>MRA and MGTOW are just bitter ugly virgins angry that they can't get laid
>third wave feminism is objectively correct the fact that Andrea dworkin was an ugly hambeast has no bearing on the validity of her thought
ITT: aspects of the humanities that really water your watermelons
Dworkin was second-wave.
Mra and mgtow are bitter virgins though
Even more than that, American Third-wave is pretty much full anti-Dworkin/McKinnon.
& humanities was a mistake
How so?
>Every TV show and movie must have all ethnicities and genders represented regardless of logic
Dworkin was second-wave. She is seen as anti-sex, anti-porn and transphobic now.
>Movie depicting not depicting both genders
That would be rather weird.
This annoys me, desu
Black people in America are vastly over represented while asians and hispanics are under represented
The way leftists transit between Foucauldian criticism of positivism, empiricism and grand metanarratives and scientifical smugness about "post-truth", "fake news" and the "right side of history" when politically convenient.
Either you don't believe in this bullshit or you do. Saying that objective reality is overestimated when it's convenient and then using objective reality to beat your enemies when it's on your side makes you a hypocrite.
Dworkin and all of her contemporaries were all about liberating women from the sexual influence of men, establishing the idea that women having sex with men is oppressive and even that all sex between men and women is rape. They were against any sexual act that could be seen as demeaning to women in the slightest.
Come to the modern day and most feminists will protest for girls right to be sluts and go out to use their pussies to empower themselves. They see monogamy as oppressive while letting men use them as cum receptacles as liberating.
Tl;Dr: Second wave feminism was about trying to stop women from being abused by men, including sexually.
Third wave feminism is about letting girls do whatever they feel like, and girls naturally like being rough fucked and abused by Chad
>Either you don't believe in this bullshit or you do. Saying that objective reality is overestimated when it's convenient and then using objective reality to beat your enemies when it's on your side makes you a hypocrite.
The left is built on hypocrisy.
this
movie set in the jungle during vietnam war, following a group of soldiers for one week wouldn't be wierd
>& humanities allows this thread
Do ideas constitute "objective reality"?
No.
fuck you
Then how are we having this conversation?
I wasn't having any conversation. I only made a point.
Does that point exist?
Yes
Where?
In tangible traits manifesting themselves into actions and observable incompatibilities.
How is an idea a tangible trait and if it creates physical actions how can it not exist in reality?
I didn't talk about an idea.
What's the difference between that and a point?
Point = give force or emphasis to (words or actions).
Ideas = a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.
What's behind a word?
what you say basically carried to a more general statement
"what i don't like is pathological"
really fires my neurons
The barrier between us is so vast I'd imagine our perception of one another doesn't come close to reality.
What's the difference between perception and reality?
imo, (i might be totally wrong, but this is what i took from reading him) Foucault's ideas completely destroy the modern world, both modern right and leftist metanarratives
basically you just can't win with Foucault, which is why he was completely against political action, and why polisci professors hate him with passion
perception is reality filtered by a specific brain
Tell me about yourself. Your name, age, height, weight, country of origin, race, religion, political leanings.
If my perception of you isn't accurate than we know the difference. You could by lying as well, which muddies the water.
If that filter exists how is the reality it creates any less real than the impercievable interactions of countless subatomic particles?
>the reality it creates
it doesn't create any reality, it creates an image for your brain to operate with
its not "less real", its filtered, its an image with less resolution if you want a visual metaphor rather than an auditory one
Whose to say that the image of a person standing right in front of you is any less resolute than what you would see of them from a plane.
>Whose to say
are you arguing about authority or are you arguing about the nature of the world
also do you mean "plane" as in the flying thing? what the fuck? why are you moving goalposts?