Oh dear, I seem to have made quite an entrance π¬π
Oh well, you reap what you sow, so I'd better respond, I guess.
I think we both made quite an entrance!
(Ignore the genderising in the following image)
From here:
www.reddit.com/r/BatmanAndRobinMemes/comments/i3xbxp/everytime_batman_crashes_a_rooftop_or_window_for/r/BatmanAndRobinMemes
Memes of Joel Schumacher's Batman duology, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.
My God -- such things
exist!
I like that. And I'm a Jar Jar lover, so boundless, borderless, in-between things fascinate me. And men have held a lot of power and influence in society for a long time. I look forward to a radical transformation of human consciousness in the 21st Century.
However, I think there's a core of spite and vindictiveness animating
some feminists, and this is where I feel alienated from the movement. What else could I possibly feel? Bash movies and characters I like, slander my personal musical heroes over some sort of perceived toxic masculinity (another thing anakinfan has done), preach down to others for the crime of holding a different opinion, and most pathetic of all: ban anyone that openly expresses a different opinion for long enough -- especially when they despise the conservative right and hold strong left-wing values (as anakinfan clearly does) -- and why should I then respect that person or trust that real equality is what they're actually after?
These are nice words, and I don't disagree with what you're saying on paper -- I just want to see them concretely expressed in the real world. And when I see other sorts of things being expressed instead, which undercut what feminism is supposedly meant to stand for, I naturally incline to a certain cynicism/world-weary skepticism.
Harmful to whom? I'm just some powerless honky/cracker, tedious, self-indulgent, overly-serious, whiny, dorky, autistic, insular, prequel-apologist retard. Wonder how many people I managed to offend there.
I think the real issue lies with the intent behind the words, and the way that such words/terms are inflected or deployed in a given context, and not with the words/terms themselves. Many people have a problem with so-called "woke" culture for just this reason (of course: there are also other reasons). They see that language itself is being policed and that individuals are often scapegoated and mob-attacked for something they've said (which is often taken out of context) -- rather than being fairly evaluated for who they are as individuals or what actions they've taken in their lives (and why they took them).
Moreover, it is far easier and safer to signal virtue (e.g., by bashing someone else for using an "offensive" term) than it is to manifest virtue in practice (like, say, taking a firm stand against a popular opinion or accepted action in society and risking harassment, reputation-destruction, loss of income, and death -- or the simple, sustained heroism of caring for another or raising a child and not getting any credit for it).
When you perform virtuous actions for real, there can be an enormous cost involved. Look at the brave individuals standing up to tree logging in Brazil. They often pay for it by being tortured and killed by gangsters hired by logging companies to erase opposition to their activities. That, to me, is true virtue. But any bozo can complain about someone else's word use and earn empty approval points on social media. It's an ego-stroke that makes people think they're doing good, when they're adding nothing to the stockpile of good deeds or interesting ideas in human life.
Indeed, we're sliding down a dark path if you take a look at China and its appalling
Social Credit System -- a system that can punish people for trivial offences, including speaking rudely to someone else online, and which can have serious consequences for that individual in real life (like not being able to leave the country or travel from one area to another). Moral puritans like anakinfan and her abundant "third-wave feminist" flexing are not necessarily having a positive effect on Western culture.
Subconsciously, at least, some of the tactics employed by the mods on TFN are reminiscent of Maoist China. For instance, there was Mao's infamous
Hundred Flowers Campaign, where it is broadly agreed dissidents/critics were encouraged to "out" themselves against the repressive Mao regime, so that they could be easily identified and swiftly dealt with by the regime. On TFN, a similar thing happened when the following thread was unceremoniously dumped:
boards.theforce.net/threads/pt-discussion-of-future-sw-content-locked-discussion-moved-to-saga-board.50038854/(Note the
closing post)
And replaced with the following:
boards.theforce.net/threads/mega-thread-sequels-and-spinoff-films-and-the-overall-saga.50045774/Different location, different thread, different rules (indeed: the application of "ground rules" was a brand new development compared to its predecessor).
Note what some of those rules say and appear to warn against. And remember the context of the earlier thread. Open-ended discussion of the Disney regime was deliberately stifled. When I complained that prequel fans were being placed in a straitjacket (in a
mod-edited post), I was instantly banned -- no warning, no discussion, no access to the "Unban Request Forum"... just plainly and simply unpersoned from TFN forever.
And you know why? Probably because, less than 24 hours before I posted in the new thread and complained about the restrictions on speech, I wrote a reply in the previous thread (only hours before it was closed by a mod) that was
staunchly critical of Kathleen Kennedy, docking her for comments she made to Vanity Fair, primarily about "Bikini Leia" in ROTJ. Kennedy herself has declared that she is a feminist. And, at the time, anakinfan seemed to be all in favour of her. Note this remark she made in the replacement thread (I've highlighted a key part, but pay attention to every sentence):
Mega thread: Sequels and spinoff films and the overall sagaDiscussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by anakinfansince1983 , Jun 20, 2017.
Since she was "personally not regretting" the sale (though I like how she uses the word "takeover"), she had no problem assuming an aggressively condescending and overtly hostile demeanour to people who
were. Read my last post in the earlier thread that was closed and replaced with anakinfan's "ground rules"-laden chimera. Because when you do, you'll see that those rules were probably instituted because of what I said. I had the temerity to verbally torch a feminist producer and counter her authoritarian disdain of certain elements in the Original Trilogy (including, as mentioned, "Slave Leia"), and for that, I was obviously being a toxic white male who needed to be taught a lesson.
Now read her final paragraph as above. That could easily be construed as a general threat in my direction. I hadn't even posted in the new thread yet; but anakinfan was already making it starkly apparent that her tastes were superior ("personally not regretting"), and that people with a different take on the whole matter were basically arguing from a misogynistic viewpoint that wasn't welcome ("horrible sexist stereotypes").
In other words, she, in her infinite feminist wisdom, is completely correct, to the point of it being plain common sense (even as she mixes up fact and fallacy: "Lucas was not planning on making any more Star Wars films and TCW had jumped the shark"), while anyone else, not in alignment with her views/tastes, was being pigheaded and wrong at best, and therefore ought to think twice about expressing their opinion. In a thread superficially designed for that very purpose.
The funny thing about all of this is that, ultimately, I was right (subjectively speaking): The Internet turned against the sequels after TLJ (it hadn't yet been released when I was banned from TFN), and even anakinfan herself thinks that film is pretty dreadful. And, as I went over in my
earlier post, she now repeatedly tells people that there is "no statute of limitations" on negativity, and people being negative about a film is "none of your business":
Is there any difference between ST and PT hate?Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by darthfettus2015, Sep 1, 2020.
Funny that
she made it her business in the 2017 saga thread about the new Disney films. She had no problem telling people to watch their speech then and brazenly accusing them of perpetuating "horrible sexist stereotypes" (on only the second page, before anyone had really had a chance to say anything, no less). So she's not only aggressive and condescending; she's incredibly two-faced.
Therefore, forgive me, but I do not just automatically subscribe to a rosy view of feminism on someone else's say-so. Nor will I stop using words that I think perfectly describe a mentality or a situation I see unfolding before my eyes. But they hate that on TFN, of course. There you can be punished for declaring that the sky is blue. It's really worth having a space where you can speak freely without risk of censorship or the Feminist Sword of Damocles constantly hovering over one's head.
Although this page obviously has a political slant, it gives a clear definition:
www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-feminazi-3533833That sounds like anakinfan to a tee.
So where am I going wrong here?
That's why I was on TFN, too. It was the very mentalities you're telling me are harmless and on the side of good that turned against me and had me banished. I never bothered with their silly politics forums. All I really wanted to do was talk Star Wars and they took that away from me. Just remember that. They turned this thing into a weapon, not me.
Other than all that, and once again... welcome.
