Florida School Forces Teen Girl To Put Bandaids Over Her Nipples

[Moonbeam]

My guess is that we evolved with nipples showing and have since managed to survive in modern form for about 200000 years. I guess the fig leaf was invented about the same time as we invented shame.

 

[realibrad]

And yet they have different statuses in our society as sexual objects. You can argue if that has anything to do with society or if it's cultural, but arguing that it isn't different is stupid. Our behavior clearly shows otherwise.



It is arbitrary. It's culturally defined. And it is somewhat fluid. As I said, I don't think that they should necessarily have this particular dress code, but I think this is a fine dress code to have. It is reasonable within cultural norms today. That may oro may not be so in 50 years.

So if it is truly arbitrary, is it just a case of casting these things off at a reasonable pace?

 

[realibrad]

Porn (and I'd classify consensual prostitution in the same boat) are a unique case where the 'actor' (as I'd classify it) is agreeing to do something for a specific purpose. That still doesn't make them an object though, they're still a person. To me, it's equivalent to watching a movie (in the case of porn), and I'm deriving something from each. That's not 'using' the person, it's viewing material. If someone 'used' that person as an object to make the material, I don't agree with it.

They are still a person, but that person is irrelevant to the context of the situation. You literally care nothing about that person beyond the appearance that its consensual. What you care about is one dimensional. What I am saying is that its not a negative thing, as trying to explore all sides of a person in every situation is stupid. Given the context, its reasonable to not care about what makes them a person as they are only there to entertain you.

Admittedly I haven't watched porn in a while, but when I did, it was primarily a narrow focus of body type for both male and female. There's probably specific 'fetish' types that would include what you're suggesting, but that's even more objectifying as it's targeting a specific body type. I don't recall ever targeting any specific body type.

I did not take age into account, but even then, I would imagine you preferred some body types over others.

Huh? I'm lost here, if someone's knowledgeable about a topic I don't care what they look like. Why would that even input into the equation? Conversations tend to steer themselves if the topics don't interest a party, so I don't really know where you're going with this.

The point being that you are isolating specific things about the person that interest you. You ignore the other parts that make up a person because you either see them as unimportant to the situation, or uninteresting. Either way, you are filtering out parts of that person that make them a person.

Are you suggesting that a porn star can't be knowledgeable regarding political topics? What job do you have that's so fucking enlightened to warrant you having a valid opinion?

Wow that escalated quickly. The answer is no. You have gotten totally lost and there was no basis for that assumption.

The point is that you seek out conversations that have the ability to discuss the topic. Being attractive has nothing to do with topic x which is why you ignore things like appearance. You may also ignore other things like height, age, income, gender ect. You ignore many many many things about a person that makes them a person.

Do you really not see yourself as more than a collection of parts? Do you have so little respect for yourself as a human that you're merely a mush of pieces, to be used and/or abused by others?

Your conclusion does not follow. You have effectively asked the same question twice, and this time you have appeared not to make a case for your position. It thus seems weird to jam that in at the end. If you do not believe people are a collection of beliefs and thoughts (parts) then please explain. I see no argument for that in the above, but I have been addressing that the entire time.

That said, I see no reason to see it as disrespectful to see people as a collection of things. Further, I don't understand why seeing people as a collection of things means they are to be used and or abused. An attractive person has agency over their body and as such has the right of consent. That attractiveness can be used and enjoyed if the person consents. The same is true of an intelligent person, or a wealthy person.

So, if you want to take the stance that seeing people as dynamic and multifaceted is somehow diminishing, then please do explain.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Only SJWs think you can train people to not think about sex, likely because of a protein deficiency. Dress restrictions do work, which is why we have louis vuitton hijabs.

Haha! is there anything that can't be blamed on the big, bad SJWs that are coming to take your freedm's? It's getting ridiculous at this point. They are the new commies! Now people on the left (as SJWs are, aren't they?) are being accused of being prudish, and restricting sex? So confused, I thought leftist promoted promiscuity and destroyed the family?!? Which is it?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

They are still a person, but that person is irrelevant to the context of the situation. You literally care nothing about that person beyond the appearance that its consensual. What you care about is one dimensional. What I am saying is that its not a negative thing, as trying to explore all sides of a person in every situation is stupid. Given the context, its reasonable to not care about what makes them a person as they are only there to entertain you.

Apparently we disagree on this part, as when dealing with, or working with a person in my mind in any respect, I tend to think about more than what's directly in front of me. If I see an actor in a movie, I'm considering both a) the actor as a human being, and b) the character as a human being, but I don't consider them to be a one-dimensional object, nor do I consider it stupid to not consider them a one-dimensional object. I personally don't think it's reasonable to give no care about a given person at any time, unless I'm feeling particularly nihilistic.

The point being that you are isolating specific things about the person that interest you. You ignore the other parts that make up a person because you either see them as unimportant to the situation, or uninteresting. Either way, you are filtering out parts of that person that make them a person.

No, I'm not. That's kind of my point.

If you do not believe people are a collection of beliefs and thoughts (parts) then please explain.

We're more than the sum of our parts, and that's the entire point of objectification. A man who objectifies a woman (the point of this little sidebar) specifically sees a woman as a collection of parts that pleases him, *not* taking into account the fact that they're their own person, and greater than just a series of pleasing objects.

That said, I see no reason to see it as disrespectful to see people as a collection of things.

But it *is* disrespectful, because it's diminishing their importance as a human being, and if they're made aware of the way you view them, it's diminishing their self-importance to think that someone views them as merely a collection of parts.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but you actually objectify people. You don't think it's a problem, or don't realize that you're doing it, but you are.

 

[realibrad]

Haha! is there anything that can't be blamed on the big, bad SJWs that are coming to take your freedm's? It's getting ridiculous at this point. They are the new commies! Now people on the left (as SJWs are, aren't they?) are being accused of being prudish, and restricting sex? So confused, I thought leftist promoted promiscuity and destroyed the family?!? Which is it?

So SJWs incorporate many Neo-Marsism ideas which is also connected to the commies. So your connection would seem valid as ultimately SJWs are simply new versions of that original group and belief.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

So SJWs incorporate many Neo-Marsism ideas which is also connected to the commies. So your connection would seem valid as ultimately SJWs are simply new versions of that original group and belief.

Letting transgendered people use whichever bathroom they identify with is connected to the ideas of Marx how? Please elaborate.
How is the workers owning the means of production relate to police using less deadly force, or gay marriage? I'm still confused..

 

[realibrad]

Apparently we disagree on this part, as when dealing with, or working with a person in my mind in any respect, I tend to think about more than what's directly in front of me. If I see an actor in a movie, I'm considering both a) the actor as a human being, and b) the character as a human being, but I don't consider them to be a one-dimensional object, nor do I consider it stupid to not consider them a one-dimensional object. I personally don't think it's reasonable to give no care about a given person at any time, unless I'm feeling particularly nihilistic.

Holding the idea that the person is more than what they are currently representing does not change that at that point in time you are not focusing on all the things that makes up a person.

Are you trying to tell me that when you watch a movie, you are thinking about all the other characters they have played, their life experiences, things they have said and done?

Holding the understanding in the back of your mind that people are more than what they might currently expressing is not in disagreement with what I am saying.

No, I'm not. That's kind of my point.

You 100% absolutely are. I have given examples and you could use one of those to explain why you disagree. Its very difficult to expand on something that small.

When you listen to a song of an artist that you do not know, you simply cannot go beyond their voice. You can decide if you like the voice or not. It seem silly what you would say you do not do what you must be doing.

We're more than the sum of our parts, and that's the entire point of objectification. A man who objectifies a woman (the point of this little sidebar) specifically sees a woman as a collection of parts that pleases him, *not* taking into account the fact that they're their own person, and greater than just a series of pleasing objects.

A collection of parts that she may decide to use to please him. She cannot choose if he finds her physically attractive in most ways, but she can decide how much of her he will see. The dynamics of the interactions of people is that both have agency and as such one cannot be the owner of the other. Obviously this happens, but not respecting the agency of both sides is truly anathema to most modern societies.

Understanding that someone might contain an aspect(s) about who and what they are that you might find enjoyment from is not degrading. Its the basis for most relationships.

But it *is* disrespectful, because it's diminishing their importance as a human being, and if they're made aware of the way you view them, it's diminishing their self-importance to think that someone views them as merely a collection of parts.

Why is it diminishing?

Why is it that you have done nothing to further your understanding of me and my life experiences? Is it that you do not see me as worthy of your inquiry, or is it simply that its not relevant to this conversation?

I don't know if you realize this or not, but you actually objectify people. You don't think it's a problem, or don't realize that you're doing it, but you are.

I do, but not by the definition you seem to be using. I do not believe I possess the right to force my will upon anyone. That does not change that I might find some parts of a person enjoyable, and other parts not enjoyable.

 

[realibrad]

Letting transgendered people use whichever bathroom they identify with is connected to the ideas of Marx how? Please elaborate.
How is the workers owning the means of production relate to police using less deadly force, or gay marriage? I'm still confused..

Strawman.

There is an underlying principle that builds upon who should own what. The main issue is that it creates groups that have power and groups that do not, and the groups that do not should fight to take that power away. The power in this case is usually ownership and thus all ownership should be stripped away. The problem is that its been expanded far beyond economics and into the social and political world. So, any group that has power (white) should be stripped of that power as it is effectively slaver of the under classes. That is the same fundamental belief that the communists used. So, aside from your very stupid strawman, I hope I have given you reason to see your error.

 

[justoh]

Haha! is there anything that can't be blamed on the big, bad SJWs that are coming to take your freedm's? It's getting ridiculous at this point. They are the new commies! Now people on the left (as SJWs are, aren't they?) are being accused of being prudish, and restricting sex? So confused, I thought leftist promoted promiscuity and destroyed the family?!? Which is it?

Well SJWs think it's an arbitrary fixation, breasts, when it seems likely not to be. If it was arbitrary then why make women wear burkas, no matter who designed them? Even the illiterate guy who somehow perfectly captured gabriel's dubious wisdom realized that lady parts are tantalizing. It wasn't because of his showtime subscription that he felt as he did.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Are you trying to tell me that when you watch a movie, you are thinking about all the other characters they have played, their life experiences, things they have said and done?

To the extent that my mind can, yeah. I don't see them as 'entertainment_object_4129' at any rate, as one would a prop in the movie. They're a human being and I view them as such.

When you listen to a song of an artist that you do not know, you simply cannot go beyond their voice. You can decide if you like the voice or not. It seem silly what you would say you do not do what you must be doing.

My point is, they aren't *only* a voice. I don't listen to that voice and say 'man, that's a great $voice_object'. I say 'that person/computer has a great voice', or at minimum, 'the programmer working on that auto-tuning alg did a solid job'.

A collection of parts that she may decide to use to please him. She cannot choose if he finds her physically attractive in most ways, but she can decide how much of her he will see. The dynamics of the interactions of people is that both have agency and as such one cannot be the owner of the other. Obviously this happens, but not respecting the agency of both sides is truly anathema to most modern societies.

Understanding that someone might contain an aspect(s) about who and what they are that you might find enjoyment from is not degrading. Its the basis for most relationships.

You're confounding aspects of a person and 'a collection of parts'. Having describable features isn't the same as being a series of objects which make up a person. If you call most people 'a collection of parts' they'll probably be offended.

Why is it diminishing?

Why is it that you have done nothing to further your understanding of me and my life experiences? Is it that you do not see me as worthy of your inquiry, or is it simply that its not relevant to this conversation?

I actually asked you earlier why you considered yourself to be nothing more than a collection of parts, which could have segued into a conversation about your life experiences, but you disregarded that.

It's diminishing because I'm more than my organs, more than the way light reflects off my skin, more than my features, more than my thoughts, and experiences, more than my relationship links. I'm more than the collection of elements that physically or notionally exist. As is everyone else.

I do, but not by the definition you seem to be using. I do not believe I possess the right to force my will upon anyone. That does not change that I might find some parts of a person enjoyable, and other parts not enjoyable.

The common definition of objectification is, per Webster's, 'to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality'. That's the definition I'm using. I think you're using it without specifically malicious intent (i.e. to enforce your will upon others) but you are diminishing others by using it in this way. This may/may not offend others, or may/may not affect their lives. That depends entirely on the person being objectified. I, for instance, am not particularly offended as I've been offended by far worse things, even on this message board.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Strawman.

There is an underlying principle that builds upon who should own what. The main issue is that it creates groups that have power and groups that do not, and the groups that do not should fight to take that power away. The power in this case is usually ownership and thus all ownership should be stripped away. The problem is that its been expanded far beyond economics and into the social and political world. So, any group that has power (white) should be stripped of that power as it is effectively slaver of the under classes. That is the same fundamental belief that the communists used. So, aside from your very stupid strawman, I hope I have given you reason to see your error.

What is this based on? I consider myself a person who support "social justice", I think trans people, gays, women should have equal rights. Gay marriage, bathrooms, police violence etc I think it'd be in that category. Yet I don't think "whites should be stripped of rights", whatever that means. (Unless you mean the right to oppress others I suppose..). And I have not read anything in mainstream "social justice" writings that say white should be stripped of rights. So who is advocating this? Can you point me to someone? (and not some lone lunatic obviosuly)

When you say straw man are you sure you're not the one attacking a straw man here? "People who think trans people should choose bathrooms want to strip rights form white people" give of a strong scent of hay to me...

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Well SJWs think it's an arbitrary fixation, breasts, when it seems likely not to be. If it was arbitrary then why make women wear burkas, no matter who designed them? Even the illiterate guy who somehow perfectly captured gabriel's dubious wisdom realized that lady parts are tantalizing. It wasn't because of his showtime subscription that he felt as he did.

In what way do they do this? What do you mean by that? Saying that women shouldn't cover themselves because men can't keep their dicks in is not saying breasts are arbitrary.

 

[justoh]

The common definition of objectification is, per Webster's, 'to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality'. That's the definition I'm using. I think you're using it without specifically malicious intent (i.e. to enforce your will upon others) but you are diminishing others by using it in this way. This may/may not offend others, or may/may not affect their lives. That depends entirely on the person being objectified. I, for instance, am not particularly offended as I've been offended by far worse things, even on this message board.

You can't be causing breasts to have objective reality, them probably already existing, objectively, so it must be SJWs causing bullshit social justice causes to have objective reality, by incessantly insisting upon ever more reasons to be a victim. Tip: you can't support feminism with the dictionary.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You can't be causing breasts to have objective reality, them probably already existing, objectively, so it must be SJWs causing bullshit social justice causes to have objective reality, by incessantly insisting upon ever more reasons to be a victim. Tip: you can't support feminism with the dictionary.

Huh? A breast is an object, a person is not, that's the point of the discussion. If you cannot follow along, feel free to troll elsewhere.

 

[justoh]

In what way do they do this? What do you mean by that? Saying that women shouldn't cover themselves because men can't keep their dicks in is not saying breasts are arbitrary.

The super cute object, to her credit, actually used an example of a guy's junk being scrutinized, like, "move around so i can see if your penis is apparent," which I thought was a decent analogy, but I'm sure at least a few here have indeed made statements suggesting we don't just like breasts because they're fun to handle, or that men's nipples are equally in/uninteresting.

 

[justoh]

Huh? A breast is an object, a person is not, that's the point of the discussion. If you cannot follow along, feel free to troll elsewhere.

Maybe I can't follow along. It's not about objectifying people, but rather... objectifying objects? No need for hostility. I'm trying to understand.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Maybe I can't follow along. It's not about objectifying people, but rather... objectifying objects? No need for hostility. I'm trying to understand.

The thread originally started regarding nipples, I guess, but evolved at some point into the discussion of objectification of people (where I jumped in). The discussion between realibrad and myself has been on that topic, or at least surrounding that topic. You jumped in with your screeds about SJWs, feminism, and other topics which offend you.

Next time try to understand *before* getting in the conversation, rather than after. Less people will accuse you of trolling.

 

[realibrad]

To the extent that my mind can, yeah. I don't see them as 'entertainment_object_4129' at any rate, as one would a prop in the movie. They're a human being and I view them as such.

So you believe that your comment here encapsulated my position accurately? I will tell you it does not. The person being a person is not mutually exclusive to having personality traits, physical attributes, and knowledge. Being a person is very complex.

My point is, they aren't *only* a voice. I don't listen to that voice and say 'man, that's a great $voice_object'. I say 'that person/computer has a great voice', or at minimum, 'the programmer working on that auto-tuning alg did a solid job'.

You would not say they have voice object 123, but, are you trying to say you cannot articulate attributes about that voice that you enjoy or do not? For example, Adele appeals to me because of the power in hour voice. Its an attribute that I can extract and explain as a personal taste. I know nothing of her beyond the music she has made. I enjoy her as an entertainer.

The point is that I, and likely you, do not know what makes her her, but we both agree she is a person and commands that inherent respect. So, I enjoy the value she brings, but, that does not mean I get to do any other than enjoy what she allows me to have. Thus, I am objectifying her for her voice, while maintaining the fact that she is a person with all its agency.

You're confounding aspects of a person and 'a collection of parts'. Having describable features isn't the same as being a series of objects which make up a person. If you call most people 'a collection of parts' they'll probably be offended.

You appear to be confusing my position with objects. Parts are simply aspects of said person. Parts you may like or not like.

I actually asked you earlier why you considered yourself to be nothing more than a collection of parts, which could have segued into a conversation about your life experiences, but you disregarded that.

That is very different than getting to know me in totality.

It's diminishing because I'm more than my organs, more than the way light reflects off my skin, more than my features, more than my thoughts, and experiences, more than my relationship links. I'm more than the collection of elements that physically or notionally exist. As is everyone else.

You would need to expand upon this, because, as of now its fairly meaningless. I don't know that I agree or disagree as its too vague.

The common definition of objectification is, per Webster's, 'to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality'. That's the definition I'm using. I think you're using it without specifically malicious intent (i.e. to enforce your will upon others) but you are diminishing others by using it in this way. This may/may not offend others, or may/may not affect their lives. That depends entirely on the person being objectified. I, for instance, am not particularly offended as I've been offended by far worse things, even on this message board.

This is my point and where I think your issue of misunderstanding is. The girl in a video is there for my enjoyment. The video was made for that very purpose. In that very narrow sense, she is an object of entertainment. You seem to somehow disagree with that, but are unable to articulate why. You treat people with inherent respect because they are people, but you also can only engage through limited human ways. You are limited as all people are.

But, I think I have found the central issue, so if you do respond to anything, please make it this part. What to you is the difference between "parts" and "aspects of a person". To me those are interchangeable.

 

[justoh]

The thread originally started regarding nipples, I guess, but evolved at some point into the discussion of objectification of people (where I jumped in). The discussion between realibrad and myself has been on that topic, or at least surrounding that topic. You jumped in with your screeds about SJWs, feminism, and other topics which offend you.

Next time try to understand *before* getting in the conversation, rather than after. Less people will accuse you of trolling.

The thread was originally about nipples generally? I'm certain there was always a person involved. Those nipples belong to a person, dude. A person with friends, a family, thoughts, feelings, aspirations, etc. Possibly more. You're overestimating the contributions of yourself and realibad.

 

[realibrad]

What is this based on? I consider myself a person who support "social justice", I think trans people, gays, women should have equal rights. Gay marriage, bathrooms, police violence etc I think it'd be in that category. Yet I don't think "whites should be stripped of rights", whatever that means. (Unless you mean the right to oppress others I suppose..). And I have not read anything in mainstream "social justice" writings that say white should be stripped of rights. So who is advocating this? Can you point me to someone? (and not some lone lunatic obviosuly)

I have no problem with equal rights and justice. That said, before I could really give a valid response to this, you will need to define what you mean by mainstream social justice. If I were to provide examples of what I have claimed, you could and likely would dismiss it as not mainstream. So please, give me an example of sources that you consider mainstream.

When you say straw man are you sure you're not the one attacking a straw man here? "People who think trans people should choose bathrooms want to strip rights form white people" give of a strong scent of hay to me...

The strawman was your dumb question about bathrooms.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So you believe that your comment here encapsulated my position accurately? I will tell you it does not. The person being a person is not mutually exclusive to having personality traits, physical attributes, and knowledge. Being a person is very complex.

I'm glad you acknowledge that, but it runs counter (in my mind) to your comments on a person being a collection of parts. To clarify, having traits isn't the same thing as 'being a collection of parts'.

You would not say they have voice object 123, but, are you trying to say you cannot articulate attributes about that voice that you enjoy or do not? For example, Adele appeals to me because of the power in hour voice. Its an attribute that I can extract and explain as a personal taste. I know nothing of her beyond the music she has made. I enjoy her as an entertainer.

The point is that I, and likely you, do not know what makes her her, but we both agree she is a person and commands that inherent respect. So, I enjoy the value she brings, but, that does not mean I get to do any other than enjoy what she allows me to have. Thus, I am objectifying her for her voice, while maintaining the fact that she is a person with all its agency.

We may have gotten down to the point of semantics then, as I'd argue that if you consider her a person, you aren't objectifying her for her voice. You cannot state that someone is only a voice while also stating that she's a person that's more than a voice. If you insist on this stance, I'd say it's just 'agree to disagree'.

You appear to be confusing my position with objects. Parts are simply aspects of said person. Parts you may like or not like.

Ditto to above, I consider parts to be objects, not aspects/describable traits. Note that doesn't mean you cannot describe an object (that woman has a nice ass), just that a person is not an object/collection of objects (that woman's a nice piece of ass). Agree to disagree.

You would need to expand upon this, because, as of now its fairly meaningless. I don't know that I agree or disagree as its too vague.

I only meant that, when referencing an individual as a collection of parts rather than in totality (which you may be doing anyhow) it diminishes them as a person. I consider myself more than an amalgamation of parts akin to a lego construction (nonphysical attributes included), as I'm sure most would agree.

This is going a bit philosophical, but imagine if an exact duplicate of you (thoughts, feelings, emotions, physical traits, etc) were created, would that be you? Or would it be another entity? Given everything is identical from a physical/nonphysical perspective, I'd still consider it to be a separate person, because it's not *me*. I'm more than a collection of parts, even if those parts are duplicated.

But, I think I have found the central issue, so if you do respond to anything, please make it this part. What to you is the difference between "parts" and "aspects of a person". To me those are interchangeable.

The core of this as I've tried to elaborate above is that I consider 'parts' to be miscellaneous objects that are 'attached' in some way to a person, whether they be physical (feet, eyes, face, chest) or nonphysical (personality, mind, thoughts, emotions). The *description* of those objects is different, so describing an 'object', while it may offend someone due to you leering at them, isn't inherently offensive when taken out of the context of a human. However, identifying a person based solely from a single trait, or based solely off a single part of their person (physical or nonphysical) is diminishing. Hell, even attempting to describe them based on a list of traits or objects is diminishing, though a given person may not inherently be offended by that.

If you're stating traits as in, objects attached to them (physical attributes) or something to do with say, their mind (an example would be, identifying Einstein based solely on his mind), that'd be objectifying them. If you're meaning traits as in, personality quirks (stating that [DHT]Osiris can be a pedantic asshole), I'd say that's not objectifying as it's just describing an aspect of them, as referenced above.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

I have no problem with equal rights and justice. That said, before I could really give a valid response to this, you will need to define what you mean by mainstream social justice. If I were to provide examples of what I have claimed, you could and likely would dismiss it as not mainstream. So please, give me an example of sources that you consider mainstream.

The strawman was your dumb question about bathrooms.

Don't really feel like digging up stuff, but anyone in the mainstream/liberal media? (i.e anything except Fox)? I read Economist, how about that? Not a huge fan, but The Guardian? I'll even give you Huffpo (though I'm sure they have some loonier people there). Anyone speaking for the Democratic party? MSNBC, CNN. I've basically listed the biggest and loudest voices on the liberal side, that' should be plenty of material.

Trans bathrooms is a hot issue many places. How is that not related to SJW? It's the SJW cause right now.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Don't really feel like digging up stuff, but anyone in the mainstream/liberal media? (i.e anything except Fox)? I read Economist, how about that? Not a huge fan, but The Guardian? I'll even give you Huffpo (though I'm sure they have some loonier people there). Anyone speaking for the Democratic party? MSNBC, CNN. I've basically listed the biggest and loudest voices on the liberal side, that' should be plenty of material.

Trans bathrooms is a hot issue many places. How is that not related to SJW? It's the SJW cause right now.

I'd include NPR, they're solid, and aren't afraid to pursue SJW issues (though I don't know that I'd classify them as 'SJW news' or anything).

 

[mikeymikec]

SJWs

I was wondering how on earth a topic like this has reached 6 pages (ie. it's one of those topics that even people of normally diametrically opposed opinions will agree is a stupid thing that shouldn't have happened), then I found the reason.

It reminds me of the phenomenon that many YouTube comments threads will eventually get around to a Hitler comparison or something equally irrelevant and stupid.