Isn't it hilariously ironic how right-wing snowflakes are losing their temper over a couple of girls in a boy's club? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
43Opinion
I dont get why they had to blend? There were already boys and girls ones? Were the girl scouts too full or something?
it's actually a good thing-creates a better relationships among the two genders. i think that those who have issues with it are either guys with to be an ego-or feminists who are finally showing their true colors. i've noticed that for all the talk about wanting equality-they actually prefer things as they are so they can continue bitching and spreading their hatred.
@Sabretooth
Weird, theyve been functioning well separate, Im shocked this is even a big deal right now lol
But they haven't functioned well together.
@Sabretooth
Really? Youd think itd just be like coed school or summer camp lol?
Hmm?
To answer your question, I think the Boy Scouts organization simply decided that it was 2018 and therefore time to let some girls participate in boys' activities... which I think is a good thing. But even for the people who disagree with that, which I respect, it shouldn't be such an emotional issue. Especially when they criticize others for dramatizing everything.
What is inherently wrong about a club for one gender? I don't understand what problem has apparently been solved.
You do realize the dems are the ones that created "safe places" fact check bro. Just a heads up to stop you from ranting on false knowledge. ;)
"In educational institutions, safe space (or safe-space), safer space, and positive space are terms that, as originally intended, were used to indicate that a teacher, educational institution, or student body did not tolerate anti-LGBT violence, harassment or hate speech, thereby creating a safe place for all LGBT students." The bastards! How unreasonable!
Lol I agree. Thanks brother. Cause if you or I wanted to speak our rights are not valid and we are instantly called hateful names. Just fir having a difference in opinion.
Firstly it wasn't "the Dems", it was educational institutions.
Secondly, if you're really in a despised minority, unlike the white evangelical christians who just think they are, a place where people can be safe from violence, harassment or hate speech is a good thing.
Finally, if you're polite and willing to listen you'd be welcome there; if not, you're a welcome there as a satanist loudly praying in a church.
Most of the world is a safe space for people who conform to society's norms; the whole world should be safe for everybody who's not hurting anyone else.
We can argue over the effectiveness of safe spaces. I'm not trying to push any particular ideological point here. However, IF you go around complaining about safe spaces and oversensitive people, you come across as particularly unserious and pathetic if you yourself have oversensitive reactions about relatively unimportant issues. That was my major point here.
Ok so let me clear it up for you probably going take two responses continued. 1) "The history of safe spaces is an interesting one and a recent article in Fusion cited the concept as originating in the feminist and gay liberation movements of the 1960s.
But the concept of the ‘safe space’ didn’t start with these movements, it started in a much more unlikely place – corporate America – largely thanks to the work of psychologist Kurt Lewin." So not colleges. Sorry but It was adopted by them. And mainly ran by political party called the left.
Im going to address all the comments. This is part 1
Part2 cont. The use of sensitivity groups began to gain currency in corporate America and the idea was taken up by psychologists such as the humanistic therapist Carl Rogers who, by the 1960s, developed the idea into encounter groups which were more aimed at self-actualisation and social change, in line with the spirit of the times, but based on the same ‘safe space’ environment. As you can imagine, they were popular in California. It’s worth saying that although the ideal was non-judgement, the reality could be a fairly rocky emotional experience, as described by a famous 1971 study on ‘encounter group casualties’.
From here, the idea of safe space was taken up by feminist and gay liberation groups, but with a slightly different slant, in that sexist or homophobic behaviour was banned by mutual agreement but individuals could be pulled up if it occurred, with the understanding that people would make an honest attempt to recognise it and change."
Part3 cont.
And finally we get to the recent campus movements, where the safe space has become a public political act. Rather than individuals opting in, it is championed or imposed (depending on which side you take) as something that should define acceptable public behaviour.
In other words, creating a safe space is considered to be a social responsibility and you can opt out, but only by leaving.
You could just have posted the link:
mindhacks.com/.../
And it states that your "fact check" was wrong; it wasn't dems, it wasn't even colleges, it was corporations that created them!
I appreciate your long answer but you don't seem to get my point. What I'm criticizing, first and foremost, is the hypocrisy of the alt-right. They criticize LGBTQ people or feminists for creating safe space at colleges; for shutting themselves off because "they're scared to interact with opinions they might not like".
Yet, the very same people who utter these complaints, usually in a very hateful and hostile way, want to have a safe space where "boys can be boys", where no boy needs to interact with the otherness of the other sex, where you get to be "among your own kind".
It's exactly the same thing but in their fanaticism, they don't realize this because "it's different if it's about me". These people think the rules they make for other people don't apply to them.
Im sorry that you assume im complaining, when its suppose to be a convo on facts. Plus I never once made condescending remarks like the both of you have. So clearly what I say speaks to value. About "safe places" basically being if you dont agree you will be ridiculed. Second I never complained. I pointed out it wasn't schools and it wasn't the right. So dont know how you both got confused. I think as much as others I should have a right to my views and not be a target as much as the left doesn't want to be a target. I think the need for safe places is absurd. Any place you go anyone should feel safe a free to speak. Open communication is key and maturity. But then again can't argue with closed minded people. Im friendly and am able to have a discussion. Thats the whole point but I expect better and/or not so hostile responses.
And yes, it wasn't Dems who created safe spaces.
I can agree both sides for laft and right are hypocritical but i am not willing to generalize all left as evil and hypocrites as i dont think you or others should generalize all right wingers are snow flakes and hypocrites. isn't that statement alone hypocritical and judgmental. And by saying it you contridicted the point I saw you were trying to make but it came out wrong. If that makes sense.
I didn't say that YOU complain. I said that certain people do. This was in no way a personal criticism against you.
And of course you can have your opinion. I just don't like the people who freak out over this and turn it into a big deal. It's like the people who freak out over flag burning. One cannot go around calling people snowflakes and oversensitive and then have a meltdown because someone burns a piece of cloth. That just comes across as childish and, frankly, imbecile.
Tell me where the left is being hypocritical.
I am merly stating if you look at colleges and the statical facts. Colleges generally (not all) but most are liberal colleges. Take a look at UC Berkley. My buddy went there and got a F for not believing what the teacher was pushing. That should not be aloud. Needless to say he won his case and passed.
So as for the flag. I fought for that. Im a former Marine. That i would never tolerate. If people hate it here. Pack your bags and leave. I guarantee you have less freedoms elsewhere. Having traveled a lot. I know and I also know our media never says whats really going on. Since i was actually in a place saw the situation and heard how they reported. Completely distasteful and disrespectful. Shame on them. And I'd ask anyone show me a country any country that hasn't came to be by force. No one can. So I say stop complaining to all those people who live in the past and want to distroy history like our statues. It happened can't change it. Move on. Make a better future for our kids. I hope you understand what im saying. Its in general not directed at you.
Well, there is no way I could know if this story is true. Maybe your friend was also just angry and blamed his professor. It is true that many college professors are liberals but because of this, many conservatives you political affiliation as a cop-out. It's kinda like me getting arrested by the police and screaming "you're only arresting me because I'm not a conservative!"
Maybe that's true - but likely not. The more likely possibility is that I get arrested because I've actually done something and those conservative students get an F because they did a bad job at their schoolwork.
At any rate: even if your friend was treated unfairly, that's not hypocrisy. That's just a professor being an asshole. Hypocrisy is when you preach about certain values but don't live up to them yourself.
Explain how i dont live up to my values since you assume you know my values without asking.
And by the way i in all seriousness want to say thank you for having a discussion with me. Wether or not we agree. I do respect you for talking with me and appriciate it. So thank you
"show me a country any country that hasn't came to be by force"
Germany.
"In spite of rumours that the Communists were planning a massacre on 9 October, 70,000 citizens demonstrated in Leipzig that Monday, and the authorities on the ground refused to open fire. This victory of the people facing down the Communists' guns encouraged more citizens to take to the streets. The following Monday, 16 October, 120,000 people demonstrated on the streets of Leipzig."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989
Gotta keep going when it was Prussia. It was fought for before that. Actually even says it on Wikipedia. I just looked. Just like before America was America. English, Fench and Spanish were here. There is no land on this earth that hasn't spilt blood before. Thats my point. Just like people want to talk about the land America was before it was America. Lets talk about the land before Germany became Germany. No one in that country complains like these people do over here.
Cont... Its like they feel entitled. For what? They never did anything but complain. Go work. Fight for a just cause. Make a difference and stop being PC and labeling me a racist or judging me without knowing me (general statement). If you (meaning others who do) can be so quick to judge me then isn't it only fair to let me do it as well. Not that I will but thats the argument they want to make right? Its about fairness if im correct. So then why if I am a right side person. Then why Do people like you, say offensive words and categorize me as a snow flake or racist without hearing me out first or knowimg me. Fyi you dont know which side of the isle I sit on and my guess is cause my place on the discussion is you prob assume im right side ilse guy. But that just goes to my point. Not all left think left or all right think right on all subject material.
Cont... So I think all people need to slow down, take a step back and pay attention to how a majority of people know a days let emotions control their actions over a better use of logical decision making.
"No one in [Germany] complains like these people do over here"
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, here, but is it related to your earlier comment about "all those people who live in the past and want to distroy history like our statues"?
Believe me, if someone put up a statue of Hitler or Rommel in Germany, there would be massive complaints, and they wouldn't be around long. Not many countries put up statues to people on the losing side. I mean, leaving a statue standing that was already there before the war is understandable; putting new ones up after they lost is just wrong.
So Lincoln and Washington owned slaves is the Lincoln memorial next. Cause they tore down a statue in northern California of a former President. President McKinley in the center of the square in Arcata, Ca.
He wasn't on the losing side. Its history. I think comparing Hitler to our civil war is just ludicrous. I dont in anyway condone the actions of making any person a slave. But certian stautues I can understand. But it seems to be out of hand. And not only that history books leave a lot out. Im for more knowledge for us and our younger generations so we do not repeat such horrible crimes. Hitler was wippingbout a race which in its self was hypocritical of him. Since he was a Jew too. I think genocide and slavery are bad. But i dont think you can say they are the same.
OK, ignoring Hitler (who wasn't a jew), Rommel was by all accounts a brilliant general, but nobody's going to put up statues to him.
The Confederate statues were removed because of the reason they were put up - a show of force against former slaves by the people who had lost the war.
The Arcata case is more like the statue of "Bomber" Harris in London, which went up despite significant protest in 1992.
It's possible that it may be replaced in the future by people who find the bombing of Dresden, killing 25,000 in a few days, and the attitude of "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier", less than three months before Berlin fell, repugnant.
Good info. Thank you. Seriously I appriciate the convo.
It's been fun!
I find it hilarious that nobody is falling for this baited question.
I also find it hilarious that you don't know what thd word hypocrisy means.
I appreciate your attempt at satire though.
I'm pretty sure I know what hypocrisy is.
I'll give you another example: Ben Shapiro and his diehard followers cry and scream about the evil liberals being anti free speech and de-platforming public speakers at colleges. Yet, just recently, a pro-Palestinian speaker was de-platformed at a college due to the protest of a conservative, pro-Israel campus group. Where was Mr. free-speech-hero? Where were his bootlicking supporters? Nowhere to be found. None of them had anything to say about this. These people pretend to care about free speech, in reality they only care about THEIR kind of speech.
A lot of alt-righters complain about the ACLU having a "liberal bias". Yet, you know what they did? The ACLU actually FOUGHT for the right of a bunch of neonazis to peacefully march through a jewish neighborhood. THAT'S called being principled: vehemently disagreeing with someone but still supporting his/her right to state their opinion.
Shapiro and lots of people on this website are hypocrites.
Oh, this is a Ben Shapiro rant?
Ben Shapiro continuously calls out right leaners as well as left leaners, because he gets equally annoyed when right leaners act cray as when left leaners act cray. So no valid point there.
You also cannot point to hypocrites--hypocrites was the right term in THIS context--and not point to the hypocrites on the other side.
If one side is pointing to hypocrites on the other side, but not pointing out the hypocrites on the other side, doesn't that make them a double-hypocrite?
Please spare me your whiny rants, I don't want to read them.
I'll never understand why people think that supporters and fans are the same thing. I'll also never understand why the actions of fans = the actions of who thry are a fan of. If Patriots fans destroy a street after a game, the Patriotsxare not at fault.
You need your brain checked.
Sooooo you've been the kettle so long everything looks like a pot to you now? Lol
Yes, read what you just wrote and put it next to any of the many leftist arguments, yer all sad little people in my opinion.
Well, the ironic part is that I actually agree (to a degree) with their anti SJW rhetorics. I'm liberal but I'm not authoritarian by any means. Also, this question is not meant to attack any conservative or right-wing person. I specifically criticize the ones who are extremely loud because those are also the ones who are extreme hypocrites. Unfortunately, there's quite a lot of those on G@G.
Tis clickbait, you know you'll get someone to bite or create a nice comfy echo chamber for like minded people. Honestly i got more important things to worry about. I just like being an ass. You seem te be on the defence tho, i don't care about your political affiliation. Do what you gotta do , just eh be rational regardless of your believes. Shit slinging and finger pointing and trying to force "your" beliefs on others is just a no no. Now i'm hungry so y'all play nice , and get a nice unbiased education and be all you can be. ( or be an ass like me!) Oh taxes boooo!
I'm not offended or "on the defense".
Anyway, enjoy your meal then.
The Girl Scouts already exists, and honestly why the hell is it a problem in this day and age for men to have men only social clubs, schools, activities, etc. when there exists female only clubs, schools, etc.
I hate your liberal bullshit that you constantly preach on this website. I’ll read this when I’m sober enough to give a fuck.
"No you're the snowflake!"
"No YOU are the snowflake!"
"Nuh-uh you are"
"You are!!"
That's my impression of both you and the right wing people.
I can tell you why that impression is wrong: because I don't mean my insult genuinely. I guess I wasn't being clear enough but I was writing this in a sarcastic tone. What bugs me isn't even the fact that people are sensitive. Like, I think it's childish to lose your shit over flag burning (or over this issue) but hey, whatever. What really pisses me off is people who go around calling themselves "straight shooters" and "facts over feelings" guys and then they have an emotional meltdown because of some bullshit issue. Perhaps the most extreme example would be Ben Shapiro (who is loved by many guys on this website) crying about liberals being anti free speech. Now, you can complain about that, that's fine. Some liberals (the authoritarian leftists) ARE against free speech. But Shapiro is a partisan hack who doesn't actually care about free speech. He only cares about it when it's HIS type of speech. When a pro-Palestinian speaker was de-platformed from a college campus (cont.)
recently (just as Milo was), Shapiro had nothing to say about it. None of those free speech warriors was anywhere to be found. It's this hypocrisy that gets on my nerves. It's like the Catholic Church preaching purity and priests secretly fucking little boys. IF you're going to put yourself on a moral pedestal, which the alt-righters do, you need to be at least principled about it.
Oh yeah this sounds like a really unbiased question and I'm certain that you don't intend for this thread to act as a feedback bubble.
You really should attempt to educate yourself more thoroughly on opposing viewpoints. It would help you to sound more thoughtful, and less like the sort of bigoted idiot you think you're railing against.
I do educate myself on opposing viewpoints but it's not about that. It's about the unbearable hypocrisy that I'm so sick about. For instance In America, there's a whole industry of alt-right douchebags now who praise themselves as the gods and saviors of free speech. Ooooooh free speech, oh yes, how it gives them orgasms. EXCEPT of course when anyone DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEM. Where were all these jackasses when Chelsea Manning was denied to speak at a university a few weeks ago? Where are they when pro-Palestinian speakers get de-platformed? Nowhere. I hear fucking crickets. None of these bigoted hypocrites has ever spoken out publicly and said "I don't agree with person x BUT I fight for their right to speak." These people rant about angry college liberal college kids and praise themselves as free speech warriors. In reality, they don't give a shit about free speech. They only want free speech for the people who already agree with them.
Now, you could say that some liberals are (cont)
also authoritarian hypocrites and that's probably true but at least liberals don't make a point of making this society more hateful. I mean, the alt-right has invented an entire language of insults, the same can't be said about the left.
That is amusing we've had girls in the scouts for years here in the UK I do feel though why are we allowed to join traditionally male groups while still keeping our female only ones
Not really. Freedom of association is a constitutional thing and the right wingers are usually pretty heavily pro constitution.
Well yes, but freedom of association isn't targeted here, especially since freedom of association is only a right in regard to the actions of the government (like with free speech too).
I guess they still have the freedom to create a new organisation that acts like the old scouts if the scouts have gone in a direction they don't like, free market and all that.
I do think you are being slightly disingenuous by conflating safe spaces with gendered spaces (or any segregated group space).
It's effing hilarious! They are so fragile!
I agree. I just saw that Tommy Lauren, the girl who's made an entire career out of being "anti snowflakes" and "anti free speech police" and "anti micro-aggressions" has made a segment on Fox News where she cries about the jokes the comedian on the President's Correspondence Dinner made, calling them "completely over the line", "offensive" and "outrageous". Argh, my brain cells hurt.
Haha I know. I love her dears. They are delicious.
I think girls should be able to be in it if they want to
I do think it's ridiculous that they had to drop the boy in Boy Scouts though
Right-wing snowflakes are losing their temper over about anything.
What are you even talking about?
Bracing for you to be full of it.
Also that’s not technically identity politics. So you’re not off to a great start.
I don't think anyone's losing their temper. Yah people are taking but it's not like how the left reacts every now and then at every fking thing the right does...
Why are strong, empowered women so intimidated by the idea of a male only space that fosters comradery, integrity and celebration of boyhood?
I don't know if they are. Maybe there were some tomboy girls who actually prefer being with the boys though. I think it's often overseen that genitals are one thing but sometimes, personalities don't exactly align with whatever genitals you have. Some girls like being very boyish and get along much better with the boys, and vice versa.
All I can say is that in my country, girls have been allowed in Boy Scouts for as long as I can remember. I was a Boy Scout for a long time myself and I never minded it. Most of the girls in our group were really cool and it felt enriching to have them. Besides, we still did all the boyish things we would have otherwise done... like extinguishing a camp fire by standing around it and peeing on it. I don't think any of us boys felt censored in his speech or actions just because there were some chicks.
We it's kina straight forward, there's the girl scouts for girls and the boy scouts for boys, it's kinda in the name "Boy scouts"