Guys make video raising money for charity by motorboating women; charity refuses money. Drama ensues! (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
186 ups - 66 downs = 120 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).
188 comments submitted at 12:05:36 on Oct 22, 2013 by Barl0we
That video made me really uncomfortable
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.
Or everyone using the rallying call of consent. Doesn't mean they suddenly aren't creepy douchnozzles that a charity doesn't want to be associated with.
it was. not a fan of them. the guy in the video complaining about donation money being rejected is such a fucking dork and tries way too hard to be cool.
Are you fucking serious? The douchiest thing ever? They asked for their consent. The white knighting here is on new levels.
You don't know what the term "white knighting" means, do you?
People stopped caring about that thirteen seconds after its introduction. It's a derogatory that derails conversation is all they need to know.
So this might come as a shock to you, but using charity as an excuse to get away with something you normally wouldn't be able to get away with is an incredibly gross and douchey thing to do.
I'm late to the party unfortunately.... but the charity is in their right to deny money from whatever they want. What I don't getting offended for the video itself. Sure you may think this is childish and immature, but everyone involved gave consent, so why do some people think they have the right to tell them they are wrong?
You are right, but no one is in any way debating the consent. And most here aren't arguing for it being offensive. That is not the issue. It's just crass and cheap. I think too many of these kinds of things leads to a kind of idiocracy mentality.
>And most here aren't arguing for it being offensive. That is not the issue. It's just crass and cheap
Um, isn't that kind of the same thing?
> so why do some people think they have the right to tell them they are wrong?
Because my sense of morality and good behavior is independent of local law? You're legally free to believe that black people are inferior because of their race. I'm still going to tell you that you're wrong.
You are comparing two very different things here, buddy. Unless you are trying to somehow dismiss me by claiming I'm a racist (out of nowhere)
fine, make up literally anything that's subject to First Amendment protection. I can still tell you that you're wrong, because that is also under First Amendment protection.
Well can't really disagree with that. I guess you have a point, and I just feel like I'm wasting energy by getting annoyed at people who get offended by everything out there.
[deleted]
I think this has more to do with the authors of the video acting as unofficial intermediaries for their own gain. Clearly the charities judged it to be unprofessional conduct and don't want to be associated with them.
[deleted]
> I'm still not seeing the issue.
Its counterproductive because no one wants their money since it will probably hurt future fundraising if the charity associates with a stupid stunt like this as a funding source. Its PR.
Does it actually happen? Do charities actually get less money afterwards if they accept money from "disputable" sources? I'm not looking for a yes/no answer, not even for your reasoning, I'm looking for sources that show that it actually happen.
The charity has no obligation to accept donations from sources it considers tasteless.
[deleted]
You implied they consented to the transaction, which they explicitly did not.
[deleted]
So what? If the charity doesn't consent, the motorboating is under false premises.
[deleted]
All parties aren't consenting. The guys were throwing around the charity's name as an excuse for their behavior. The charity wants nothing to do with them. If the KKK decides to donate a trivial amount of money to the United Negro College Fund the UNCF is A) under no obligation whatsoever to accept it and B) perfectly justified in deciding that the trivial amount of gain from accepting the money is not worth the loss of legitimacy and real donors that would come with it.
[deleted]
> What if they just went around asking for donations, and then the charity said they wanted nothing to do with them? Would they have been violating the charity in that instance?
No, they would have been violating the law. You need permission from the council or permission of who ever owns the land/building you're collecting from and you need permission from the charity to collect donations.
Source: Did charity work for a charity.
>All parties in the video actually were consenting.
The people soliciting permission were doing so by saying the money would go to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. This was not the case. Consent gained via deception is not consent. They implied a connection with the charity that didn't exist. They made no effort whatsoever to find out of the charity would be interested in this promotion. They had no grounds whatsoever to make the claim.
>What if they just went around asking for donations, and then the charity said they wanted nothing to do with them?
If they solicited the donations in the charity's name without the charity's approval, had their donations rejected, and then opted to spend the money on whatever the fuck they wanted then yes, they would be violating the charity. They'd also be violating a number of laws. This will apparently come as something of a shock to you but you can't go around misrepresenting yourself as a fundraiser for a charity that doesn't know you exist and doesn't approve of your actions in the slightest.
>Why?
There are a number of ways to answer this question. I think I'd prefer "it's none of your damn business, they can accept or deny anything they want for any reason that they want." I suspect you'd pout about that answer, so I'll provide a different and equally valid one: a handful of misogynist douchebags with an incredibly embarrassing youtube channel using their charity's name under false pretenses to gain permission to do gross and potentially offensive stunts on the internet then donating an incredibly trivial amount of money to that charity after the fact is a benefit that is likely to be massively outweighed by the negatives. Real donors would be less likely to patronize a group where these morons are the public face, for starters. "Legitimacy" is a valuable thing for a charity to have and it's not worth throwing it out the window for $7,000.
>Is this what we're comparing it to now?
Who is this "we"? That's what I'm comparing it to, do you have an actual objection to raise?
unconsensual motorboating is a bold move.
> to do something they normally couldn't get away with.
If the guys paid to motorboat their own girlfriends, would it still upset you? What if the girls were just easy? Aren't you really just envious? I mean, come on. Getting motorboated isn't that big of a deal. We're not all Puritans.
> 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.
if researchers had good ideas, they wouldnt need charity. government and institutes would support them because cancer drugs = money and public health
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.
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.
You're right – they aren't the same thing. But you can clearly see how they're deeply connected, right?
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.
Fantastic metaphor; I've never thought about that particular comic strip that way. I knew it was a pretty sarcastic comic, but I've never really read between the lines like that.
Because it's assumed that an organization like that is filled with left wing women.
It's assumed that the issue is that the organization is uncomfortable with sexual things.
The two main groups in the US that are uncomfortable with sexual things are fundamentalists and feminists.
Therefore it's assumed the issue is feminism.
Why is reddit so ignorant of what feminism is?
Because reddit is 80% (note: not an actual statistic, just a wild guess) male? It's also why reddit is so casually misogynistic. (Feel free to use this logic to extrapolate why reddit is so casually racist.)
I thought it was because of Tumblr and SRS-type RadFems?
They're a very vocal minority, and are much more visible to people who are already looking for things to dislike about feminism. The rest of us normal people who believe men and women should have equal rights are much less visible, so people assume we're the minority.
Serious question, does anyone ever see those people in real life? I feel like they're only on the internet.
That's not it at all. You are implying that every white male is inherently misogynist and racist, which is partly the reason why you get such a massive backslash whenever feminism is mentioned. You ARE part of the problem here.
If you have the time, look at the linked thread. Look carefully and past the downvoted/drama comments and you will see that many people are trying to explain that feminism is not a single group of people, and not a single philosophy, and certainly is nothing like groups of SRS. Those comments are getting upvoted, because they are actually trying to explain what feminism is, instead of making accusations and yelling "fallacy" and "strawman" or just replying with ironic shitposting.
Reddit is ignorant of feminism because they haven't taken the time to learn about it, however, the extreme cynicism and hatefulness of some so-called "feminist" circles within reddit is not helping at all.
> You are implying that every white male is inherently misogynist and racist,
Seedypete is implying that white males are generally casually misogynistic and racist. No implication as to why was given.
>You are implying that every white male is inherently misogynist and racist,
Not even remotely. What I am saying is that a community that is made up almost entirely of one demographic will have problems acknowledging the perspective of an underrepresented group. This is not a controversial statement, or at least it wouldn't be if you weren't already wallowing in a persecution complex.
Now you are saying two completely different things. Your second statement is certainly not controversial, but you are just backing out now.
> persecution complex
This is absolutely ~~gratuitous~~ beautiful.... considering I'm not even white lol.
edit: autocorrect somehow added the word gratuitous in there.
>Now you are saying two completely different things. Your second statement is certainly not controversial, but you are just backing out now.
Backing out of what? I didn't touch the original post, and the second one is saying the exact same thing. Just a little gentler so your kneejerk "OHNO REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" reaction doesn't bowl you over again.
Original question:
>Why is reddit so ignorant of what feminism is?
Your answer
> Because reddit is 80% (note: not an actual statistic, just a wild guess) male? It's also why reddit is so casually misogynistic. (Feel free to use this logic to extrapolate why reddit is so casually racist.)
Your answer implies that males are always casually misogynistic, simply because they are males. If we do what you ask, (which to be honest is not logic nor is it extrapolation), then we infer that white people are inherently casually racist as well.
Then you say:
>Not even remotely. What I am saying is that a community that is made up almost entirely of one demographic will have problems acknowledging the perspective of an underrepresented group
Which has no relation to your first statement, and if it does, you are doing a terrible job.
>Just a little gentler so your kneejerk "OHNO REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" reaction doesn't bowl you over again.
I'm not having any knee jerk reaction, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to complain someone is racist or misogynist just because of her race or gender. I'm not even calling it reverse racism, I'm just pointing an incredibly flawed and biased conclusion that holds no truth, regardless of which way you want to look at it.
>"OHNO REVERSE DISCRIMINATION"
This is where you turn this into a personal attack (well, it actually began above with the persecution complex accusation), and this is where I stop talking to you. I know that in your little world lumping me with a certain group of people automatically makes me wrong and makes you right, but I'll just tell you that are absolutely wrong here, again, I'm not even white.
So you think that most men are "ignorant" about feminism, and you're saying that as if it would be the fault of those men? And not feminism?
It's an ignorant's persons fault if they try to pass judgement on something they obviously know anything about.
The "ignorance" in question is simply that men (supposedly) don't like feminism, or at least not certain feminists. It's interesting that some people apparently think that's the fault of men, and not feminism.
Some men on reddit hate feminists because they're willfully ignorant of what it actually is. Their ignorance allows them to paint feminism as some boogey-man upon which they can place blame for every thing on. If they actually took initiative to become educated about Feminism, their scapegoat would be gone.
Sure, the same goes for most (if not all) opinions.
It's a bit like how some people might dislike Islam because they're racist against arabs, whereas some dislike it because they think religion is bad. The former isn't acceptable, while the latter is.
But in this case, I doubt that the person you were responding to knows more or less about feminism than you do. The only difference between you is probably that he/she has experience with sex-negative feminists, whereas you don't.
Talking about "becoming educated about feminism" doesn't even make a lot of sense, given how many different kinds of feminism there are, a lot of which contradict each other. Maybe he or she is just 'educated' about other kinds than you are?
>The only difference between you is probably that he/she has experience with sex-negative feminists, whereas you don't.
The difference is that i'm not willing to paint a huge legitimate cause because of a few redditors.
>Talking about "becoming educated about feminism" doesn't even make a lot of sense, given how many different kinds of feminism there are, a lot of which contradict each other. Maybe he or she is just 'educated' about other kinds than you are?
Of course there are many fringe break-offs that are supported by a few people, but I'm not talking about being educated about all the intricacies of every subset of feminism. I meant educated in the fact that most feminists aren't SRSers.
The person who just posted was demonstrably ignorant about feminism. Half a dozen people tried to explain the inaccuracies of his statement to him. Seven hours later he's still arguing that he understands feminism better than the feminists trying to explain the concept. So, yes, it is exactly his fault that he's ignorant.
Why are the so called safe spaces within reddit so quick to make fun and belittle any men who is having problems? Why is it that people who frequent these spaces have massive double standards that are ultimately damaging to people out there?
Everyone gets belittled on Reddit. It largely depends on which subreddit you're on and which way the hivemind falls (and the top few comments in a thread tend to decide that).
Men are belittled and shamed on Reddit, so are women. Double standards appear all over the place.
I agree. I do however disagree with how easily you are dismissing this effect, because if you just reverse roles, everyone in this sub would be throwing a fit.
So you're saying extremists on reddit represent an entire movement of legitimate people with legitimate concerns and goals?
On reddit, they kinda do.
I would love to see an explanation of how you even reached that conclusion from my comment. Hell, I'll even pay you (paypal) if you can justify it.
Anyway, no, but unfortunately some people will get this impression because you see this extremism everywhere in reddit. Already posted about this, there are a bunch of comments in there explaining what feminism is and why you should group them all with the radfems. This is what people need, unfortunately, most times all they get is cynicism and shit like "it's not my job to educate you, shitlord!"
I think Kickass_Cajun was saying that "people who belittle men's issues just because they're men" != "feminists"
Extremists being the people who belittle men's issues, and the entire movement of legitimate people being the feminists.
(if feminism is defined as wanting equal rights for men and women)
But they claim to be feminists, so where does that leave us?
Just because someone says they are something doesn't mean they represent everyone else who claims to be that thing. There are unpopular vocal minorities for everything.
And I don't disagree with you.
Because so many feminists on the internet and in academia hold these beliefs? I don't think it's fair to call it ignorance.
I'm pretty sure I've never run across any mainstream feminists who were uncomfortable with sexual things, there was some fringes of the 60s/70s radical feminist movement that was anti-sex with men, but that was never a substantial part of the movement and it certainly isn't now.
> there was some fringes of the 60s/70s radical feminist movement that was anti-sex with men
cough, cough, Andrea Dworkin cough.
Yeah, that's one of the people I would be talking about as being anti-sex. Though I suppose my time period was a bit early to hit her. However, her work is massively misinterpreted, her book Intercourse does not say that all sex is rape, just that almost all is exploitative. I don't necessarily agree with her, but her position is more nuanced than people make it out to be.
cough cough 60s/70s cough
from Wikipedia
>An anti-war activist and anarchist in the late 1960s, Dworkin wrote 10 books on radical feminist theory and practice. During the late 1970s and the 1980s, she gained national fame as a spokeswoman for the feminist anti-pornography movement, and for her writing on pornography and sexuality, particularly in Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1979) and Intercourse (1987), which remain her two most widely known books.
I don't know if they are a majority are not but there are certainly a big part of the movement.
They really, really aren't. Especially third wave, of which a big component is about women "owning" their sexuality. Got any sources, or are you just ignorantly thinking that radical, fringe blogs are actually representative of feminism.
>Got any sources
You got any sources? I thought we were just giving our opinion of feminism based on personal experience.
Christ, are you really too lazy to Google? Sex-positive feminists include: Kathy Acker, Susie Bright, Rachel Kramer Bussel, Avedon Carol, Patrick Califia, Betty Dodson, Nina Hartley, Amber L. Hollibaugh, Brenda Howard, Wendy McElroy, Joan Nestle, Carol Queen, Candida Royalle, Gayle Rubin, Annie Sprinkle, Tristan Taormino, Ellen Willis.
You think I can't name an equal number of sex-negative ones?
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're describing Second Wave feminism, which more or less petered out in the 80s. Most modern feminists are Third Wavers and have no problem with sex whatsoever.
You guys can keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about but I haven't actually seen any facts.
>but I haven't actually seen any facts.
Really? Let's review the last few replies you've gotten.
>there was some fringes of the 60s/70s radical feminist movement that was anti-sex with men, but that was never a substantial part of the movement and it certainly isn't now.
There's a fact.
>Especially third wave, of which a big component is about women "owning" their sexuality.
There's a fact.
>You're describing Second Wave feminism, which more or less petered out in the 80s. Most modern feminists are Third Wavers and have no problem with sex whatsoever.
There's a fact.
Do you just not understand what facts are? Everything I just repeated for you is independently verifiable.
>There's a fact.
No that's a statement. No facts or evidence were given to support the statement.
>There's a fact.
No that's a statement. No facts or evidence were given to support the statement.
>There's a fact.
No that's a statement. No facts or evidence were given to support the statement.
>Do you just not understand what facts are?
Yes I do. Do you? Making a claim (feminists aren't sex negative) is not a fact, it's a claim. A fact would be "x% of feminists aren't sex negative".
Lol that's a hilarious chain of assumptions
there seems to be a meta drama about the drama. very entertaining.
>The two main groups in the US that are uncomfortable with sexual things are fundamentalists and feminists.
Since when are feminists uncomfortable with sexual things? Most feminists are sex positive, some of the loud radical ones aren't but the majority of feminists are.
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.
>labeling all women mindless whores.
Guess that's what constitutes equality in his mind, heh.
> 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.
Friendzoning Cunt*
Using that word makes me edgier and cooler.
Pretty much describes all those eagle rights losers. Virgins that can't get laid so they blame feminism
Eagle?
You read that right. It's time to stop eagle oppresion!
(^^My ^^guess ^^is ^^an ^^autocorrect ^^malfunction )
It's the troll's attempt at SRS circlejerk terms like eaglelibrarian.
"I'm offended that you're offended!"
There's a lot of internet drama that can be boiled down to that :p
Also: Your opinion sounds like criticism -- and criticism oppresses my free speech!
Breast Cancer recieves millions apon millions every year, they can afford to refuse a person who's intent was clearly childish over sexualisation.
So you're saying they don't need donations so if we want to raise money for something, we should pick something else because they're overflowing with cash and additional donations are basically wasted?
No, /u/LetsTalkMetaPhysics is simply saying that that charity decided that the money was not worth a hit to it's public image. Maybe you don't see it that way, but it's not your decision to make, your operation to run, and your values to defend.
Thankfully cancer isn't that big of a deal.
I like how Galexlol is a supreme racist.
"a 15 black year old" is still making my eye twitch a little.
"I turned 14 black this year."
Yeah, that dude wasted no time getting racist
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.
It would be interesting to see which subreddit is vote brigading this thread.
Every post seems to have more than the usual amount (inc fuzzing) of downvotes. Weird.
> 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
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.
>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.
EuphoriaMan is some SRSsucker's alt, it's incredibly obvious by their posting history.
Wait, SJWs hate black people?
>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.
Edit: I'm obviously talking about 4th wave feminism.
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 it's easy to discredit feminism by comparing them to crazy kooks in SRS.
Because they generally get upset at sexual stuff like this.
You keep saying that and it hasn't gotten any less wrong.
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
I though that was self-evident.
I'll edit it just in case.
It just seemed like you supported the quote which claimed all feminists think of woman as delicate flowers.
Of course not all feminists are insane like SRSers. However the majority of feminists, at least on Reddit are. SRS has over 40,000, r/feminism only had about 25,000 last time I checked. And before you try and use 2X as a counter argument, while they do have some feminist leanings, mainly because SRS and r/feminism both go there, they are not a feminist sub.
You can't reliably tell what the majority of feminists on reddit actually believe because there's no way of knowing how many redditors are feminists nor how their views manifest. What about those who don't subscribe to feminist subs, or generally don't get involved in the reddit gender wars. Feminism isn't an entity after all. Something something confirmation bias.
It's like how not all advocates of men's rights are misogynist, I imagine it's probably a minority. But in both cases the most outspoken and extreme get the most attention.
Well, tell that to the whole network of people who insist reddit is one single minded individual.
You have a point. However as reading the minds of every redditer is impossible subscriber numbers are the best currently available figure I have available.
here's my general stance:
Almost no political, social or philosophical perspective is represented well on reddit or the Internet in general. This goes for men's rights, feminism, atheism, Zen Buddhism or anything. This is because the majority of reddit users are laypeople without sufficient understanding of the views they are espousing or the ability to articulate them properly.
Any meaningful discussion of these views is pointless because of the above, as people are generally more focused on being right then actually learning anything about each other or their own views.
If anyone really wants to learn anything or be a part of social change, get off reddit and join relevant clubs and societies, go and watch debates where people know how to debate, read literature and the criticisms of said literature and draw your own conclusions and don't bother with labels. And then realise you've wasted your time because the impending apocalypse at the hands of our new robot masters will render all of these discussions pointless, I for one hope to join them by uploading my mind into a new perfect mechanical form. I'll also settle for cyborg.
I don't think that is a reliable enough figure to make any judgements at all. Those numbers do not represent all people on all of reddit who would call themselves feminists, and even though I have no way of backing up that claim, you have no way of backing up a contrasting claim.
A lot of people being offended by others' taking offense!
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
lhiterally everything is coercion, ever
even this comment is coercing you to reply
WITCH!
You can coerce deez nuts in yo mouf.
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.
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.
> 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.
They're not made of straw, they're made of teenage angst
Stop emoshaming ,shitlord!
That's subculturism, you bigot!
Yup, there are zero feminists who believe all PIV sex is rape. /s
Holy vote brigading batman! Someone's jimmies be rustled.
Reddit gets oddly Puritanical over stuff like this.
The people implying women have no agency suck just as much as the stupid video.
"Hey, sign this contract to be my slave, and I'll give some money to charity."
HA I TRICKED YOU, NOW YOU CAN'T SAY NO.
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
>To be fair, there's also a significant anti-anti-feminist circlejerk on reddit. It's just circlejerks all the way down. Theres literally a circ[le]jerk for everything.
Turtles turtles turtles.
In my opinion, Charities should care more about the cause they come to work for every day than moral stances.
But the charity might think people would donate less if they take money from sources they think their donors wouldn't approve of. People like to donate to charities that they think are run by people with good values (or at least their idea of good values).
The charity in this case must have figured that taking this money would hurt their image enough to lower donations in the future.
And as the leading headline of the Parasocks Post, Four Year Olds The World Over Agree: Ends Justify Means
Id pay $10 to what ever charity they wanted to motorboat their mothers, sisters, girlfriends or daughters.