StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Welcome to this year's Oppression Olympics 2016 (Common Era, alternatively 1437 AH, or CCXXIV ). The contest this year is wide open as the previous years' overall gold medalist, Aisha Epstein, has taken a sabbatical along with her partner to help conceptualize the problem of universals in the form of an interpretive dance.

As per previous Olympics, the athletes will engage each in a round-robin tournament consisting of spirited one-on-one debates regarding issues such as (but not limited to) racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, classism, feminism, sizeism, and sexualism (with no hierarchy implied by the position of the previously listed issues). The winner of each debate is the athlete determined by the judges to be most oppressed due to their essential traits, and though each will receive a gold medal the overall gold medalist is the person who is determined to have won the most debates.

This year's athletes are:

Athlete #1: African-American woman, early 20s, heterosexual, cisgender, 67kg, 163cm, atheist, only child, earns $70k/year, residing in St. Louis, college education
Athlete #2: Asian-American woman, early 20s, bisexual, cisgender, 59kg, 159cm, spiritual, only child, earns $120k/year, residing near San Francisco, college education
Athlete #3: Non-White Hispanic man, late 20s, heterosexual, cisgender, 70kg, 183cm, Catholic, eldest of seven siblings, family earns $17k/year, residing near Los Angeles, no education
Athlete #4: African-American male, late 20s, heterosexual, cisgender, 88kg, 187cm, Muslim, eldest of three siblings, family earns $300k/year, residing near Aspen, college education
Athlete #5: Non-White Hispanic person, late teens, pansexual, genderqueer, 60kg, 165cm, spiritual, youngest of two siblings, family earns $150k/year, residing in Chicago, high school education
Athlete #6: White woman, late 20s, lesbian, cisgender, 85kg, 155cm, spiritual, only child, earns $42k/year, residing in Detroit, college educated
Athlete #7: Asian-American man, early 40s, homosexual, cisgendered, 76kg, 165cm, Protestant, only child, earns $140k/year, residing in Baltimore, college education, paraplegic (spinal cord injury, wheelchair usage)
Athlete #8: White man, early 20s, heterosexual, cisgender, 75kg, 176cm, Protestant, eldest of two siblings, family earns $90k/year, residing in Des Moines, high school education, born with total visual impairment

How judge ye?

In this, aren't you changing the levels of oppression when you give them a gold medal? I mean under the logic people use to argue against racism, insert person cannot be oppressed because of their race because they are rich etc. Even though those two things are actually not mutually exclusive. So the moment you give them a gold medal, they are less oppressed because they clearly have the opportunity to be successful in society .. by winning medals.

And I am only being partially facetious. I am actually interested in that line of thinking.

and there I was thinking this was a thread comparing the treatment of construction workers across major sporting events...

No, its an inflammatory straw man loaded with stereotypes, meant to whine about how those evil politically correct SJWs are destroying everything by giving things to undeserving non-white/gay/female/etc. people, which the author no doubt mistakes for clever political satire.

The Romulan Republic wrote:No, its an inflammatory straw man loaded with stereotypes, meant to whine about how those evil politically correct SJWs are destroying everything by giving things to undeserving non-white/gay/female/etc. people, which the author no doubt mistakes for clever political satire.

Can you sound any more like a SJW? Like next thing you'll start talking about privilege.

Did Lady Tevar not smack sense into you two hard enough? Cool your jets, both of you or I'll be giving very serious thought to passing out warnings.

I've looked at the OP, and I think it's in poor taste, but not actually in violation of PR7 (No Hate Speech) but I do, as Balrog posted, consider it deeply problematic and I find it highly offensive - my eye will also be on this thread, if there's any trouble, it'll be locked.

Purple wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:No, its an inflammatory straw man loaded with stereotypes, meant to whine about how those evil politically correct SJWs are destroying everything by giving things to undeserving non-white/gay/female/etc. people, which the author no doubt mistakes for clever political satire.

Can you sound any more like a SJW? Like next thing you'll start talking about privilege.

I'll reiterate what I've said before- SJW is basically used as a slur against anyone the speaker considers too progressive. In this case, for pointing out that an inflammatory, stereotype-laded straw man is exactly that. Its basically meaningless as an insult, except insofar as it demonstrates the mindset and political inclinations of the person using it.

And you know, some people do have more privilege than others, and some groups, on average, have more privilege than others. That's objective fact, and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out and taking it into account. Though I find that some people take the argument too far, failing to account sufficiently for individual differences and/or using it as a way to try to dismiss someone's opinion based the demographic they belong to. Neither of which I agree with, ever have agreed with, or ever will agree with.

Edit: I actually find the way people use "SJW" quite ironic, as its basically used as a way to say "you're wrong because you belong to this group", which is exactly the sort of thing people who use the label complain about "SJWs" doing.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Edit: I actually find the way people use "SJW" quite ironic, as its basically used as a way to say "you're wrong because you belong to this group", which is exactly the sort of thing people who use the label complain about "SJWs" doing.

So its used like most labels in an internet fight? Like during the hubbub over Karen Traviss here and afar, people used the label "Talifan" or minimalist (and I think something for pro-Travissistys but I cannot remember it) to completely shut down any debate. Anything said by a "Talifan" or Traviss fan could be ignored except to be ridiculed or used as ammo against their respective sides.

That Gamergate bullshit had no debate about sexism in video games, journalistic integrity, social justice bullshit being injected in vidya games, or even how sickening some people become against opponents because the two sides consisted of pro- and anti- Gamergate camps that seemed to rarely interact but enjoying saiyan and doing sickening things to each other. And that Milo guy who didn't care about video games and that Anita chick that didn't care about video games were making money off the whole thing.

Any political debate is mostly "oh you're a Republican/Democrat? Clearly you opinion is invalidate" except when someone is a Libertarian and everyone is united in laughing at them or being annoying by them. Thank fuck most of the Ron Paul 2016 bullshit has been done ironically, mostly. Rand Paul 2016 on the other hand............

Now all that said, there is some reason to ignore some people because they don't want a debate, they don't want to educate themselves or others, they want a soap box to preach or an echo chamber. Most people called SJW except by vaguely trollish trolls who couldn't talk their way out of ordering a McShitSandwich at McDonalds are called that not because they are liberal or progressive or whatever, its because they are intractable extremists who strive to be more progressive then everyone. to be feel better then everyone because they are soooooooo into social issues in The Current Year.

There opinions are immutable except for when they are changed by the community. They don't want to debate people about the merits of recognizing every slight variation on the spectrum of gender and sexuality as its own separate sexuality or gender (I wore nail polish once, I need my own gender identity!!!!), they want to preach at and attack people for not automatically recognizing every single little screwball bullshit.

Thats not to say the opponents are really any better. Some are, some are just normal (oh so offensive!!!) people who are tired of "SJW" bullshit being shoved into anything, tired of being called a Neanderthal or evil person or worst of all a Republican just because you might not agree that we need 100 different gender identities. Some are just extremists in their own way, so opposed to SJW bullshit they are opposed to ANY thing perceived as SJW, even relatively mainstream shit with actual medical backing like homosexuality and transgenderism (or whatever the medical term is). All of it to them is just in their head or immoral or being shoved down everyones throats because those "he-shes" and (apologies in advance, mods strike from my post if you wish) "queers" dare do the horrible thing of........wanting equal rights. How dare they!!!!! They need to go back into the closet where they belong!!! This is a castle, so where are the tapestries?!!!!?

They are bastards on both sides, maybe I hate the anti-SJW extremists more just because I find it so goddamn stupid to want to deny somebody rights just because you don't like it but both are most definitely bastards all the same.

Atleast thats how I see all the bullshit. And if you disagree with me the clearly you must be one of those terrible Disagree'ers and anything you say can be ignored because its automatically wrong.

Oh the irony.

What popped up in my tumblr feed but this: http://ajhasaplan.tumblr.com/post/14567 ... f-a-bit-of

It's one of those posts by angry teenagers on tumblr that's hard to distinguish from satire, but it does actually use the words Oppression Olympics (along with insults for pretty much every type of person, friendly or not, who fucks around with people's pronouns. It ain't literature, but it might be art)

The Clueless Oppression-Olympian: “Transness is just a white/abled/Western issue, so why should I care about it?”

http://ajhasaplan.tumblr.com/post/14567 ... f-a-bit-of

I'm not going to quote the whole post since I don't really want to inflict another idiot summoning thread about transgender issues on some board members, but it did amuse me to see the phrase the 'Oppression Olympics' in the wild without going looking.

NecronLord wrote:I've looked at the OP, and I think it's in poor taste, but not actually in violation of PR7 (No Hate Speech) but I do, as Balrog posted, consider it deeply problematic and I find it highly offensive - my eye will also be on this thread, if there's any trouble, it'll be locked.

I was going to include a "Castrate Straha" option, but I don't think there's enough people left who would've gotten the reference, plus I didn't want to risk increasing the problematics any further.

The Romulan Republic wrote:No, its an inflammatory straw man loaded with stereotypes, meant to whine about how those evil politically correct SJWs are destroying everything by giving things to undeserving non-white/gay/female/etc. people, which the author no doubt mistakes for clever political satire.

Shouldn't you be in the election thread decrying the rigged primary system whilst holding out the "technically possible" hope that this same system will somehow pick Bernie over Hillary? Or do you just enjoy doing this to yourself?

mr friendly guy wrote:In this, aren't you changing the levels of oppression when you give them a gold medal? I mean under the logic people use to argue against racism, insert person cannot be oppressed because of their race because they are rich etc. Even though those two things are actually not mutually exclusive. So the moment you give them a gold medal, they are less oppressed because they clearly have the opportunity to be successful in society .. by winning medals.

And I am only being partially facetious. I am actually interested in that line of thinking.

Ah, but the medals aren't made of actual gold, in fact they were bought at a local, independently-owned dollar store which sources locally, so no one's actual level of wealth is being unduly affected.

Balrog, you have a problem with what I say in the election thread, (where, by the way, I have acknowledge that Clinton is the presumptive nominee), why don't you take it up in the election thread? Just a thought.

If you have a problem with what I'm saying here, why don't you actually post a real rebuttal to what I said, rather than an irrelevant insult/ad hominem?

The Romulan Republic wrote:Balrog, you have a problem with what I say in the election thread, (where, by the way, I have acknowledge that Clinton is the presumptive nominee), why don't you take it up in the election thread? Just a thought.

Always with the problems with you. I don't have a problem, but it's been quite humorous nonetheless.

If you have a problem with what I'm saying here, why don't you actually post a real rebuttal to what I said, rather than an irrelevant insult/ad hominem?

Because why bother? Seriously, last time you took a throwaway quip about the Soviet Hobbit as if it were an actual critique. Suffice to say, while I did not set out for that response, I was completely unsurprised you responded the way you did to this thread.

Anyways I'm sorta curious about the lone person who picked Athlete #8 and what their rationale was for that decision.

All Americans, all first worlders and inhabitants of Elysium. Case closed, not interested.

Thread closed. It is nonproductive, has several violations of the vendetta rules. I don't see the point of keeping it open.