If we were in charge of Who... (apropos of another chat with Darael last night)

  • [The Doctor returns from the loss of whichever companion he's travelling with at the time. It is the last episode of the season]
  • DOCTOR: What's this?
  • [There is a note pinned to the door of the TARDIS. We zoom in on the note as he pulls it off and reads it]
  • ["Grandfather. We need to talk"]
  • DOCTOR: What?
  • [The Doctor opens the door, still holding the note, and steps into the TARDIS, muttering to himself. He stops dead, looking up as he realises that there's someone waiting for him inside the previously-locked TARDIS, silhouetted against the TARDIS console with her arms crossed]
  • DOCTOR: What!?
  • SUSAN: Hello, Grandfather.
  • DOCTOR: /WHAT!?/
  • [end episode, end season]
  • ---
  • The ensuing special includes Susan and the Doctor arguing over him leaving her behind, with sufficient explanation and extenuating conflict to make it followable and interesting for fans who haven't watched One's run. Towards the end of the episode, Susan announces her plan to, well...
  • ---
  • DOCTOR: You can't do that! You can't /pick/ a time lock! Not with a TARDIS!
  • SUSAN: Not with /this/ TARDIS, no.
  • [Susan pats the TARDIS console]
  • SUSAN: Sorry, old girl. But he's right, a Type 40's not going to do it. Luckily, Grandfather, I've got a friend whose TARDIS is a bit more up-to-date. That's right, land me just about here.
  • [Susan steps out of the TARDIS onto an alien planet. The Doctor follows her, in shock and flapping his hands frantically]
  • DOCTOR: What do you mean, you know someone else with a TARDIS? There's no-one else with a TARDIS! There aren't any more Time Lords, Susan! I'm the last of the Time Lords!
  • SUSAN: Just as well there's still a Time Lady or two, then, isn't it?
  • [The Doctor gapes, clearly in shock. Suddenly, a TARDIS noise, from around a corner, and someone very familiar to the Doctor walks out]
  • ACE: Hello, Doctor.
  • DOCTOR: Ace?
  • [beat]
  • DOCTOR: What happened to calling me Professor?
  • ACE: Well, I'm The Professor now. Seems a bit stupid to call us both that, doesn't it?
  • [AND THEN SUSAN AND THE PROFESSOR FLY OFF AND ARE BADASSES TOGETHER AND SUSAN HOOKS INTO THE EYE OF HARMONY IN ACE'S TARDIS TO PICK THE TIMELOCK AND JORMY IS A SQUEALING FANGIRL FOREVER]
thedreadvampy: mellbell360: echidna-boy: echidna-boy: So you know how there’s that post saying how people should invent birth control for men? (Take bullets out of a gun, not put on a bullet proof best) Well here it is. If some of you had actually researched it for like, 5mins, you would’ve actually found it. Here’s the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/04/03/male-birth-control-reversible_n_1400708.html To put it simply, the whole procedure takes about 15mins and lasts 10 years with a 100% success rate. After an anesthetic, there’s an injection of some sperm-killing gel (Vasal Gel) into the male vas deferens. If the guy wants it reversed, he can get another shot which does that. So, spread the word or something, but here it is. How this post hasn’t gone viral by now is fucking beyond me. This this this this this 100 PERCENT SUCCESS  RATE this cannot be true it is too good OK, so I’ve been following the progress of RISUG for a little while now. The last I read, which was a couple of weeks ago, it was in trials. First clinical trial was in India, ages ago. Of 250 men, it failed for one - and that was because someone made a mistake in the procedure. The reason it’s still in trials is that we need to make sure that, for instance, it’s not carcinogenic. The way (we think) it works it really cool, too. The gel doesn’t kill sperm by being poisonous to them. No. That would imply a chemical reaction of some kind that would slowly use up the gel. Actually, it’s a polymer with a matrix of positive and negative charges. Travelling across the charge differentials literally rips the sperm apart. Basically, if I hear about a trial in whatever region I happen to be located at the time, I’m putting myself on the list.
View Separately

thedreadvampy:

mellbell360:

echidna-boy:

echidna-boy:

So you know how there’s that post saying how people should invent birth control for men? (Take bullets out of a gun, not put on a bullet proof best) Well here it is. If some of you had actually researched it for like, 5mins, you would’ve actually found it.

Here’s the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/04/03/male-birth-control-reversible_n_1400708.html

To put it simply, the whole procedure takes about 15mins and lasts 10 years with a 100% success rate.

After an anesthetic, there’s an injection of some sperm-killing gel (Vasal Gel) into the male vas deferens. If the guy wants it reversed, he can get another shot which does that.

So, spread the word or something, but here it is.

How this post hasn’t gone viral by now is fucking beyond me.

This this this this this

100

PERCENT

SUCCESS 

RATE

this cannot be true it is too good

OK, so I’ve been following the progress of RISUG for a little while now.

The last I read, which was a couple of weeks ago, it was in trials. First clinical trial was in India, ages ago. Of 250 men, it failed for one - and that was because someone made a mistake in the procedure. The reason it’s still in trials is that we need to make sure that, for instance, it’s not carcinogenic.

The way (we think) it works it really cool, too. The gel doesn’t kill sperm by being poisonous to them. No. That would imply a chemical reaction of some kind that would slowly use up the gel. Actually, it’s a polymer with a matrix of positive and negative charges. Travelling across the charge differentials literally rips the sperm apart.

Basically, if I hear about a trial in whatever region I happen to be located at the time, I’m putting myself on the list.

Source: echidna-boy

  • Nine: I think I was in love once.
  • Ten: Really? What was her name?
  • Nine: Her name was Rose.
  • Ten: Doctor, we all love Rose.
  • Nine: I love Rose because she's fantastic. She always knew just what to say and she made me better.
  • Ten: Oh, yes! Rose was brilliant. All soft and warm and clever and so very human.
  • Eleven: I love River!
  • Nine: ...
  • Ten: ...
  • Eleven: I love Clara!
  • Ten: Doctor, are you just looking at girls in the universe and saying that you love them?
  • Eleven: I love... fez.
  • Ten: Do you really love fez, or are you just saying that because you saw it?
  • Eleven: I - I love fez! I love fez. Fezzes are cool!

Source: spookyknight

northcentralpositronics: viivus: Robert and Rosalind Lutece in Professor Layton-y style - now with actual puzzles! (answers over here) Personal note -  the only puzzle of these three I actually solved without getting the answer spoiled was the last one, and it took me half an hour. So. don’t feel bad about not getting it. I think I need to relax on my lateral thinking, because my answers to these were, in order: Join the straight lines with curves (It never says to ONLY use straight lines) Chop one of the dominos in half, and yes. Ignore the string; place the nails under the picture  so that the picture is propped up. Removing either nail will unbalance the picture and cause it to fall. One day I will learn to approach puzzles like this without mentally searching out any and all loopholes in the phrasing. Another alternative solution to the last, which involves the string, is that it isn’t specified that the string is attached to the picture. Therefore, tie loops in each end of the string, hammer one nail into the wall and one into the frame, and place one loop around each nail. Remove either and the picture will fall. Whether the string does also depends on which nail goes. I already knew the first, and got the “correct” “solution” to the second.
Zoom Info
northcentralpositronics: viivus: Robert and Rosalind Lutece in Professor Layton-y style - now with actual puzzles! (answers over here) Personal note -  the only puzzle of these three I actually solved without getting the answer spoiled was the last one, and it took me half an hour. So. don’t feel bad about not getting it. I think I need to relax on my lateral thinking, because my answers to these were, in order: Join the straight lines with curves (It never says to ONLY use straight lines) Chop one of the dominos in half, and yes. Ignore the string; place the nails under the picture  so that the picture is propped up. Removing either nail will unbalance the picture and cause it to fall. One day I will learn to approach puzzles like this without mentally searching out any and all loopholes in the phrasing. Another alternative solution to the last, which involves the string, is that it isn’t specified that the string is attached to the picture. Therefore, tie loops in each end of the string, hammer one nail into the wall and one into the frame, and place one loop around each nail. Remove either and the picture will fall. Whether the string does also depends on which nail goes. I already knew the first, and got the “correct” “solution” to the second.
Zoom Info
northcentralpositronics: viivus: Robert and Rosalind Lutece in Professor Layton-y style - now with actual puzzles! (answers over here) Personal note -  the only puzzle of these three I actually solved without getting the answer spoiled was the last one, and it took me half an hour. So. don’t feel bad about not getting it. I think I need to relax on my lateral thinking, because my answers to these were, in order: Join the straight lines with curves (It never says to ONLY use straight lines) Chop one of the dominos in half, and yes. Ignore the string; place the nails under the picture  so that the picture is propped up. Removing either nail will unbalance the picture and cause it to fall. One day I will learn to approach puzzles like this without mentally searching out any and all loopholes in the phrasing. Another alternative solution to the last, which involves the string, is that it isn’t specified that the string is attached to the picture. Therefore, tie loops in each end of the string, hammer one nail into the wall and one into the frame, and place one loop around each nail. Remove either and the picture will fall. Whether the string does also depends on which nail goes. I already knew the first, and got the “correct” “solution” to the second.
Zoom Info

northcentralpositronics:

viivus:

Robert and Rosalind Lutece in Professor Layton-y style - now with actual puzzles!

(answers over here)

Personal note -  the only puzzle of these three I actually solved without getting the answer spoiled was the last one, and it took me half an hour. So. don’t feel bad about not getting it.

I think I need to relax on my lateral thinking, because my answers to these were, in order:

  1. Join the straight lines with curves (It never says to ONLY use straight lines)
  2. Chop one of the dominos in half, and yes.
  3. Ignore the string; place the nails under the picture  so that the picture is propped up. Removing either nail will unbalance the picture and cause it to fall.

One day I will learn to approach puzzles like this without mentally searching out any and all loopholes in the phrasing.

Another alternative solution to the last, which involves the string, is that it isn’t specified that the string is attached to the picture. Therefore, tie loops in each end of the string, hammer one nail into the wall and one into the frame, and place one loop around each nail. Remove either and the picture will fall. Whether the string does also depends on which nail goes.

I already knew the first, and got the “correct” “solution” to the second.

Source: viivus

nievie: arachnis-deathicus: Gonna quickly throw in an epic quote I found on this article. KJKJ: Gene Roddenberry, with balls of brass, got up on national tv and said, “hey people, if a geneticist took all the best DNA from planet Earth and put it together to make the best human the world has ever seen - he wouldn’t be a white guy.”This is why I find the casting of a white actor in this role to be so repugnant. They are not whitewashing an Asian role, they are saying that the best genetic material that the entirety of this world and it’s diversity has to offer….still comes from a white guy. Reblogging again for that
Zoom Info
nievie: arachnis-deathicus: Gonna quickly throw in an epic quote I found on this article. KJKJ: Gene Roddenberry, with balls of brass, got up on national tv and said, “hey people, if a geneticist took all the best DNA from planet Earth and put it together to make the best human the world has ever seen - he wouldn’t be a white guy.”This is why I find the casting of a white actor in this role to be so repugnant. They are not whitewashing an Asian role, they are saying that the best genetic material that the entirety of this world and it’s diversity has to offer….still comes from a white guy. Reblogging again for that
Zoom Info

nievie:

arachnis-deathicus:

Gonna quickly throw in an epic quote I found on this article.

KJKJ: Gene Roddenberry, with balls of brass, got up on national tv and said, “hey people, if a geneticist took all the best DNA from planet Earth and put it together to make the best human the world has ever seen - he wouldn’t be a white guy.”

This is why I find the casting of a white actor in this role to be so repugnant. They are not whitewashing an Asian role, they are saying that the best genetic material that the entirety of this world and it’s diversity has to offer….still comes from a white guy.

Reblogging again for that

(via tharook)

Source: anneboleyns

A hypothesis, and a proposal

alicialuar:

meanie-face:

darael:

Anyone who follows me will already have seen this chat with my dear friend northcentralpositronics, involving a hypothesis about the Doctor.  This post is intended to give a more detailed version of said hypothesis.  There is no need to read the original chat first; I’ll include all details here.

Some knowledge of Classic Who canon will make this more comprehensible.  It’s quite detailed, so I’ve put it after the jump.

Read More

Ok.

ok.

I hope this is what is up.

I hope that this is really gonna be this fucking good.

I mean, Moffat’s done some bullshit and he’s a creepy misogynist but goddamn this would be so amazing I’m not sure I’d even be able to handle it

my mind would just explode

kudos to you, hypothesis creators

SPOILERS UNDER THE CUT

Read More

WOW… just…. WOW…

((ok, now literally anything else is gonna feel poorly written))

(((definitely I have to watch Classic Who)))

I am very, very flattered. And when Jormy sees this, I expect they will be, too. Thank you both very much for your encouragement.

Source: darael

toabsentfriend:

darael:

toabsentfriend:

darael:

tharook:

That Feminist Dyke: ghettokaiba: According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re…

thatfeministdyke:

ghettokaiba:

According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re more than one of these things then your opinion is instantly invalid

  • straight
  • white
  • male
  • happy with the gender you were born with
  • thin

If you’re straight, your opinion on homosexual matters and homophobia is worth nothing. If you’re white, your opinion on racism is worth nothing. If you’re male, your opinion on sexism is worth nothing. If you’re cis, your opinion on transphobia and trans* issues is worth nothing. If you’re thin, your opinion on fatphobia and fat positivity is worth nothing.

You are privileged over that group. These are not your oppressions. You, the oppressor, do not get an opinion.

It’s pretty simple. No one is telling you your opinion is invalid on everything, don’t even fucking act like we are.

I still wouldn’t agree with that. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion on everything, even if some are worth more than others. Someone’s opinion on homophobia, for example, shouldn’t be considered invalid simply because they’re straight. That’s absurd. Their opinion might be invalid, and it might be invalid because they’re straight, and thus have no experience of what it is like to suffer from homophobia, but if this is the case then it will be evident from their opinion.

To invalidate someone’s opinion/argument/whatever because of who they are, and not what their opinion/argument/whatever actually is is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Further, when someone does present an invalid opinion, don’t dismiss it by pointing out who they are. Dismiss it based on what the opinion is. Show them, and everyone else why that opinion is invalid, why that opinion is worthless, even if the reasons why come down to their experience, or lack thereof, or what groups they do and do not belong to.

I’m with Tharook on this one. Although I may be slightly biased by fitting three-to-four items on that list (thin, cisgender, male, and grace-but-in-a-heterosexual-relationship-so-straight-passing-at-least) :-þ.

same…
because I don’t understand how being in one of those groups makes you an oppressor?
I didn’t think I oppressed anyone?!
just because I may fit into those categories, I’m not allowed to think that everyone should be equal? i’m not allowed for fight or argue for that equality? What?!

Stop. Breathe. Rephrase.

I know what th’art getting at, but thy phrasing is typical of what, especially here on tumblr, would be referred to as white cishet tears. Give me a moment please.

The phrasing - suggesting that every individual in a privileged group is “an oppressor” is suboptimal, because, basically, allies exist. However. The privileged group as a whole does oppress the group over which it is privileged - that is the essence of what a privilege/oppression dynamic is - and it is reasonable, if not all right, for oppressed people to assume that those privileged over them are “oppressors” until they see evidence otherwise. Because the majority of the time, they’ll be right - and a substantial proportion of the time that they are right, the one perpetuating the oppression is unaware of it. What I am getting at here is that it is not the individual that is being referred to as “the oppressor” per se. It’s not a singular, targeted “you” in this context (or it shouldn’t be). It’s “you, the archetypal member of the privileged group”, not “you, the individual person”.

Th’art in a privileged position on several (but not all) axes, toabsentfriend (as am I, though the axes in question are different). I recognise that th’art wanting equality for all, and I commend thee for that. But in any specific privilege-related conversation with respect to an axis where th’art privileged, it is to be expected that thy opinion will carry less weight than that of those in the oppressed group. And that is the way it should be.

oh no, I wasn’t really getting frustrated with thy post, but the second one in
Like… I get that, I couldn’t ever quite understand exactly what it is like to be homosexual
but I can’t agree that “If you’re straight, your opinion on homosexual matters and homophobia is worth nothing”

so yeah, basically I was agreeing with thou and Tharook ^_^
(just probably in an angrier/more defensive manner)

though to be honest, I don’t understand the difference between the two groups - as in… does it make any difference to a person who they do or do not love? What colour they are? Their gender? I don’t understand how that makes them less or more of a person?

Addressing the struck-through section only: It doesn’t, in principle. But enough people think it does - consciously or otherwise - and act accordingly that de facto they are treated as if it does. Therefore work is necessary to correct this. As, of course, thou knowest.

Right. Archaic-Grammar-Nazi time! Thy “thou” should have been “thee” (the person with whom one is saying one agrees is in the accusative, not the accusative). And there is no requirement to use singular second-person pronouns just because I do. Of course.

Source: ghettokaiba

worldbeing:

northcentralpositronics:

darael:

toabsentfriend:

darael:

tharook:

That Feminist Dyke: ghettokaiba: According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re…

thatfeministdyke:

ghettokaiba:

According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re more than one of these things then your opinion is instantly invalid

  • straight
  • white
  • male
  • happy with the gender you were born with
  • thin

If you’re straight, your opinion on homosexual matters and homophobia is worth nothing. If you’re white, your opinion on racism is worth nothing. If you’re male, your opinion on sexism is worth nothing. If you’re cis, your opinion on transphobia and trans* issues is worth nothing. If you’re thin, your opinion on fatphobia and fat positivity is worth nothing.

You are privileged over that group. These are not your oppressions. You, the oppressor, do not get an opinion.

It’s pretty simple. No one is telling you your opinion is invalid on everything, don’t even fucking act like we are.

I still wouldn’t agree with that. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion on everything, even if some are worth more than others. Someone’s opinion on homophobia, for example, shouldn’t be considered invalid simply because they’re straight. That’s absurd. Their opinion might be invalid, and it might be invalid because they’re straight, and thus have no experience of what it is like to suffer from homophobia, but if this is the case then it will be evident from their opinion.

To invalidate someone’s opinion/argument/whatever because of who they are, and not what their opinion/argument/whatever actually is is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Further, when someone does present an invalid opinion, don’t dismiss it by pointing out who they are. Dismiss it based on what the opinion is. Show them, and everyone else why that opinion is invalid, why that opinion is worthless, even if the reasons why come down to their experience, or lack thereof, or what groups they do and do not belong to.

I’m with Tharook on this one. Although I may be slightly biased by fitting three-to-four items on that list (thin, cisgender, male, and grace-but-in-a-heterosexual-relationship-so-straight-passing-at-least) :-þ.

same…
because I don’t understand how being in one of those groups makes you an oppressor?
I didn’t think I oppressed anyone?!
just because I may fit into those categories, I’m not allowed to think that everyone should be equal? i’m not allowed for fight or argue for that equality? What?!

Stop. Breathe. Rephrase.

I know what th’art getting at, but thy phrasing is typical of what, especially here on tumblr, would be referred to as white cishet tears. Give me a moment please.

The phrasing - suggesting that every individual in a privileged group is “an oppressor” is suboptimal, because, basically, allies exist. However. The privileged group as a whole does oppress the group over which it is privileged - that is the essence of what a privilege/oppression dynamic is - and it is reasonable, if not all right, for oppressed people to assume that those privileged over them are “oppressors” until they see evidence otherwise. Because the majority of the time, they’ll be right - and a substantial proportion of the time that they are right, the one perpetuating the oppression is unaware of it. What I am getting at here is that it is not the individual that is being referred to as “the oppressor” per se. It’s not a singular, targeted “you” in this context (or it shouldn’t be). It’s “you, the archetypal member of the privileged group”, not “you, the individual person”.

Th’art in a privileged position on several (but not all) axes, toabsentfriend (as am I, though the axes in question are different). I recognise that th’art wanting equality for all, and I commend thee for that. But in any specific privilege-related conversation with respect to an axis where th’art privileged, it is to be expected that thy opinion will carry less weight than that of those in the oppressed group. And that is the way it should be.

I think that it’s worth noting that nobody’s opinion is invalid based on who they are, and I can’t remember seeing anyone seriously claim that. The issue is that members of oppressing groups are more likely to hold invalid opinions, because they only have second-hand information.

You’re allowed to fight and argue for equality, but when dealing with someone who has first-hand experience of being oppressed in that area, you damn well listen to them. And if they tell you, based on their experience, that your opinion is wrong because you are of the oppressing group, the chances are they’re right. They’re not always right, of course. But they’re more likely to be right than you, because they have more direct experience. Of course you should apply critical thinking to what they say, but the point is, the privileged are less able to judge oppression than the oppressed. (I am looking at you, Dad, you and your “there’s no pay gap and no rape culture because I, a cishet white man, have never experienced them”)

“Your opinion is invalid because you’re the oppressor” is a shorthand for this. And also, you are the oppressor. It’s not your fault that you’re the oppressor, but you benefit from a system fixed in your favour, and that benefit damages other people lower down the kyriarchy. I am an oppressor in matters of race, because if I am hired over a black person for a job, I am taking part in an oppressive system. Darael is an oppressor in matters of sex, because if he is given a higher-level job than a woman, he is also taking part in an oppressive system. (In both cases, obviously, I’m assuming that the hiring was BECAUSE of the blackness or femaleness of the other candidate, but you get the point.)

Point is, you can’t actually stop being a factor in the weight of oppression, no matter how good an ally you are. You can only make yourself a smaller part of that weight. Short of removing yourself from society and living self-sufficiently in a cave somewhere, you will always be the oppressor. Doesn’t make you a bad person. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to fix the systems that are broken, or to make yourself a lighter part of the weight. Doesn’t mean all your opinions are invalid.

I have no idea if this made sense. Whoops.

Makes perfect sense, northcentralpositronics; exactly the point I wanted to raise.


Even the best ally is still an oppressor because they have, willingly or not, the privileges that derive from structural rather than individual oppression.

A good ally can eliminate individual oppression and work to minimise and ultimately eliminate structural oppression, but they’ll still be in a position of privilege and are an oppressor.

Ugh. Clearly my expression of what I was getting at was insufficient. The privileged person in any interaction where privilege is relevant is The Oppressor, in that they are a part - and, indeed, the most immediate manifestation/representative - of the system of oppression. But what I was trying to get at was pretty much what you two said: That doesn’t make them a bad person, and that it doesn’t make it their fault, and it doesn’t mean we’re saying they’re oppressing somebody deliberately, because they aren’t (necessarily).

Basically I think we’re all roughly agreed on this. Including, based on her more recent response, toabsentfriend.

Source: ghettokaiba

toabsentfriend:

darael:

tharook:

That Feminist Dyke: ghettokaiba: According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re…

thatfeministdyke:

ghettokaiba:

According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re more than one of these things then your opinion is instantly invalid

  • straight
  • white
  • male
  • happy with the gender you were born with
  • thin

If you’re straight, your opinion on homosexual matters and homophobia is worth nothing. If you’re white, your opinion on racism is worth nothing. If you’re male, your opinion on sexism is worth nothing. If you’re cis, your opinion on transphobia and trans* issues is worth nothing. If you’re thin, your opinion on fatphobia and fat positivity is worth nothing.

You are privileged over that group. These are not your oppressions. You, the oppressor, do not get an opinion.

It’s pretty simple. No one is telling you your opinion is invalid on everything, don’t even fucking act like we are.

I still wouldn’t agree with that. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion on everything, even if some are worth more than others. Someone’s opinion on homophobia, for example, shouldn’t be considered invalid simply because they’re straight. That’s absurd. Their opinion might be invalid, and it might be invalid because they’re straight, and thus have no experience of what it is like to suffer from homophobia, but if this is the case then it will be evident from their opinion.

To invalidate someone’s opinion/argument/whatever because of who they are, and not what their opinion/argument/whatever actually is is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Further, when someone does present an invalid opinion, don’t dismiss it by pointing out who they are. Dismiss it based on what the opinion is. Show them, and everyone else why that opinion is invalid, why that opinion is worthless, even if the reasons why come down to their experience, or lack thereof, or what groups they do and do not belong to.

I’m with Tharook on this one. Although I may be slightly biased by fitting three-to-four items on that list (thin, cisgender, male, and grace-but-in-a-heterosexual-relationship-so-straight-passing-at-least) :-þ.

same…
because I don’t understand how being in one of those groups makes you an oppressor?
I didn’t think I oppressed anyone?!
just because I may fit into those categories, I’m not allowed to think that everyone should be equal? i’m not allowed for fight or argue for that equality? What?!

Stop. Breathe. Rephrase.

I know what th’art getting at, but thy phrasing is typical of what, especially here on tumblr, would be referred to as white cishet tears. Give me a moment please.

The phrasing - suggesting that every individual in a privileged group is “an oppressor” is suboptimal, because, basically, allies exist. However. The privileged group as a whole does oppress the group over which it is privileged - that is the essence of what a privilege/oppression dynamic is - and it is reasonable, if not all right, for oppressed people to assume that those privileged over them are “oppressors” until they see evidence otherwise. Because the majority of the time, they’ll be right - and a substantial proportion of the time that they are right, the one perpetuating the oppression is unaware of it. What I am getting at here is that it is not the individual that is being referred to as “the oppressor” per se. It’s not a singular, targeted “you” in this context (or it shouldn’t be). It’s “you, the archetypal member of the privileged group”, not “you, the individual person”.

Th’art in a privileged position on several (but not all) axes, toabsentfriend (as am I, though the axes in question are different). I recognise that th’art wanting equality for all, and I commend thee for that. But in any specific privilege-related conversation with respect to an axis where th’art privileged, it is to be expected that thy opinion will carry less weight than that of those in the oppressed group. And that is the way it should be.

Source: ghettokaiba

asexy-beast:

darael:

tharook:

That Feminist Dyke: ghettokaiba: According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re…

thatfeministdyke:

ghettokaiba:

According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re more than one of these things then your opinion is instantly invalid

  • straight
  • white
  • male
  • happy with the gender you were born with
  • thin

If you’re straight, your opinion on homosexual matters and homophobia is worth nothing. If you’re white, your opinion on racism is worth nothing. If you’re male, your opinion on sexism is worth nothing. If you’re cis, your opinion on transphobia and trans* issues is worth nothing. If you’re thin, your opinion on fatphobia and fat positivity is worth nothing.

You are privileged over that group. These are not your oppressions. You, the oppressor, do not get an opinion.

It’s pretty simple. No one is telling you your opinion is invalid on everything, don’t even fucking act like we are.

I still wouldn’t agree with that. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion on everything, even if some are worth more than others. Someone’s opinion on homophobia, for example, shouldn’t be considered invalid simply because they’re straight. That’s absurd. Their opinion might be invalid, and it might be invalid because they’re straight, and thus have no experience of what it is like to suffer from homophobia, but if this is the case then it will be evident from their opinion.

To invalidate someone’s opinion/argument/whatever because of who they are, and not what their opinion/argument/whatever actually is is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Further, when someone does present an invalid opinion, don’t dismiss it by pointing out who they are. Dismiss it based on what the opinion is. Show them, and everyone else why that opinion is invalid, why that opinion is worthless, even if the reasons why come down to their experience, or lack thereof, or what groups they do and do not belong to.

I’m with Tharook on this one. Although I may be slightly biased by fitting three-to-four items on that list (thin, cisgender, male, and grace-but-in-a-heterosexual-relationship-so-straight-passing-at-least) :-þ.

First: “happy with the gender you were born wtih”? I lovethe gender I was born with. The only problem is that the rest of the world didn’t realize what gender I was actually born with. Use cis when you mean cis.

Now: I have to agree more with tharook. Who someone is can effect how relevant  an opinion is to a topic at hand (if the topic is “how things effect queer people”, queer people should be listened to more than straight people), but that doesn’t mean the other opinions are irrelevant in all circumstances. The problem isn’t who has the opinions- the problem is when your opinions are disproven by the lived experiences of people and you put your opinions over them.

For example: If a cis person says “In my opinion, having a penis makes someone a man”, that is directly against the lived experiences of many trans people. Cis people are still entitled to opinions on gender, but that specific opinion is clearly erroneous and if the person is asserting that their “right to an opinion” outweighs trans peoples’ right to be treated with respect- there’s a problem.

That’s not something only privileged people do, though. One trans person can have the opinion that anyone who doesn’t medically transitioned is just a fetishist and not really the gender/s they claim to be (I’ve seen trans people say this)- this is, again, directly against the lived experiences of many trans people. I wouldn’t even say that this is less damaging- on a broad scale, perhaps, but that trans person can make it difficult for trans people who don’t medically transition to get the support from the community that they need, and that is hugely damaging.

I am ashamed - very ashamed - that I did not pick up on its use of “gender” when it (probably) meant “sex”, and also on its failure to use the more accurate and more concise term.

ETA: “It” is here intended to refer to the post, not ghettokaiba. Thanks to worldbeing for pointing out the ambiguity.

Source: ghettokaiba

tharook:

That Feminist Dyke: ghettokaiba: According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re…

thatfeministdyke:

ghettokaiba:

According to tumblr social justice warriors, if you’re more than one of these things then your opinion is instantly invalid

  • straight
  • white
  • male
  • happy with the gender you were born with
  • thin

If you’re straight, your opinion on homosexual matters and homophobia is worth nothing. If you’re white, your opinion on racism is worth nothing. If you’re male, your opinion on sexism is worth nothing. If you’re cis, your opinion on transphobia and trans* issues is worth nothing. If you’re thin, your opinion on fatphobia and fat positivity is worth nothing.

You are privileged over that group. These are not your oppressions. You, the oppressor, do not get an opinion.

It’s pretty simple. No one is telling you your opinion is invalid on everything, don’t even fucking act like we are.

I still wouldn’t agree with that. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion on everything, even if some are worth more than others. Someone’s opinion on homophobia, for example, shouldn’t be considered invalid simply because they’re straight. That’s absurd. Their opinion might be invalid, and it might be invalid because they’re straight, and thus have no experience of what it is like to suffer from homophobia, but if this is the case then it will be evident from their opinion.

To invalidate someone’s opinion/argument/whatever because of who they are, and not what their opinion/argument/whatever actually is is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Further, when someone does present an invalid opinion, don’t dismiss it by pointing out who they are. Dismiss it based on what the opinion is. Show them, and everyone else why that opinion is invalid, why that opinion is worthless, even if the reasons why come down to their experience, or lack thereof, or what groups they do and do not belong to.

I’m with Tharook on this one. Although I may be slightly biased by fitting three-to-four items on that list (thin, cisgender, male, and grace-but-in-a-heterosexual-relationship-so-straight-passing-at-least) :-þ.

Source: ghettokaiba

Top