It's called being a realist, you moron. Reality isn't always pretty, or politically correct.
Reality? If you actually viewed the world as it is, rather than how you think it is, you'd realize that each individual makes their own choices, and each individual should be judged independently of every other individual. Judging whole groups of people based on their skin color, socioeconomic status or other characteristic is self-deception at best and bigotry at worst.
Since you likely grew up in a lily white suburb, all you know about "the ghetto" comes from rap lyrics and news reports, you likely have a very skewed idea about it. What is more, by adjudging an entire group rather than dealing with individuals as individuals, you show yourself to be quite the bigot yourself.
tl;dr, You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
Which is why in my original post I said reclining should be removed/banned.
It's coming soon you can be assured. Airlines won't keep putting up with the costs of these disruptions, they'll just disable reclining. And we shall rejoice.
You seem to have a propensity to call people with whom you disagree names instead of arguing your case. A joke comes to mind: Woman dancing with her date: "Do you like to dance?" Man: "Yes, very!" Woman: "Then why don't you learn how?"
I don't necessarily disagree with OP's general point. It is important to be aware of your surroundings, and it is a good idea to keep your personal safety in mind -- unless you have a personal bodyguard, no one else will. However, I did take exception to OP's bigoted comment ("Don't show your white ass in the ghetto if you're allergic to fists, blades or bullets."), so I called him/her on it. No hidden agenda or ad hominem at all. If OP doesn't want to be considered a bigoted jerk, a good start would be not to make bigoted comments.
I'm curious. You say, "You seem to have a propensity to call people with whom you disagree names instead of arguing your case." Please provide examples. I frequently post as me, so if I have such a propensity, it shouldn't be too hard to show. I disagree with your assessment. The body of my posts is my evidence. Prove me wrong. How's that for name calling, friend? Have a nice day.
*sigh* No, not racist. Not blaming the rape victim. Not justifying smart phone theft. Not telling people it's OK to take advantage of idiots. Not even telling you not to bungee-jump or not to go and provoke people where you're less than welcome. I am telling you to be aware of the risks you're taking and to make sure you can handle if the risks materialize. I am telling you that my attitude towards the criminal doesn't depend on your stupidity, but my empathy towards you depends on the risks you took and for what reason you took them.
So. Not a bigoted jerk? You just play one on/., eh? Fair enough. Carry on.
Look, you can pontificate on and on about the glory days of yesteryear where you had enough legroom to roast a pig until you're blue in the face, but the simple FACT is that TODAY there is not enough legroom in coach to offer reclining. This is due mainly to the downward price pressures of a fiercely competitive airline industry with razor-thin margins.
If you want room to recline, then feel free to purchase a premium economy seat (which by the way costs LESS than the same economy seat did 10 years ago). If you're too cheap to do this, then suck it up.
I'll repeat: When I am assigned a seat, I get that seat along with all its accoutrements. That includes reclining. Deal with it.
A lot of kids browse the website and I have an issue with them having access to many images that in other media contexts such as movies, magazines or television they would be considered illegal. Additionally, some images that are posted by users to/r/gonewild seem to be of under age girls. I wonder why an attorney general somewhere hasn't taken this on. I have been thinking about calling mine.
Reddit needs to clean up its act and require age verification for some subreddits, And stop profiting off illicit pornography and images (like they did with the recent leaked celebrity photographs). Other social media sites can rein it in, so can Reddit.
Stop shirking your responsibilities as a parent. If you feel the need to censor what your children see or hear, then do it. But don't expect the rest of the world to do it for you.
I completely disagree with you. Particularly the last sentence, which, again, is coming close to an ad hominem. I didn't make that argument and I wasn't going to.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens. And that is the way *I* look at it when it comes to my own business, so I won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
Back in the depths of the medieval period (the early 1990s), when the large (Fortune 50) company I worked for first connected its user base to the Internet, they gave a piece of advice about emails, which, IMHO, applies in spades to any online storage (whenever someone says "the cloud" you should always mentally replace it with "someone else's servers") or site. It went something like this: "don't put anything in an email
[replace that with 'online' for today's environment] that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper."
Look, I don't even blame these people that much. When someone reclines in front of you on a plane, it is HORRIBLE.
If you want to take a nap on a plane, then upgrade to premium economy or first class. Otherwise, keep your damn seat upright. I hate how reclining is still allowed on flights. Reclining your seat on plane is SO INCONSIDERATE to the person behind you. It jams the seat into their legs, it screws up their tray table angle, and it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the person to get any work done in the plane. The only course of action you have is to ALSO recline your seat to try to re-gain some room, even if you didn't want to. Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright. Awesome.
Honestly I don't know why airlines still have reclining seats in coach nowadays. If they would just eliminate the ability then fights like this would not occur.
Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. There was a time when, regardless of height, your forward neighbor could recline their seat without causing the slightest inconvenience. When I am assigned a seat, I get that seat along with all its accoutrements. That includes reclining. By your logic, if someone makes use of the equipment they've paid for and been assigned, that makes them an insensitive jerk. Not so much. The insensitive jerks are the ones who are nickel and diming you by putting the seats too close together. But since all the airlines do this, you find it easier to blame your fellow passengers. Talk about inappropriate redirection of anger! Geez.
The article comment 'Disputes over a tiny bit of personal space might seem petty, but for passengers whose knees are already banging into tray tables, every bit counts.' shows what the problem really is... people who think they have the right to tell the person in front of them whether or not they can recline their chair.
They can recline it.. get over it. It's their seat. If you don't like it, fly first class. If you can't afford it, don't fly or shut the fuck up you inconsiderate, selfish loser.
It's one thing to ask nicely, it's another to expect someone to give up something they have every right and expectation to be able to do. I'm a pretty big guy, and never recline my seat out of consideration for the people behind me. But I've also never admonished the person in front of me for choosing to do so.
It's like the mothers who expect other children to share. It's their ball, they got it first, they don't have to share. I'm so sick and tired of all these people who expect other people to adjust their lives to suit them, how selfish is that. They only have the right to politely ask and walk away muttering to themselves if things don't go their way.
But of course, one only has to look at politics to see the problem echoed back. Anti-abortion activists (no.. you are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion. Get over it) want to force other people to not have something they don't want to have anyway. Anti-gun groups (yes... you are anti-gun if you want to take guns away, your pretty words don't change that) want to force people to give up things they have never used in a crime so they feel safe. (Not are safer.. just feel safer). Anti-gay marriage groups (yes.. that is what you are, there is no sanctity of marriage outside of your head and maybe your church) want to tell gay people they can't live together. They can't do that, so instead they want to tell them that they can't have the same government benefits that others have.
The one thing all of these anti-something people have in common?? They want someone else to give up something so they can have what they want.
And they are all selfish and self-centered if they expect other people to do it.
Well said. I would only add:
The correct way to punctuate a sentence that starts: "Of course it is
none of my business, but --" is to place a period after the word "but."
Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period.
Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you
talked about.
You must be short. Any discussion with said Air Marshall would quickly and visually indicate that there is no room between your seatback and my knee in any position. Short legged people just don't understand that.
Don't like the leg room? Fly a different airline. What? All airlines are nickel and diming their passengers on space? Clearly it's your fellow passengers' fault. How dare they use the space and the equipment they've been assigned?
I mean, the airline is your friend. They would never sacrifice your comfort just to make more money.
Yes. It's definitely the asshole in front of you. He/she is determined to make your life hell. What? You've never seen that person before in your life? In that case, they must be mentally disturbed because all they can think about is harming you. In fact, they've made it the focus of their lives to harry and oppress you however they can. Because they're evil. Evil I say! Please.
A better analogy is one where you purchase a vehicle capable of going 60MPH, but unbeknownst to you ahead of time, it gets throttled remotely to lower speeds if you drive to Chicago or LA because those cities did not pay the manufacturer enough extortion money. Oh, and it can go 90MPH to Destroit because the manufacturer is based there.
This is a perfectly good car analogy. Why is it modded troll? I guess it was a troll doing the modding.
However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.
The state of Washington is not held to the constitutional taxation restrictions of the US federal government. Collecting income tax is quite legal for them.
The companies *are* paying taxes. Through you. They hire thousands of people and those people, by law, have to pay x% of their wages in taxes. Government makes it as painless as possible (low corporate tax) to operate any business that employs large numbers of tax-paying worker bees. "Government", in this case, being people that you elected to look after these things for you.
In Washington State, not so much. You're talking out of your ass, and it smells like it too.
He doesn't have a leg to stand on to force Mindcraft to become open, but Mojang doesn't have a right to use his code that he released under a GPL license unless they provide the source code for the GPL'd portions of the codebase.
Apparently Mojang, since they bought Bukkit, are using GPL code which is in Bukkit. Mojang also owns Minecraft. Parts of Minecraft are allegedly also included in Bukkit, but the source to these parts of Bukkit (and Minecraft) is not provided, which makes the distribution of Bukkit a license violation.
IANAL, but it seems to me that Mojang could address this issue (as many other commercial software vendors do) by releasing source code for Bukkit under the GPL. Since the MInecraft server isn't GPL'd and is not a derivative work of Bukkit (quite the opposite, if I understand this correctly), there is no requirement for the MInecraft server to be GPL'd.
Once that was done, Mojang could sue the asses off of whoever decompiled their Proprietary code (turnabout is fair play, no?). Problem solved. Are there any IP lawyers out there who could comment?
I, for one, share your beliefs on the subject. I do not, however, refer to myself as a feminist, but rather as an egalitarian. The reason for this distinction is that, rightly or wrongly, feminism has become associated by many (especially those too lazy to consult a dictionary) with female supremacy. The extremist views, statements and acts over the years by some who have claimed to be acting in the name of feminism certainly hasn't helped, neither has most of the press, which will report on such matters without clarifying the inappropriate use of the term feminism/feminist. It is also fair to say that it's not just the sexes that I think should be equal, either. Hence my use of the term egalitarian.
Well said. Thank you. I understand your concern with the (mis)use of the term. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but where I come from, there are men and there are women. Between them, they make up the species Homo Sapiens.
I have transgender relatives (fairly close ones) who I love dearly, and have no issue with them or anyone else. What is more, those who choose to consider themselves genderless or a combination of two genders will get no argument from me. They can define themselves as they choose.
However, from a practical standpoint, there are those who have a Y chromosome (males) and those who do not (females). So, when I say that I believe that men and women should be treated equally, and have equal opportunities, who exactly am I leaving out?
Yes, I know that some folks will say that restricting humans to just two genders is bigoted and closed-minded. From a genetic standpoint, that's a load of malarkey, IMHO.
Since the definition (and yes, despite those who try to hijack words, words have meaning and their definitions, while somewhat malleable, must be used consistently or we can't have any common frame of reference) of feminism is exactly that, I don't mind calling myself a feminist at all.
Feminism is, at its heart, an egalitarian construct. I refuse to allow a bunch of crazies (on both sides) to co-opt (at least in my usage) a perfectly valid and useful word.
Let's be clear, even if some label themselves as one thing or another, it's their actions that define them. I allow my actions to define me, not the biases associated with those who would co-opt language for their own purposes.
I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
--Robert A, Heinlein, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but don't try to tell me what I believe.
I think of the feminist concept as just a tool, in the toolbox of the modern miserable, sex-obsessed, bossy, and manipulative woman. The people who use that tool come off as power hungry and getting off on control. You could call that viewpoint insecure, or you could call it being annoyed by people who look at life through terms of how much power they have and what is holding them back from getting more, and don't have much else to talk about. To each their own.
So, for you the concept that all humans should be treated equally and have equality of opportunity is a "tool...of the modern miserable, sex-obsessed, bossy, and manipulative woman?" Gosh, that speaks volumes about you. Did your mommy not love you enough? Poor baby.
They're just different independent beliefs. They're not incompatible nor did I ever claim or implied they were. You know that and are just dodging the implication. Your post heavily implies that you're a feminist because you believe that women have been treated unfairly when the definition of feminism you quote is about the other independent belief that men and women should be treated equally.
Why I'm responding to a troll, I don't know. But I'll respond, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand. My post implies nothing of the kind. I am a feminist because women and men should be treated equally. Full stop.
The fact that women have been, and in many places still are, being treated as second-class citizens is a fact. That disgusts me. Does it disgust you? If so, why? If not, why not?
No, it would simply change.
You'd go from "You're such a cunt" to "you're such a woman hating intolerant".
Because these things are often primarily insults.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, perhaps, you didn't read someone else's "posting to undo my mod", despite its prior timestamp?
Except as of now, the post I was referring to still has a troll mod on it? Check to mod history for yourself. What is your agenda?
It's called being a realist, you moron. Reality isn't always pretty, or politically correct.
Reality? If you actually viewed the world as it is, rather than how you think it is, you'd realize that each individual makes their own choices, and each individual should be judged independently of every other individual. Judging whole groups of people based on their skin color, socioeconomic status or other characteristic is self-deception at best and bigotry at worst.
Since you likely grew up in a lily white suburb, all you know about "the ghetto" comes from rap lyrics and news reports, you likely have a very skewed idea about it. What is more, by adjudging an entire group rather than dealing with individuals as individuals, you show yourself to be quite the bigot yourself.
tl;dr, You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
Which is why in my original post I said reclining should be removed/banned.
It's coming soon you can be assured. Airlines won't keep putting up with the costs of these disruptions, they'll just disable reclining. And we shall rejoice.
You go, girlfriend!
You seem to have a propensity to call people with whom you disagree names instead of arguing your case. A joke comes to mind: Woman dancing with her date: "Do you like to dance?" Man: "Yes, very!" Woman: "Then why don't you learn how?"
I don't necessarily disagree with OP's general point. It is important to be aware of your surroundings, and it is a good idea to keep your personal safety in mind -- unless you have a personal bodyguard, no one else will. However, I did take exception to OP's bigoted comment ("Don't show your white ass in the ghetto if you're allergic to fists, blades or bullets."), so I called him/her on it. No hidden agenda or ad hominem at all. If OP doesn't want to be considered a bigoted jerk, a good start would be not to make bigoted comments.
I'm curious. You say, "You seem to have a propensity to call people with whom you disagree names instead of arguing your case." Please provide examples. I frequently post as me, so if I have such a propensity, it shouldn't be too hard to show. I disagree with your assessment. The body of my posts is my evidence. Prove me wrong. How's that for name calling, friend? Have a nice day.
*sigh* No, not racist. Not blaming the rape victim. Not justifying smart phone theft. Not telling people it's OK to take advantage of idiots. Not even telling you not to bungee-jump or not to go and provoke people where you're less than welcome. I am telling you to be aware of the risks you're taking and to make sure you can handle if the risks materialize. I am telling you that my attitude towards the criminal doesn't depend on your stupidity, but my empathy towards you depends on the risks you took and for what reason you took them.
So. Not a bigoted jerk? You just play one on /., eh? Fair enough. Carry on.
Oh go BZZZT yourself.
Look, you can pontificate on and on about the glory days of yesteryear where you had enough legroom to roast a pig until you're blue in the face, but the simple FACT is that TODAY there is not enough legroom in coach to offer reclining. This is due mainly to the downward price pressures of a fiercely competitive airline industry with razor-thin margins.
If you want room to recline, then feel free to purchase a premium economy seat (which by the way costs LESS than the same economy seat did 10 years ago). If you're too cheap to do this, then suck it up.
I'll repeat: When I am assigned a seat, I get that seat along with all its accoutrements. That includes reclining. Deal with it.
A lot of kids browse the website and I have an issue with them having access to many images that in other media contexts such as movies, magazines or television they would be considered illegal. Additionally, some images that are posted by users to /r/gonewild seem to be of under age girls. I wonder why an attorney general somewhere hasn't taken this on. I have been thinking about calling mine.
Reddit needs to clean up its act and require age verification for some subreddits, And stop profiting off illicit pornography and images (like they did with the recent leaked celebrity photographs). Other social media sites can rein it in, so can Reddit.
Stop shirking your responsibilities as a parent. If you feel the need to censor what your children see or hear, then do it. But don't expect the rest of the world to do it for you.
Don't show your white ass in the ghetto if you're allergic to fists, blades or bullets.
Racist much?
I completely disagree with you. Particularly the last sentence, which, again, is coming close to an ad hominem. I didn't make that argument and I wasn't going to.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens. And that is the way *I* look at it when it comes to my own business, so I won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
Back in the depths of the medieval period (the early 1990s), when the large (Fortune 50) company I worked for first connected its user base to the Internet, they gave a piece of advice about emails, which, IMHO, applies in spades to any online storage (whenever someone says "the cloud" you should always mentally replace it with "someone else's servers") or site. It went something like this: "don't put anything in an email [replace that with 'online' for today's environment] that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper."
Look, I don't even blame these people that much. When someone reclines in front of you on a plane, it is HORRIBLE.
If you want to take a nap on a plane, then upgrade to premium economy or first class. Otherwise, keep your damn seat upright. I hate how reclining is still allowed on flights. Reclining your seat on plane is SO INCONSIDERATE to the person behind you. It jams the seat into their legs, it screws up their tray table angle, and it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the person to get any work done in the plane. The only course of action you have is to ALSO recline your seat to try to re-gain some room, even if you didn't want to. Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright. Awesome.
Honestly I don't know why airlines still have reclining seats in coach nowadays. If they would just eliminate the ability then fights like this would not occur.
Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. There was a time when, regardless of height, your forward neighbor could recline their seat without causing the slightest inconvenience. When I am assigned a seat, I get that seat along with all its accoutrements. That includes reclining. By your logic, if someone makes use of the equipment they've paid for and been assigned, that makes them an insensitive jerk. Not so much. The insensitive jerks are the ones who are nickel and diming you by putting the seats too close together. But since all the airlines do this, you find it easier to blame your fellow passengers. Talk about inappropriate redirection of anger! Geez.
The article comment 'Disputes over a tiny bit of personal space might seem petty, but for passengers whose knees are already banging into tray tables, every bit counts.' shows what the problem really is ... people who think they have the right to tell the person in front of them whether or not they can recline their chair.
They can recline it .. get over it. It's their seat. If you don't like it, fly first class. If you can't afford it, don't fly or shut the fuck up you inconsiderate, selfish loser.
It's one thing to ask nicely, it's another to expect someone to give up something they have every right and expectation to be able to do. I'm a pretty big guy, and never recline my seat out of consideration for the people behind me. But I've also never admonished the person in front of me for choosing to do so.
It's like the mothers who expect other children to share. It's their ball, they got it first, they don't have to share. I'm so sick and tired of all these people who expect other people to adjust their lives to suit them, how selfish is that. They only have the right to politely ask and walk away muttering to themselves if things don't go their way.
But of course, one only has to look at politics to see the problem echoed back. Anti-abortion activists (no .. you are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion. Get over it) want to force other people to not have something they don't want to have anyway. Anti-gun groups (yes ... you are anti-gun if you want to take guns away, your pretty words don't change that) want to force people to give up things they have never used in a crime so they feel safe. (Not are safer .. just feel safer). Anti-gay marriage groups (yes .. that is what you are, there is no sanctity of marriage outside of your head and maybe your church) want to tell gay people they can't live together. They can't do that, so instead they want to tell them that they can't have the same government benefits that others have.
The one thing all of these anti-something people have in common?? They want someone else to give up something so they can have what they want.
And they are all selfish and self-centered if they expect other people to do it.
Well said. I would only add:
--Robert A. Heinlein
You must be short. Any discussion with said Air Marshall would quickly and visually indicate that there is no room between your seatback and my knee in any position. Short legged people just don't understand that.
Don't like the leg room? Fly a different airline. What? All airlines are nickel and diming their passengers on space? Clearly it's your fellow passengers' fault. How dare they use the space and the equipment they've been assigned?
I mean, the airline is your friend. They would never sacrifice your comfort just to make more money.
Yes. It's definitely the asshole in front of you. He/she is determined to make your life hell. What? You've never seen that person before in your life? In that case, they must be mentally disturbed because all they can think about is harming you. In fact, they've made it the focus of their lives to harry and oppress you however they can. Because they're evil. Evil I say! Please.
A better analogy is one where you purchase a vehicle capable of going 60MPH, but unbeknownst to you ahead of time, it gets throttled remotely to lower speeds if you drive to Chicago or LA because those cities did not pay the manufacturer enough extortion money. Oh, and it can go 90MPH to Destroit because the manufacturer is based there.
This is a perfectly good car analogy. Why is it modded troll? I guess it was a troll doing the modding.
However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.
The state of Washington is not held to the constitutional taxation restrictions of the US federal government. Collecting income tax is quite legal for them.
What is more, Washinton State has no income tax.
...Look at FL TX and TN no state Income tax. TX none on Corps either. Why? Because its easy to game and hard to Admin. Sales/Use and property taxes.
Yep. Just like Washington State. Sigh.
The companies *are* paying taxes. Through you. They hire thousands of people and those people, by law, have to pay x% of their wages in taxes. Government makes it as painless as possible (low corporate tax) to operate any business that employs large numbers of tax-paying worker bees. "Government", in this case, being people that you elected to look after these things for you.
In Washington State, not so much. You're talking out of your ass, and it smells like it too.
He doesn't have a leg to stand on to force Mindcraft to become open, but Mojang doesn't have a right to use his code that he released under a GPL license unless they provide the source code for the GPL'd portions of the codebase.
There. FTFY.
Apparently Mojang, since they bought Bukkit, are using GPL code which is in Bukkit. Mojang also owns Minecraft. Parts of Minecraft are allegedly also included in Bukkit, but the source to these parts of Bukkit (and Minecraft) is not provided, which makes the distribution of Bukkit a license violation.
IANAL, but it seems to me that Mojang could address this issue (as many other commercial software vendors do) by releasing source code for Bukkit under the GPL. Since the MInecraft server isn't GPL'd and is not a derivative work of Bukkit (quite the opposite, if I understand this correctly), there is no requirement for the MInecraft server to be GPL'd.
Once that was done, Mojang could sue the asses off of whoever decompiled their Proprietary code (turnabout is fair play, no?). Problem solved. Are there any IP lawyers out there who could comment?
I, for one, share your beliefs on the subject. I do not, however, refer to myself as a feminist, but rather as an egalitarian. The reason for this distinction is that, rightly or wrongly, feminism has become associated by many (especially those too lazy to consult a dictionary) with female supremacy. The extremist views, statements and acts over the years by some who have claimed to be acting in the name of feminism certainly hasn't helped, neither has most of the press, which will report on such matters without clarifying the inappropriate use of the term feminism /feminist. It is also fair to say that it's not just the sexes that I think should be equal, either. Hence my use of the term egalitarian.
Well said. Thank you. I understand your concern with the (mis)use of the term. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but where I come from, there are men and there are women. Between them, they make up the species Homo Sapiens.
I have transgender relatives (fairly close ones) who I love dearly, and have no issue with them or anyone else. What is more, those who choose to consider themselves genderless or a combination of two genders will get no argument from me. They can define themselves as they choose.
However, from a practical standpoint, there are those who have a Y chromosome (males) and those who do not (females). So, when I say that I believe that men and women should be treated equally, and have equal opportunities, who exactly am I leaving out?
Yes, I know that some folks will say that restricting humans to just two genders is bigoted and closed-minded. From a genetic standpoint, that's a load of malarkey, IMHO.
Since the definition (and yes, despite those who try to hijack words, words have meaning and their definitions, while somewhat malleable, must be used consistently or we can't have any common frame of reference) of feminism is exactly that, I don't mind calling myself a feminist at all.
Feminism is, at its heart, an egalitarian construct. I refuse to allow a bunch of crazies (on both sides) to co-opt (at least in my usage) a perfectly valid and useful word.
Let's be clear, even if some label themselves as one thing or another, it's their actions that define them. I allow my actions to define me, not the biases associated with those who would co-opt language for their own purposes.
I have a less jaded view. The limitations on government power are set forth in a document we refer to as the Constitution of our Republic.
There. FTFY.
--Robert A, Heinlein, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
I think of the feminist concept as just a tool, in the toolbox of the modern miserable, sex-obsessed, bossy, and manipulative woman. The people who use that tool come off as power hungry and getting off on control. You could call that viewpoint insecure, or you could call it being annoyed by people who look at life through terms of how much power they have and what is holding them back from getting more, and don't have much else to talk about. To each their own.
So, for you the concept that all humans should be treated equally and have equality of opportunity is a "tool...of the modern miserable, sex-obsessed, bossy, and manipulative woman?" Gosh, that speaks volumes about you. Did your mommy not love you enough? Poor baby.
They're just different independent beliefs. They're not incompatible nor did I ever claim or implied they were. You know that and are just dodging the implication. Your post heavily implies that you're a feminist because you believe that women have been treated unfairly when the definition of feminism you quote is about the other independent belief that men and women should be treated equally.
Why I'm responding to a troll, I don't know. But I'll respond, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand. My post implies nothing of the kind. I am a feminist because women and men should be treated equally. Full stop.
The fact that women have been, and in many places still are, being treated as second-class citizens is a fact. That disgusts me. Does it disgust you? If so, why? If not, why not?
No, it would simply change. You'd go from "You're such a cunt" to "you're such a woman hating intolerant". Because these things are often primarily insults.
Is there something wrong with being more civil?
"Well, I'm a secure, middle-aged male and feel strongly that women have been treated unfairly for far too long" Does that line work well in bars?
I don't know. I don't use lines and don't go to bars to meet women.