Guys make video raising money for charity by motorboating women; charity refuses money. Drama ensues! (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
66 ups - 27 downs = 39 votes
Predictably, this thread features drama about objectification of women, accepting charity money from sources that are less than reputable and the like.
- Here is the entire thread, all comments
Here is a buttery section in which someone compares motorboating of women to the nazis gassing jews - Galexlol deleted the worst comments, but luckily, I managed to screencap it before that happened.
Here is another buttery section in which downvotes fly. Bonus points if you guess which of the posters in that conversation post in BustyPetite, TheHangingBoobs, tightdresses, WatchItForThePlot and others.
As far as I can see, there aren't many major skirmishes except for those linked...Unless they developed while I was posting this (or I just, y'know, missed them).
59 comments submitted at 12:05:36 on Oct 22, 2013 by Barl0we
Yes, social justice warriors are annoying but this is idiotic. I know extremely few cancer researchers that would feel great about what is a stupid frat stunt by some guys that wanted to use cancer as an excuse to do something they normally couldn't get away with.
Yeah. I watched like ten seconds of the video and it seemed like the douchiest thing ever. And I'm a guy.
I saw that thread when it blew up. Anyone who suggested that the whole motor boating shtick was a crass way of raising funds was immediately berated with classics like "What have you done for charity?" or "so you're saying girls don't like sex?".
Truth be told, I hate the attitude that a lot of people have towards charity. Reminds me of the opie and anthony cake stomp bit. They ruined the homeless guy's cake which he offered them by the way and their fans rallied to defend them by saying "well, opie gave the guy some money after!" like that suddenly changes the exploitative nature of the situation.
These same people will judge politicians they perceive as sleazy for daring to combine PR/underlying motives with charity.
> I know extremely few cancer researchers that would feel great about what is a stupid frat stunt by some guys that wanted to use cancer as an excuse to do something they normally couldn't get away with.
Right now every researcher would be happy for any funding source.
A group of white supremacists allied with NAMBLA and the Westboro Baptist church has raised 100k for cancer research? We'll take it! Never know when the government will shut down again or choose to cut more spending.
If those white supremacists got that money through the sale of racist materials, if NAMBLA got that money through ads of a jailbait-like site, and the Westboro Baptist Church got the money by suing the family of dead veterans, do you think that researchers (let alone foundations like Susan G. komen) would be standing in line to accept that money? If the organization doesn't agree with the way the money was aquired, and if accepting it reflects badly on its goals, then they are smart to refuse it. They don't just want money now, they still want to be able to raise money ten years from now. Getting associated with white supremacist-NAMBLA supporting-Westboro Baptist Church members might not be the best idea in that case.
Legitimate companies actually care about where or how the donated money was funded from.
> A group of white supremacists allied with NAMBLA and the Westboro Baptist church has raised 100k for cancer research
No one would give a shit, that would fund about a months work in a big lab. The video? Probably a few days worth. Maybe if that money was tied to something you can put on a cv to advance your career, but you can't with those sources.
How is this idiotic? These guys have a fairly popular Youtube channel and use their/its popularity to raise money for cancer research. Money goes where money is needed and absolutely no-one was hurt in the process (unless the cameraguy dropped the camera on someone's foot or something like that).
Why yes, spread awareness for breast cancer, where most of the survivors will lose one or both breasts, by motorboarding random girls on the street.
I can't see how this could ever go badly!
Raising money for charity =/= spreading awareness.
In all seriousness, why couldn't they take the money with a very public statement that they don't support how it was raised, but you know, CANCER. I can't wait until we are all equal so we can get back to being sexy sometimes...even humorously. Also, porn stars get breast cancer too. Should they not be allowed to contribute their moneys?
I'm not disagreeing with you here. The whole thing makes me cringe, and it being tied to cancer research doesn't make it any better, but it isn't always necessary to tie breast cancer to women's rights.
I just feel like turning down this money is a flimsy gesture. There must be another way to not condone it while still getting the funding.
E: See everyone is looking at this thing from an extremist perspective. Without saying "Holy Shit this is so wrong!" you should see that is could be bad publicity and bad policy for a fundraising company to promote such actions. If this became a thing, there are such obvious ethics issues. But here I am trying to take a middle approach and pissing off everyone. Hohum. The false middle fallacy is my least favorite, I'll stick to false dichotomy. (Or continue to cringe at the fallacy habit of reddit altogether.)
E: You know, rather than just downvoting what you don't like in my response, you could downvote it and reply. I wrote my thoughts in under this comment because it was the only one with a rational approach to the issue rather than blathering srs nonsense. Prosex is a thing. Let's discuss.
Because it will still be seen by the general public as unethical. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but there's always that possibility and if it gets publicized, the group that accepted money that was acquired in an unethical way, well...massive drama tends to ensue. They could also lose sources of future funding if those sources disagree with how the group acquired previous funds.
I agree with all of this. I think my only firm point is that this is a complicated ethical question that shouldn't be reduced to a shouting match by the bipolar sides of reddit's gender wars. I'm still scratching my head over a reasonable solution.
Shits complicated. It reminds me of some of the symbolic stuff in the Nicomachean ethics. My gut wants to go with take the money because my wife has breast cancer in her family, but I can surely see the ethics issues as well.
The ultimate personal solution is to not support this guy in his efforts. That plus enjoy the popcorn.
Breast Cancer recieves millions apon millions every year, they can afford to refuse a person who's intent was clearly childish over sexualisation.
Can someone explain to me why everyone in that thread is freaking out about feminism, when actually the charity turned the money down because they tend to turn money down from "disputable sources" and this appears to have nothing to do with feminism and more to do with PR.
"Sooner or later, all games turn into Calvinball".
In much the same fashion, whenever gender is discussed in any way on reddit, it becomes about feminism.
Did Galexlol just state that any woman would perform sexual acts if money is promised to change hands as result?
Nice.
Sticking up for the rights of women by . . . labeling all women mindless whores.
> Sticking up for the rights of women by . . . labeling all women mindless whores.
AKA typical Redditor "nice guys" in a nutshell. "But I am such a nice guy, I am an egalitarian and totes believe in gender equality. That woman won't sleep with me? What a worthless [slur]!"
> What a worthless [slur]!"
You spelled "fucking friendzoning bitch" wrong.
> What the fuck,am I talking to a black 15 year old?
Welp, I'm glad /u/galexlol is overt with his/her racism;unlike other feminists and SJWs. Very refreshing
>So OP is a fucking fag
>Some dude apologizing is retarded
>Standard definition of racism
Doesn't look like a standard feminist or SJW type to me. This is just some guy who agrees with the charity for refunding the money. Does that make him a SJW by definition?
SJW just means someone we don't like. It's like calling people stupid fundies.
I was like wtf, where did that come from? How is fat bitch a black term?
Don't you know? "fat bitch" is a black term,every black person use.And only black people should be allowed to use.If whites use the term,it's culturally appropriative ,thus offensive.
Wow, way to turn racism towards black people as an offense on white people.
Ehm, you may have misunderstood the sarcasm in EuphoriaMan's post. It may lack the typical "/s" to spell out that there is sarcasm, but I'd be willing to bet that it's present.
It's the kind of sarcasm that typically gets used in TumblrInAction as well.
"I'm offended that you're offended!"
There's a lot of internet drama that can be boiled down to that :p
I like how Galexlol is a supreme racist.
Yeah, that dude wasted no time getting racist
"a 15 black year old" is still making my eye twitch a little.
>Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up and play America's favorite game, "Fundamental Christian or Feminist"!
>See if you can tell the difference between these two groups who seem radically different on the outside, but share the same ideological belief that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies!
That pretty much sums it up. Being responsible for cancer research losing money does not make you a good person.
But there's no proof that anyone outside of the charity actually made them reject it. In their letter it says they want to be sensitive to the community, presumably of people with breast cancer, not that they were pressured.
Wait how does feminism tie into this
Because all feminists are the extremist caricatures presented by SRS.
Not all Christians are the WBC but that doesn't stop people from painting them with the same brush.
And comparing normal Christians to the WBC is just as stupid.
especially since the WBC is like 50 people. also I get the feeling it's a scam so Fred Phelps can make money off lawsuits, although don't quote me on that, he might genuinely believe his hateful BS
I think he's convinced of it and it's a scam - in that he sees a way to both promote his beliefs and make money.
That doesn't stop people from doing it anyways.
Not everyone,but enough to fuck things over
Women can never consent.Nope.Because,Patriarchy.
I'll take ridiculous straw man statements for 800 Alex.
All consent is coerced!
Also,it's strawperson, shitlord. Check your privilege
Cerealstalkperson shitlord. Check your oats privilege.
As a celiac, this is more frightening than you can believe. :P
They're not made of straw, they're made of teenage angst
Stop emoshaming ,shitlord!
That's subculturism, you bigot!
It was compared to the Holocaust. Either that person believed the Jews consented to being murdered en masse or they don't think this was consensual.
/or they really don't get how metaphors work.
The guy linked is a racist shitlord, so frankly trying to discern his line of thought seems as useful as the "men's rights movement." Now maybe I lack the requisite STEM logic to understand this, but I hardly fail to see how that comment supports the witty attack on feminism that the OP here made.
> The guy linked is a racist shitlord,
Assuming that is true (and your SRS is showing) how does that validate a nonsensical analogy that makes women in to mindless children?
>so frankly trying to discern his line of thought seems as useful as the "men's rights movement."
I'm certain that made sense in your head to you.
>Now maybe I lack the requisite STEM logic to understand this
It's appearing so. Why is thinking logically based on the facts a slur to you people?
>but I hardly fail to see how that comment supports the witty attack on feminism that the OP here made.
Because that whole notion that women can't consent to sex due to social pressures placed on them by men is an entirely feminist notion. No, not all feminists believe it. But it is exclusive to the feminist camp.
>your SRS is showing
The user is mysrsaccount2, so how surprised can you really be?
Go back to SRS.
STEM has nothing to do with this. Who is making the strawman now? You brought the fallacies into this and now you want to blame us for using them properly? Logic is a branch of philosophy, traditionally, the softest of sciences.
BTW. All consent is coerced does not imply that all coercion leads to consent.
Lmfao, objectifying women is WRONGWRONGWRONG, but deciding an internet person is black and then trying to condescendingly explain something to them as though they couldn't understand because they are black, is A OK.
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
A lot of people being offended by others' taking offense!