Exactly. I'm sure they are actually quite helpful to "social justice" groups.

"Sony Pictures is run by wealthy cis males, not vagina-having [women]..."

No one screamed or kicked or spread wider in defiance." And then they asked each man to measure the span of his spread.

And... this. Always this. So afraid someone is gonna get a prize for being normal is just as shitty as wanting a prize for being normal. Get over yourself.

You know something else? People are fucking sick of it and are about to stop even caring enough to keep fighting. The galactic joke of it all: this is a sucker's game where no one wins. No one. Will have things. Any. Better. All that can really be accomplished by this weak ass line of "reason" is that everyone might…

neither of us are psychic. It was an anecdote about conditioned responses.

Heh. Ok but sometimes, as a guy, I just wish my SO would tell me to just fuckin deal with it, instead of trying to get me to talk in great detail about my problems.

It's gender roles, no doubt about it. Men and women aren't this biologically different. Culture plays a huge role in this. It benefits men and rips off the women. How much easier is it for men to be primarily worried about themselves and not someone else, while having another person also very worried about them? It…

I see where you're coming from, absolutely.

Yep. This is the issue I had with the essay. Well, that and the lumping a group of people together by skin color. I get the intentional irony, but it comes off as kind of callow and weirdly holier-than-thou.

I agree with you that his work wasn't a problem. But he's not produced anything that is close to medicine or long term good. So I disagree that while being extremely different, these two things can even be compared.

Oh, of course. Because when an article is written with sweeping generalizations, it's so silly to want to react. Who would do such a thing? The irony of the digital age: you can say anything you want about anyone but gawd help you if you respond when someone lumps you into a big pile you've fought to stay out of in…

Fantastic post, Catnado.

And this is probably why he was able to get away with it for such a long time.

Your comments are always so dismissive of others, and I find it really disconcerting. I generally poke my head down in the comments but am not a career commenter like a lot of people, nor am I a troll. I guess you're used to trolls, which is why you feel the need to be so dismissive? It's very strange to me, and…

It's the oldest trick in the book.

The article has the words "good white people" right in the name. The entire subject of the article is "good white people".

So we're supposed to be angry that a group of people are legitimately responding to a completely baseless action against them? They're monsters because they dare to defend themselves against scurrilous lies? We're cool with arbitrary knee-jerk reactions that limit peoples' right to free association?

I generally agree with the article, but I think that by responding with the same hostility that people usually use on someone who is an actual racist is missing the point as well.

"Good white people" demonstrate the qualities that all good people demonstrate: kindness, empathy, compassion, thoughtfulness, unconditional love. These are the values I try to instill in my students; that parents try to instill in their children.