iamnullptr
iamnullptr
iamnullptr

Truthfully speaking, making light of murder is bad, too.

It's insane to suggest that the friends and family of violence victims suffer from PTSD and use that to try to dismiss criticism of rape jokes, however.

You seem to be confused, here. No one is complaining because rape jokes "offend them;" people are complaining because rape jokes force them to experience horrific PTSD.

Openly talking about murder and rape definitely is one of the best weapons against it.

Also, "PTSD is more commonly associated with soldiers who have witnessed fellow soldiers die or had near death experiences" says nothing, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up, because it doesn't invalidate the fact that rape victims also universally suffer PTSD. PTSD is commonly associated with soldiers because

No, I'm saying that the families of murder victims don't have PTSD and therefore cannot relive the experience of having been raped.

Also, I never asserted that murder is funny, so I don't see why I should explain how murder is funny.

I'm not sure you're actually replying to what I said, here.

Murder is senseless and awful, but you also don't have to live the rest of your life with horrific PTSD, contemplating on a weekly or even daily basis if you should just end it all, if you're murdered.

So you're saying that the families of rape victims have PTSD and can relive those victims' memories?

Also, can you please explain how rape is funny to begin with?

Except victims of murder aren't around to be triggered into reliving the awful experience of their deaths.

"But death is just as bad/worse than rape!" is incredibly reductionist thinking that flat-out ignores often highly complex social dynamics. As I pointed out, there are very good reasons why jokes about death are

Quest logs as a concept are something that I've always had a problem with in MMORPG's and WRPG's in general; while I understand how they are functional as a game mechanic, I find that they epitomize quantity over quality in video game design and break immersion by, in my opinion, making it feel less as if you are

The point is that "social justice warrior" is almost always, universally, on the internet and in any discussion space that is predominantly occupied by members of the privileged class, a straw man that is levied at anyone, and not just those who use hostile or over-the-top rhetoric, who considers social justice issues

Leelah Alcorn's parents and other individuals who force their children to undergo conversion therapy, as well as the practitioners of conversion therapy, should stand trial and receive due punishment for murder, because psychologically torturing a person into suicide is no different in function from killing a

Only those who are completely noble and free of cognitive dissonance would spend large amounts of their time derailing a discussion criticizing the people who complain about individuals such as Leigh Alexander and Anita Sarkeesian into a far more important and righteous argument of semantics and then turn around and

But yeah, I'm not going to carry this on. I'm going to reiterate my original point, which was derailed into a pointless and unnecessary argument of semantics. The people who spend large quantities of time calling Leigh Alexander, Mattie Brice, Anita Sarkeesian and other wonderful people who are doing objective good

Except no, it isn't, and I highly doubt you even tried to comprehend the entirety of that passage before trying to latch on to something to prove point, which you're incredibly desperate to do for some reason, even though this was never supposed to be an argument about the semantics of "SJW" to begin with and it's

"I have all kinds of radically liberal beliefs"

You do realize how silly "radically liberal" as a description is, right? You understand that liberalism, a.k.a. free market capitalism with more of an emphasis on government support than conservatism, is the status quo, right?

I ask you to provide a definition, and you turn to Urban Dictionary? One of the least accurate cesspools of loosely-moderated misinformation on the internet? Especially after I linked to the Wikipedia definition, on a site with far higher content standards, and stricter guidelines for citation? I'm sorry, I'm just.

Something tells me we also have different definitions of "awful liberals." You seem like the kind of person who would think that "awful liberals" are individuals who take social justice "too far" or are "too radical," and in that case I'd seriously question your ethics. Again, liberalism isn't too different from

Yet you're still failing to define a "social justice warrior." You're not providing any examples, and if you're trying to argue that "social justice warriors" are TERF's, then that's invalid, because just as many non-TERF feminists are called "social justice warriors" by anti-feminists and reactionaries.

Anita

And in case there was any doubt:

http://charthebutcher.tumblr.com/post/943615356…

"So you want to know if I think cis people should die. And, you know, I've had this conversation countless times. I know all the branches of this particular dialogue tree. I could explain the obvious and painful joke of a trans person

You're entirely missing the point. I know that "social justice warrior" doesn't simply mean an "advocate for social justice." My point is that it's an idiotic term used primarily by MRA's, anti-feminists, neoreactionaries and so forth to deflect their own bigotry and hate onto a scapegoat who's supposedly "more"