Top products from r/SRSsucks

We found 22 product mentions on r/SRSsucks. We ranked the 28 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/SRSsucks:

u/Plexaure · 4 pointsr/SRSsucks

Long Rant... You've been warned.

Let me preface this statement: I'm a woman, I'm a minority, and I'm a feminist, which means I want equal rights for everyone. Based on my experience in a large city with a high minority population working in an occupation typically run by white males, it's still clear that equality needs to be addressed - not every white person is trying to oppress people and not every minority is a saint and shocking some perpetuate racism and sexism. You typically have little gauge for how an employer will behave based on age or race, however I've noticed women have a higher tendency to be more aggravating to work with because of insecurity. Women and men who are insecure bosses have nearly the same behavioral patterns, but one occurs more frequently than the other because of historical and current social norms. I unfortunately was gifted with a stereotypical "redditor" personality and spent a lot of time feeling alienated and twisted all over the place.

The fact that feminist writers/bloggers were receiving so many fucked up messages after the PyCon shows that there are still significant issues that need to be addressed. But going after the video game industry strawman in this way is a hugely hypocritical. In her analyses of characters, she doesn't touch on the fact that it's female romance authors which provide the pivotal negative female stereotypes while male writers have been in equal force in creating feminist characters. The entire damning existence of the biggest publishing genre of romance that constantly reinforces the anti-feminist sentiment on a magnitude so much greater than the video game industry.

Both the romance book industry and video gaming industry are profiting along the lines of gender separation, and both have their own wishfulfillment fantasies. Just glance at Kindle's bestseller list, and the most damning evidence of how feminism hasn't met its goals is staring you in the face with tripe stories about how the secretary wants to hop into bed with her millionaire/billionaire boss who may or may come from a culture where women are second class citizens or one of those "old-fashioned types." Women are buying these types of stories in large amounts. Where does someone like Sarkeesian and others like her get off throwing one industry under the bus and blatantly ignoring the other, which I think denotes that they're not as objective as they claim to be. Video gaming isn't as large of a media platform as movies, books and television.

I read her Buffy vs. Bella article, (which I mostly enjoyed and agreed with) and I noticed that she doesn't put out there that it was when a male wrote Buffy, it changed how so many young women viewed themselves in power. Even men have an easier time identifying with Buffy because it opened the idea of a female heroine who wasn't weak and was capable of handling herself. Bella was written by a female author and launched into its pop culture status not by a mixed gender group but a majority female group. It demonstrates that there is a problem of authorship and other layers of how most women are conflicted about how their sexual fantasies are fulfilled. If women get to find comfort in that arena through romance novels and stories, why are we going after men for the same thing? How do you justify going after men buying a video game where the girl needs to be rescued when you have books like The Billionaire's Obsession in the Top 10 of the Kindle Bestsellers List? (Note: I'm not criticizing this book or its author or the romance genre as I read and enjoy romance novels and media; my point is that there's a hypocrisy of where to judge the use of gender tropes.) How can the feminist cause be taken seriously when it's showing these sorts of conflicting market data? It's an embarrassment that Twilight, which looks like it was written by a 9th grader who just failed summer school English wrote it, has so much more market value to young women than other novels where the female character is empowered. I don't think video games (which is still a new industry) had very much of a factor in that, even when accounting for the levels of patriarchy.

TL;DR: Redressing the video game industry before going after the romance industry is a effort in futility. Why are women allowed to profit from the gender archetypes but men are not? We talk about empowerment, but all this time we don't use what clout we do have to empower ourselves, we pervasively wait for men to act as agents of change we want to see in ourselves. Sarkeesian is technically doing what she's accusing the video game industry of doing - she's waiting for men to be agents of action and change in feminism. It shifts back to the fact that men change the dialog because when women are left to do so, they fall back into traditional gender norms for storytelling.

EDIT: I loved KiteTales video reply to Anita.

u/ZiggyPox · 1 pointr/SRSsucks

> a) many Jews felt polish and were quite proud to contribute. I don't know why but I believe many liked it there in Poland, more than other eastern european countries, maybe has to do with the fact Poland is one of the few that didn't have a time where it expelled them.

Well, Poland wasn't a paradise but as you said, antisemitism in Poland wasn't as bad as in the rest of the Europe. If you were a Jew at that time where would you want to live? In the least antisemitic country I bet. I think that in the context of how world looked at that time Poland was a rather nice place for Jews (but for sure not as good as it is today).

Also joining a university is a natural way for an educated person that values knowledge so for Jews joining university was, well, a natural thing to do. Seriously, removing Jews from unis seems so silly like nowdays removing/blocking men so there would be more place for women.

About b) you would have to tell me more, because I don't follow what you want to tell.

You might be interested in that book:

Can't find english translation though... it might be here:

but I have no acces to the part I would like to check.

u/Mork-or-Gork · 1 pointr/SRSsucks

And as a whole, it seems about as harmless as some woman offering girls advice about how not to look like clowns when putting on makeup.

Or how to dress so they feel sexy.

The fact is, on average, women tend to like men that look a certain way. Of course when you say this, a few women will jump in and adamantly swear that it's not like that for them at all.

As if they're trying to save the honor of all womanhood:

>"No, women aren't swayed by sexual things as men's bodies. Women are far better than you lustful men and your focus on sex and certain kinds of bodies."

Fortunately with the rise of the internet, more and more women can speak their mind anonymously without nearly as much tone policing of the above female "White Knights"

u/Sofie411 · 2 pointsr/SRSsucks

Have there been any studies done on this or are you just talking mostly about trans feminists? I'd be much more interested in the experiences of trans people who don't have a vested interest in a certain gender narrative.

There was an article on some major news sites about a lesbian woman who dressed up, acted like, and pretended to be a man for a year and a half to see how men really act and how other people treat men. I think she was even a self described feminist. She became good friends with a group of guys she joined a bowling league with. She was shocked by how much more badly she was often treated as a man and realized how many problems she faced living as a man. Ultimately she said it made her her realize that she was actually privileged to live as a woman.

Edit: here's the book she wrote about it

And here's the ABC article:

u/IDFSHILL · 4 pointsr/SRSsucks

No excuse for this, period. Being raised without a father doesn't mean you become a Nazi and run someone over at a rally.

There's a great book that changed my worldview on this subject:

u/SRSLovesGawker · 8 pointsr/SRSsucks

If you're curious about a "survey overview" of postmodernism from conception to today, check out Explaining Post-Modernism. It's only $4 + change on kindle.

"Explaining postmodernism: read it, and feel all logic and sense drain away."
~ Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, U of Toronto.

u/KarmaBomber23 · 2 pointsr/SRSsucks

I don't think they took the name. Postmodern is a label that gets thrown at anyone whose thinking has evolved since 1950.

Rand is mental poison, man. That woman's thinking is purely toxic. Her ideal man was a pedorapist killer. She was fucked in the head.

You want a good intellectual foundation for libertarianism, go read some Robert Anton Wilson. Try his book T.S.O.G. - The Thing That The Constitution. Much better for your brain.

u/March_to_the_Sea · 3 pointsr/SRSsucks

Murder is often the largest cause of death for hunter-gatherer societies. This was covered very well in the book Sick Societies.

u/WellArentYouSmart · 12 pointsr/SRSsucks

I read a study a while back that talked about how feelings of moral outrage can be addictive, and that they provide the same cathartic feeling as self-harming behaviours like cutting and anorexia (to a lesser degree).

A lot of SJWs substitute self-harming behaviour with deliberate searching for things to be outraged at. It's the same hit. That's why so many SJWs will literally tell you "I was cutting, anorexic and I hated myself before I found feminism." There's an extremely high prevalence of people who've self-harmed within that community.

It's not surprising given that fact that SJWs are going to be made up of people with low self-esteem who are horrible to be around.

I'll see if I can find a link...

Edit: Here's an article on it. There's also a book called Pathological Altruism that talks about the same phenomenon. It's on my reading list, but I haven't read it yet so I'm afraid I can't give a review.

u/Blackblade_ · 1 pointr/SRSsucks

>This was something assumed as a truism in the past, but it is considered false now for no real reason outside of political correctness.

No, its considered false now because its recognized to be a load of crap.

Seriously, this:

>I believe Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid to be fairly scientific classification systems if we go by evolutionary lineage.

That's some ignorant crap. Where did you go to school, the 18th century?

Here, read this. Learn something.

u/reccession · 5 pointsr/SRSsucks

My account isn't misspelled retard, it is intentional because "recession" is taken dumbass. As for the pius part, that is from my phone autocorrecting. The fact you are relying on typos shows how weak your argument is.

> Utterly moronic statement. This can only come from someone too dumb to be aware of the Pope's epistle entitled 'Mitt brennender sorge" (with burning concern). And that Pope Pius actually used the Church's own treasury to buy the freedom of Jews when Italy was put under German occupation. And that the chief rabbi of Rome actually converted to Catholicism because of the Church's effort to help the Jews in the city.

Maybe you should take your own advice about reading a book. The pope absolutely supported Hitler here is proof. Just because you are ignorant of the past doesn't make you right.

Here are Vatican records showing how he hated Jewish people:

So yeah you're clearly uneducated and retard but you'll continue to act like the pigeon on a chess board so after proving you wrong here I am done, I'm sure you'll want to get the last word in as you continue to shit yourself and look like the retarded idiot you are.

>You're dumber than dirt. It is a shame that your existence wastes oxygen and food that could go to useful ends.

Mhmm, which is why my business I own and created will make more in This month than you'll make in a year. But I am the worthless one. ;)

Now go ahead and be the good l8ttle pigeon you are and equal some more while shitting yourself and thinking in your little pissant brain you won the argument because I am not going to waste my time responding repeatedly with a pigeon like you.

u/TheManInBlack_ · 1 pointr/SRSsucks

>Slavery was absolutely justified using racism.

That's precisely the point though. When you begin from the premise that all men are equal in the eyes of the law, slavery starts on inherently shaky ground. How does one reconcile the ideals expressed by the Declaration with the economic reality and necessity of slavery? Simple. You lie to yourself. You convince yourself that these slaves aren't really human, that the ideals that apply to you don't also apply to them. When it's culture that is the difference, you have the Irish. When it's skin color that's the difference, then you have the African slaves.

But regarding your point about the Arabs, they considered them barbarians, or savages I suppose would be a better word. The Arabs needed slaves, and as they are strictly forbidden from enslaving other Muslims, they enslaved Africans instead.

But yeah the Arabs would castrate their slaves to use as harem workers, which is why there are so few blacks in the middle east today.

You should read Black Rednecks and White Liberals; it's literally a collection of essays on different topics - the title of the book is simply the title of the most provocative essay. And Sowell is an amazing writer.

I'm guessing you're Jewish? He dedicates an entire chapter to the unique hatred that the Jews have historically received, and comes to the conclusion that it stems from nothing more than simply human envy. The culture of the Jews leads to such unusual financial success, and, well, haters gonna hate.

There's also great stuff about Celtic culture, he references this book a ton of times: Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South. Genealogically speaking, I'm one quarter German and three quarters redneck, and the stuff he says is dead on.