect. And there’s nothing wrong or bigoted or transphobic about that.

I’d say it doesn’t sound as crass when read as a coherent part of the article, but maybe that’s just me.


What is this “cost” going to be?

It already makes things utterly nonsensical at times, and hinders communication. Simple concepts get complicated and when people try to go around them in order to actually get a response, they come off as crass (as in the quoted part of the article).

The person you quoted says that it would be difficult not to use violence against trans people because they’re not attracted to trans people. You agree with them. Is that what this is about? You want to deny these people’s existence and rights because you don’t want to have sex with them?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Dude quit the bullshit, seriously. You write walls of text to obfuscate your bigotry in the hope that people wont notice it.

-Stop comparing transgender people to animals that don’t deserve your respect to be addressed properly like you do with humans.

-Stop talking about “special treatment”. LGBT people are not asking for special treatment, they’re asking that you stop fucking ignoring them every time you make a decision affecting someone other than you and that you change all your previous decisions that you made while ignoring them because they exclude them. Kind of like deciding to build stairs for an entrance to a public building because you’re ignoring people with wheelchairs. (You = everyone, especially those who make laws)

-Stop whining about minorities asking for their rights or inclusion when all the laws and legal and social systems are already catered to you. (i.e. Fuck you, I got mine)

-Stop complaining that you think politics being about minorities is something sinister.

No amount of “I don’t mind LGBT people” is going to take away from the utter nonsense you wrote in these walls of text.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Originally posted by Sharangir:
Sorry but that’s bullshit.

Thank you for your input. I especially liked the part where you explained in detail why you thought that was bullshit, and presented counterarguments to the text you quoted only proving its being bullshit.

I’m willing to give arguments supporting what I said in that post, but I’m certainly not going to put that much effort in replying to one-liners that bring nothing of value to the discussion and are far from constructive critique.

I also liked the part where you used nonsense like “deliberately obfuscating someone’s gender”, whatever that means and the part where you called it newspeak without explaining either. So I’d say we’re even.

I also like the part where you don’t give a shit about LGBT people, the only thing you care about is that it shouldn’t become the next “hot political debate topic”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

Using gender-neutral pronouns in sentences that refer to people of “any” or unknown gender is one thing, another is deliberately obfuscating someone’s gender in order to support one’s ideology. That’s newspeak.

Sorry but that’s bullshit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola cases popping up all over texas

Quite the contrary, remove all borders. You’ll suddenly see all the rich people coming up with all sorts of creative solutions to make people happy enough to stay where they are.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

Who cares if they perform better or worse, just accept the ones that apply and meet the requirements. Anything else just seems to me to be irrational hatred towards women.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Exactly, the job of a financial adviser (assuming he is not making that up either) is advising people what to do with the money they have in the current system. This does not magically give authority on the subject of identifying and differentiating economic systems outside of the scope of our current version of capitalism. The two need quite different knowledge sets and approaches. The fact that he uses a dictionary, which is for defining colloquial use of words and not for defining concepts, to undermine what I wrote does not help either.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

The two are connected for fucks sake. There is almost not a single ideology that doesn’t address both the political and the economic. Or what do you think the planned part means in planned capitalist economy? What do you think the stateless part means in Communism? What do you think the minarchist part means in Objectivism? What do you think the corporate part means in corporatist capitalism? What do you think the anarchist part means in Mutualism?

Rhetorical questions, btw. (You can use a dictionary for rhetorical, it’s a word, not an ideology with hundreds of years of writing material.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Quoting a dictionary about political theory is quite insulting and shows why you don’t understand it, at least have the decency to use an encyclopedia. Dictionaries don’t research topics and frankly don’t care, encyclopedias do.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Do financial advisors always use a dictionaries to define things? Sounds like a huge waste of money if you ask me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you that these countries you keep going on about don’t have a communist economy. Do you not know what communism and capitalism mean?

A financial adviser, so someone taught you about chicago or austrian school of capitalist economics, big fucking whoop. Your skills as financial adviser don’t mean shit when discussing economic theory if you don’t even know about the key characteristics of and differences between economic systems. Try something more along the lines of economic and political economic anthropology instead. Broaden your vision, can’t think outside of the box if the box is the only thing you know.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Comprehensive reading is not a luxury you know.

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

somebody really needs to tell China or Russia that.

USSR and PRC do not gets called communist because they had communist economy, but because they had communist leaders. That’s a huge important difference and kinda shows that you’re a bit lacking in knowledge on the topic being discussed.

so in your analogy of the library how are monthly membership fees different from payroll tax? and it’s a little bit different whenever you can equate value to something.

I actually said that’s the part that isn’t communist because the economy the library is in is obviously not communist but capitalist, and capitalism is one of the systems that uses markets and you kind of need money to buy books for your library in a market economy…

if the books from the library with something who’s to stop somebody from taking all that they wanted, example being checking out every single book? that’s why true communism cannot work

Nothing is stopping them, but it doesn’t matter because the library is still there you see. I can take as many books as I want every time I go there, nothing is stopping me. However, I don’t do this, nobody does this. I simply don’t need that many books, that’s not how humans work. That’s why communism actually does work.

and the Social Security program represents the closest thing humanity can get to true communism. but even that communism falls apart just look at China and Russia.

I already said that social security has nothing to do with communism. Social security is an aspect of social liberalism and Keynesian-type capitalism. It’s an attempt at minimizing the damage that capitalism causes.


simply put, communism is not better than capitalism because humanity cannot handle communism in its various forms, while people can embrace capitalism because they can use their own greed to fund that economy.

Humanity is greedy, so your solution is to give all the economic power to a few people so they can be really greedy at the expense of everyone else? Cool.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

SS isn’t communism, good fucking grief.

You don’t know what you’re talking about in science, in current events [the frog thread], and now in political theory. On the latter, you’re arguing with people who don’t know anything about it either, but unlike Vika on UFOs I don’t feel compelled to write a 5000 word essay educating you [and then to have it critiqued as you pointlessly try to hold on to your ignorant claims]. Watch this video, and stop spouting stupid shit.

it’s a community funded program in wich everybody gets the paid regardless of how much they actually put in…… That’s communism in its true form. I’m not saying the US government is funding the Red Terror anything like that and I’m not saying that Social Security is a bad thing I think it’s a very good thing I’m just saying its a socialist fund that is directly aimed at helping the retired community.

I applaud your creativity to try and make it fit, however considering communism doesn’t really have money, payment nor taxes I find the example of social security is a bit lacking. A better example of communism would actually be a library, everyone can take books, it doesn’t matter which ones you pick it doesn’t matter how many you pick. You just pick the ones you think you need or want to read in the next month and that’s that. (Now of course there’s some checks in place still because while the library may function similar to communist economy, the larger society is certainly not. So you usually pay membership fee and get fined when you don’t bring back books on time. This is because the library doesn’t have much funding and sort of needs those books for other people later still.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

So why is the title of the thread “transgender individuals”, but the topic is instead about lifestylism body mods, plastic surgery and transhumanism. You are aware that the hormonal treatments and sex operation is 99% of the time not a lifestyle choice but rather a treatment for the serious issue of gender dysphoria that results into heavy depression and suicide, right? And that after said treatment they face higher chance of getting fired, becoming homeless, having their family abandon them, getting beaten up, getting killed than people who didn’t have to go through all that? This isn’t something people decide casually or for fun. There is no happy ending here, the choice is between misery caused by something within and misery caused by others. Please don’t just dismiss all that by comparing it to something as trivial and without consequences as getting your nose fixed.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / UFOs

Originally posted by radar816:

So then birds could be UFO’s? Because that seems like stretching the meaning of it. I understand the point of the drone thing, that in air towers they see a blip but no info, but I wouldn’t call it unidentified, simply because someone does know what it is, just not people looking at a screen for planes.

To be a UFO, for me, anyone seeing it would be unable to identify it.

That’s kind of the point isn’t it? People forget that UFO is a military term for aerial objects/phenomena they haven’t been able to identify (yet), as soon as it is identified then it stops being a UFO and instead becomes the identified object/phenomena/entity instead. Therefore it’s a UFO until someone explains to you what it is. You can’t possibly know that nobody is unable to identify it, all you know is that you can’t identify it and that no-one else has explained it to you yet.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Marxism doesn’t treat people the same either.

So where does the myth that people are all identical clones with no soul if they are communist come from then? I’m used to the empty rhetoric that all communists are empty soulless bastards, but I thought it came from the exposure the US had to the USSR as the ‘great danger’.

Probably McCarthyism and other capitalist propaganda over the years. There isn’t a single communist ideology that argues that.

Seems like people really don’t want to google what communism actually is before taking part in this discussion.

Communism is simply a stateless, classless, moneyless society where means of production are commonly owned. Generally definition of Communism also includes “to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability” as a general guideline for economic system (it is a clever slogan by Blanqui, popularized by Marx). It has nothing to do with everyone being equal or being paid the same. It just means self-government combined with indiscriminate access to commodities and the ability to produce them.

Now and here’s the tricky part: communism is also a catch-all term for all ideologies and movements that want to work towards that system I just described. So for example when people say that the USSR was communist, it doesn’t mean that it was a communist system, it only means that the people in charge were communists: That they were people who want to move towards communism. (Or at least claim they want to because that’s all that you really need in order to call yourself a communist)

There’s many types of communists and all of them have different strategies and propose different transitional forms of governments. You’ve got the three based on people everyone sort of knows: Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists but you also have the (quite different I might add) Luxemburgists, Anarcho-communists, Communalists, Autonomists, Council-communists, and the list goes on. There’s a good chance that there’s probably a communist ideology for every type of organizational structure and strategy you can think of.

However, social security or dictatorship is not communism, but it could maybe be proposed by some types of communists as a strategy to get there. You just can’t discuss communism by taking one group’s strategies and pretend that all communists want this. All you can do is discuss the general definition and its feasibility and if you want to go deeper then you’ll just have to focus on specific groups and what they each propose. (Kind of like discussing capitalism in general and then going on to discuss the different types such as Keynesians, neo-liberals, objectivists, rothbardians, corporatists, etc…)

If you want introduction into what communists actually want and how different types of communists argue on how to get there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(communism_and_anarchism) (Please remember that when socialists talk about “private property” they don’t mean the same as the rich guy on tv. Private property as socialists use it (yes, all communists are socialists (=wanting commonly owned means of production) but not all socialists are communists. Some like markets or don’t want a stateless society, etc) only refers to the private ownership of means of production, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production. When socialists speak of things that aren’t used for production, such as your living quarters, bed, tv, computer, etc… they use the term “personal possession” and they claim that it would be silly and impractical to get rid of those)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Zwarte Piet, and sinterklaas. Racism or tradition?

But he is… The party he fronts is in the European far-right racist fraction with the right-wing populist parties Front National, Vlaams Belang and the neo-fascist party Lega Nord. There are only 6 parties in that fraction so it’s not like there’s any other common ground there.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Zwarte Piet, and sinterklaas. Racism or tradition?

Considering the vast global Muslim population, the amount of Muslims that are in any way connected to terrorist organisations is marginal at best, some empirical evidence that is. The targets of right-wing organizations in Western Europe such as the parliamentary political parties Front National, Vlaams Belang and Party Voor de Vrijheid is not “political islamists” or “terrorists” their targets are all people of North African and Middle-Eastern ethnicities. Then of course there’s the militant organisations that do not run for parliamentary elections but fight for street control that go as far as throwing bricks and molotovs at asylum centers and squats housing migrants without papers.

But it is naive and stupid to argue, as you seem to be doing, that bigotry has no basis in facts.

Bigotry is based on fearmongering and abuse of statistics to apply negative characteristics to demographics and thus justify harmful actions towards those demographics. If you call looking at isolated cases of petty crimes, in order reinforce a confirmation bias, having a “basis in facts” then sure they have a “basis in facts”. However then the term “basis in facts” doesn’t really have a meaning anymore as everything does according to that definition have a basis in facts including fictional literature.

They apparently wanted to maintain that Wilders is some random anomaly instead of admitting that Holland has a problem with cultural integration that will obviously produce people like Wilders.

He is not a random anomaly, he is just one of many in a long going tradition of dehumanizing non-European ethnicities because it is easier to blame problems on genetics than it is to tackle the socio-economic situations they are most likely to land in. This due to the majority having moved without any notable possessions. As well as that after moving the members of said ethnic groups are still constantly treated like shit and less likely to be accepted by the dominant ethnic group that holds seats in positions of power in the various institutions, translating into way less opportunities including but not limited to less likely to be employed or less likely to get accepted in certain schools, less likely to get funding and more likely to get stopped by police, arrested and sentenced for doing the same things as the dominant group.

But no, people like Wilders would like you to have believe that the reason is because their women wear funny cloths on their heads and because they drink mint tea and pray to an Abrahamic god several times a day.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Zwarte Piet, and sinterklaas. Racism or tradition?

Jantonaitis, I have to give you some serious credit for apparently trying to pretend that racism is caused by its very victims.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

I think a lot of people in this thread would do well to actually look up the core definitions of the terms they’re discussing. Such as what socialism, communism and capitalism actually entails.

Case in point: I see people complaining about “equal wages” when in fact neither of the three systems advocate equal wages at all. Socialism ideologies advocates payment based on a person’s productive labor. Capitalism advocates payment based on ownership of productive property and how many people labor for you, or if you don’t own productive property then you get paid based on time regardless of how much or little labor you provide (wage labor). Last but not least communism doesn’t work with a payment system because communism is the description of a socialist post-scarcity stage in society where people have unconditional access to commodities so terms like paid more/less/same don’t even apply.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Womyn: noble effourt or heroic cause

Your examples are different. The example in your last post was someone who was trying to fight discrimination for women and had a strategy in mind to do so and people can agree or disagree with the effectiveness or extremity of that strategy. The examples in your previous post, however was someone that said things that went completely against the principles of feminism.

Take economic principles for example. You can have an anti-poverty movement. The principle being that poverty is bad and should be getten rid of. Now you can have many factions inside of this movement, from social democrats all the way to communists and anarchists. All of these have different strategies and those strategies also have different effectiveness and different ammounts of obstacles and opposition. However the main principle is still to reduce poverty, and not to increase it. Therefore economic liberals are not included.

Similarily, if you look at communism, it is the movement that advocates Communism which is a stateless, classless moneyless society where the means of production are commonly owned. There are many types of communists, each of them have different strategies to get there. However if they don’t advocate a stateless, classless and moneyless society where means of production are commonly owned then there isn’t really anything communist about it.

That’s the difference between different factions of a movement, some of which you might view as extreme fringe, and groups that call themselves part of a movement but whose actions and thoughts go completely against it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Womyn: noble effourt or heroic cause

No. This has nothing to do with “the extreme”. Feminism doesn’t claim men are useless, that’s patriarchy’s job to tell someone they’re useless at something due to their gender. We don’t have to do its job for it.
Similarily, nowhere in the feminist theory does it state that men are forced to mate with women or vice versa, in fact the freedom of choice and consent in this matter is huge factor in feminism and the anecdote you wrote above goes against that principle.

There are fringes of a movement, yes. However, when views go against basic principles of a movement, they are not fringe feminist views but anti-feminist views

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Womyn: noble effourt or heroic cause

That’s rather ridiculous since the only people who are fighting against the stereotype that women should always be caretakers are the feminists. Yet it still doesn’t mean that men are disadvantaged, since although they can’t 100% do what they want due to the gender roles, they still hold the social power.

If the men that wanted to get rid of the damaging and limiting gender stereotypes and gender roles were truly genuine, maybe they shouldn’t look for answers in an exclusivively white straight conversative movement from the ’70s that wishes to keep the stereotypes and in order to do so will always fight feminist at any cost (Including at the cost of the white straight men it claims to represent).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Womyn: noble effourt or heroic cause

That actually makes this thread even more ridiculous. It’s not like feminism is still a controversial topic in today’s world where there’s even people who think men are disadvantaged in society and every bit of misinformation damages its reputation even more. Oh, wait.