Originally posted by orfeo:
If you like, we can wait around and see how long it takes for him to call you a 'stupid cunt' and even up the genitalia.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:No, YOU fucking listen you stupid prick. You cannot say "a lot of women are afraid of men" without it meaning they're afraid of all men. If they're only afraid of sexist men, then why don't you say "some women are afraid of sexist men"?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of black people are afraid of white people, and a lot of women are afraid of men. But no one is afraid of YOU SPECIFICALLY unless you are a racist or a sexist. So why don't you actually listen for one second and stop focusing on the fact that you as a man or a white person are upset that the feeling is even being expressed.
quote:So I never posted statistics, government reports, and academic papers in the racism thread? Just "ignorant generalizations?" Wow, you are really a piece of work.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps you might like to learn to qualify your statements, instead of making ignorant generalisations.
Got it?
quote:Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No, YOU fucking listen you stupid prick. You cannot say "a lot of women are afraid of men" without it meaning they're afraid of all men. If they're only afraid of sexist men, then why don't you say "some women are afraid of sexist men"?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of black people are afraid of white people, and a lot of women are afraid of men. But no one is afraid of YOU SPECIFICALLY unless you are a racist or a sexist. So why don't you actually listen for one second and stop focusing on the fact that you as a man or a white person are upset that the feeling is even being expressed.
You simply do not seem to be able to process why what you're posting is prejudiced. Here's a hint - it's because you're saying all men are sexist. Not SOME men, ALL men.
And then you turn round and say "if you're not sexist then it doesn't apply to you". What utter bullshit. For that bullshit to be true, then non-sexist men must not be members of the group called "men".
I called you on this on the Purg thread, and posted plenty of examples of exactly the same shit being said from other prejudiced viewpoints. Either through idiocy or a firm commitment to a prejudiced viewpoint of your own, you failed to see the point. You're either prejudiced or an idiot. Which is it?
quote:Better here than in the other threads, where grown ups are talking.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Lol, somebody just struck a match at a gas station.
quote:Oh Lordy. This one's not given to careful analysis.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
quote:Get a sense of humor for the love of God. It's a joke.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh Lordy. This one's not given to careful analysis.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
quote:I'm still not sure if you're going for "prejudiced" or "idiot", but the latter is looking more and more likely.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
quote:You can be mean to one another in Hell, but it's not compulsory.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Get a sense of humor for the love of God. It's a joke.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh Lordy. This one's not given to careful analysis.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
Isn't Hell where we get to play and be mean to each other? Or is it for boring old farts like you?
quote:You'll find that this particular boring old fart is here on a daily basis. Job requirement. Voluntary job, admittedly, but I signed up for it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Get a sense of humor for the love of God. It's a joke.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh Lordy. This one's not given to careful analysis.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
Isn't Hell where we get to play and be mean to each other? Or is it for boring old farts like you?
quote:I think I got over being upset by the word "idiot" around age 9 or so. And I'm not prejudging you, based on your posts I think you're a sad bitter person who probably wouldn't dare whisper most of the crap you post on here in real life.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'm still not sure if you're going for "prejudiced" or "idiot", but the latter is looking more and more likely.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
quote:It was 100% a joke, believe me or not, I don't care.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You'll find that this particular boring old fart is here on a daily basis. Job requirement. Voluntary job, admittedly, but I signed up for it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Get a sense of humor for the love of God. It's a joke.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh Lordy. This one's not given to careful analysis.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Calling me a prick? You sir are a sexist! How dare you treat male genitalia as an insult.
Isn't Hell where we get to play and be mean to each other? Or is it for boring old farts like you?
We don't specialise in playful around here, but it does occur quite often that people play around. Pretty damn unusual for the starter of a Hellcall to be claiming jokes within the first 10 posts, though. I strongly suspect the only reason you're claiming a joke is because you've now realised you said something quite stupid and want to cover it up.
Or it could just be another sign that you're really, REALLY bad at conveying tone in your text.
quote:Indeed, not responding might have required a brain somewhere between your eyes and your fingers. Because that organ might have been able to work out that Marvin was demonstrating he is quite happy to use the term 'prick' for idiots of either gender.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I mean, how could I not respond?
quote:I can believe that. You must have heard it it a lot.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think I got over being upset by the word "idiot" around age 9 or so.
quote:Yes you are. You're prejudging every man when you say we're all sexist.
And I'm not prejudging you
quote:Whereas I can quite easily picture you as the sort that would accuse every man you see of being a sexist pig before they've even said a word.
based on your posts I think you're a sad bitter person who probably wouldn't dare whisper most of the crap you post on here in real life.
quote:Not likely. As we're often reminded, cunts have both depth and warmth.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you like, we can wait around and see how long it takes for him to call you a 'stupid cunt' and even up the genitalia.
quote:Are you high? Either that or illiterate. Show me here I said I think all or even most men are sexist.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I can believe that. You must have heard it it a lot.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think I got over being upset by the word "idiot" around age 9 or so.
quote:Yes you are. You're prejudging every man when you say we're all sexist.
And I'm not prejudging you
quote:Whereas I can quite easily picture you as the sort that would accuse every man you see of being a sexist pig before they've even said a word.
based on your posts I think you're a sad bitter person who probably wouldn't dare whisper most of the crap you post on here in real life.
quote:So I'm not supposed to reply on a discussion forum.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Indeed, not responding might have required a brain somewhere between your eyes and your fingers. Because that organ might have been able to work out that Marvin was demonstrating he is quite happy to use the term 'prick' for idiots of either gender.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I mean, how could I not respond?
If you like, we can wait around and see how long it takes for him to call you a 'stupid cunt' and even up the genitalia.
quote:Gosh I hope the other seekingsisters don't take that too personally. Touchiness is a problem around here and apparently it's contagious.
Originally posted by mousethief:
People called "seekingsister" are fuckwits.
quote:Well let's see, you could have responded to just about anything ELSE in the post besides the word 'prick', yes?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So I'm not supposed to reply on a discussion forum.
Is the c word meant to bother me? How very sad to sink so low. I don't use it because it seems not the type of word to throw around on a Christian website.
quote:I'd be quite fascinated to know where you managed to find sexism in this thread, as you appear to be asserting.
Originally posted by Caissa:
The sexism permitted on this site is deplorable. Hell is no excuse.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Hostly Bowler On
Originally posted by Caissa:
The sexism permitted on this site is deplorable. Hell is no excuse.
quote:Well I'm terribly sorry for making that error. Silly me.
Originally posted by balaam:
ITTWACW raises it's head in the first page.
Predictable
quote:The sexism permitted in society is deplorable. That it shows up on this website is merely a reflection, and a relatively minor one, of what happens all the time, every day, on all our lives. Here I am free to give people a piece of my mind when it happens; in real life circumstances frequently dictate that I be more circumspect.
Originally posted by Caissa:
The sexism permitted on this site is deplorable. Hell is no excuse.
quote:You're defending the phrase "all men are sexist". That's a mighty odd thing to do if you don't believe it yourself.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you high? Either that or illiterate. Show me here I said I think all or even most men are sexist.
quote:Sir! Sir! She called me loser!
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Let's get back to some losers calling me names to make themselves feel like big boys.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:What, by asserting that not all men are sexist, and that to say that they are is prejudiced?
Originally posted by Caissa:
You are being a royal asshole Marvin.
quote:Get a grip and hold tight.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well let's see, you could have responded to just about anything ELSE in the post besides the word 'prick', yes?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So I'm not supposed to reply on a discussion forum.
Is the c word meant to bother me? How very sad to sink so low. I don't use it because it seems not the type of word to throw around on a Christian website.
And no, "the c word" is not meant to bother you - although evidently it does seeing you can't cope with typing it (but prick was fine). It was supposed to make you think about those equivalents you claim to be fond of. I don't actually think you have a damn clue how to assess whether 2 things are equivalent or not, but hey, I thought I'd give you another shot.
Also, it's been well established that calling the Ship a Christian website will get you nowhere. It's a website of Christian unrest. There's a difference.
quote:But there are some women who, because of bad experiences are either afraid of or simply don't trust all men. I guess there are black people who fear and mistrust all white people. It's not prejudiced to point that out, nor is it something to get angry about - it's something to be sensitive about.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No, YOU fucking listen you stupid prick. You cannot say "a lot of women are afraid of men" without it meaning they're afraid of all men. If they're only afraid of sexist men, then why don't you say "some women are afraid of sexist men"?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of black people are afraid of white people, and a lot of women are afraid of men. But no one is afraid of YOU SPECIFICALLY unless you are a racist or a sexist. So why don't you actually listen for one second and stop focusing on the fact that you as a man or a white person are upset that the feeling is even being expressed.
You simply do not seem to be able to process why what you're posting is prejudiced. Here's a hint - it's because you're saying all men are sexist. Not SOME men, ALL men.
quote:Show me the defense.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:You're defending the phrase "all men are sexist". That's a mighty odd thing to do if you don't believe it yourself.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you high? Either that or illiterate. Show me here I said I think all or even most men are sexist.
quote:Well, at least I try to understand something called 'context'.
Originally posted by seekingsister
So I never posted statistics, government reports, and academic papers in the racism thread? Just "ignorant generalizations?" Wow, you are really a piece of work.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Women aren't a minority.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think you and a few others are self obsessed jerks who cannot let minorities speak for 5 minutes without making it about yourselves.
quote:I intended you to call me names actually, as I said above thats my understanding of Hell's purpose. Just surprised at how quickly and vehemently you've leapt into it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Sir! Sir! She called me loser!
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Let's get back to some losers calling me names to make themselves feel like big boys.
Here's another handy tip: if you don't want to be called names, starting a Hellcall against 3 people simultaneously is a damn poor strategy.
quote:I can't speak with any absolute certainty for Marvin, but I'm not angry about the fact that some women distrust all men. I'm just
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:But there are some women who, because of bad experiences are either afraid of or simply don't trust all men. I guess there are black people who fear and mistrust all white people. It's not prejudiced to point that out, nor is it something to get angry about - it's something to be sensitive about.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No, YOU fucking listen you stupid prick. You cannot say "a lot of women are afraid of men" without it meaning they're afraid of all men. If they're only afraid of sexist men, then why don't you say "some women are afraid of sexist men"?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of black people are afraid of white people, and a lot of women are afraid of men. But no one is afraid of YOU SPECIFICALLY unless you are a racist or a sexist. So why don't you actually listen for one second and stop focusing on the fact that you as a man or a white person are upset that the feeling is even being expressed.
You simply do not seem to be able to process why what you're posting is prejudiced. Here's a hint - it's because you're saying all men are sexist. Not SOME men, ALL men.
about seekingsister's bizarre insistence that a woman who distrusts all men doesn't actually distrust an individual man, specifically.quote:As already explained, I have daily practice.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I intended you to call me names actually, as I said above thats my understanding of Hell's purpose. Just surprised at how quickly and vehemently you've leapt into it.
quote:Are you saying that the data I posted, as understood in the same way I understand it by the government, universities, and the media, is being viewed "out of context?" Thats the stand you want to take, huh?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Well, at least I try to understand something called 'context'.
Originally posted by seekingsister
So I never posted statistics, government reports, and academic papers in the racism thread? Just "ignorant generalizations?" Wow, you are really a piece of work.
Do you?
No, I didn't think so.
quote:Is it ok for a man to not trust any women because of bad experiences? Is it ok for a white person who has been mugged by a black person to fear all black people? No, it isn't. It's sexist and racist respectively.
Originally posted by QLib:
But there are some women who, because of bad experiences are either afraid of or simply don't trust all men. I guess there are black people who fear and mistrust all white people. It's not prejudiced to point that out, nor is it something to get angry about - it's something to be sensitive about.
quote:If you're a man then they must be, because you the statement says "All men". 'All' is an absolute term. End of.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Show me the defense.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:You're defending the phrase "all men are sexist". That's a mighty odd thing to do if you don't believe it yourself.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you high? Either that or illiterate. Show me here I said I think all or even most men are sexist.
What I said was that if someone says "all men are sexist" and you're not sexist, then that person is obviously not taking about YOU.
quote:Show you the defence? You just repeated it
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Show me the defense.
What I said was that if someone says "all men are sexist" and you're not sexist, then that person is obviously not taking about YOU.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Both sexism and racism are truly deplorable. That is why I speak out against them, and have pulled seekingsister up on her flagrant prejudice against a particular gender.
Originally posted by RuthW
The sexism permitted in society is deplorable. That it shows up on this website is merely a reflection, and a relatively minor one, of what happens all the time, every day, on all our lives. Here I am free to give people a piece of my mind when it happens; in real life circumstances frequently dictate that I be more circumspect.
Moreover, I am a full-throated supporter of free speech. I want people to air their sexist views, not give lip service to an equality they don't really support.
quote:Exactly. That's the only logical outcome if an individual is a man.
Originally posted by Yonatan:
quote:If you're a man then they must be, because you the statement says "All men". 'All' is an absolute term. End of.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What I said was that if someone says "all men are sexist" and you're not sexist, then that person is obviously not taking about YOU.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, I assume you are fair-minded, and are not one of the idiotic "it's not possible to be sexist against men and racist against whites" contingent, who rear their ugly heads on a frequent basis?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Never said was a feminist. In fact said I wasn't in the purg thread. Next.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And seekingsister, you are like the Fred Phelps of feminism. Calm down.
quote:Interesting, but quite misleading in one respect in that it quietly ignores that the supposedly gender-neutral criterion of property ownership was not, historically, gender-neutral at all. It's a classic case of only paying attention to formal inequality and ignoring the practical inequality that existed.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... interesting video here.
quote:Give one example of your speaking out in such a way that's not on the current "male feminist" thread in Purgatory.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Both sexism and racism are truly deplorable. That is why I speak out against them, and have pulled seekingsister up on her flagrant prejudice against a particular gender.
quote:I'm very fair-minded. I'm not against whites, men, straights, the rich*, or people whose ability to frame and reflect public opinion and tastes makes them powerful. I'm anti-you, you idiot, which is very fair.
Of course, I assume you are fair-minded, and are not one of the idiotic "it's not possible to be sexist against men and racist against whites" contingent, who rear their ugly heads on a frequent basis?
quote:You're not a feminist? Shame on you. And fuck you.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Never said was a feminist. In fact said I wasn't in the purg thread.
quote:What QLib said.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:But there are some women who, because of bad experiences are either afraid of or simply don't trust all men. I guess there are black people who fear and mistrust all white people. It's not prejudiced to point that out, nor is it something to get angry about - it's something to be sensitive about.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No, YOU fucking listen you stupid prick. You cannot say "a lot of women are afraid of men" without it meaning they're afraid of all men. If they're only afraid of sexist men, then why don't you say "some women are afraid of sexist men"?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of black people are afraid of white people, and a lot of women are afraid of men. But no one is afraid of YOU SPECIFICALLY unless you are a racist or a sexist. So why don't you actually listen for one second and stop focusing on the fact that you as a man or a white person are upset that the feeling is even being expressed.
You simply do not seem to be able to process why what you're posting is prejudiced. Here's a hint - it's because you're saying all men are sexist. Not SOME men, ALL men.
And people in one or more of the groups that traditionally held the power need to be aware that, however good their intentions, they may still be unconsciously harbouring racist and sexist assumptions. Like, for example, all those people (mostly male people, IIRC) who posted early on the Jimmy Saville thread, saying the women were probably deluded, or malicious, or out for the money, perhaps they were jolly nearly 16 and parctically asking for it by throwing themselves at him, and it was a bit of a shame to blacken his character after his death, given all that charity work he did.
quote:Aliens = Superbad (n=2)
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's ok, I've figured it out now:
Women = good
men = bad
Glad we got that sorted.
AFZ
quote:Nope u fuckwit Aliens = Amazing
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:Aliens = Superbad (n=2)
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's ok, I've figured it out now:
Women = good
men = bad
Glad we got that sorted.
AFZ
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Feelings - genuine, gut-level feelings based on experience - are not anythingist. It's when, unfiltered by any rational prcess, they become a rationale for action that there's a problem. If a man was abused by a woman or women during his childhood, then he may not be able to help feeling scared or repulsed by women. It only becomes if he starts claiming that all women are filthy or stupid or evil - things that he must know, rationally, aren't true - that it becomes sexist.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Is it ok for a man to not trust any women because of bad experiences? Is it ok for a white person who has been mugged by a black person to fear all black people? No, it isn't. It's sexist and racist respectively.
Originally posted by QLib:
But there are some women who, because of bad experiences are either afraid of or simply don't trust all men. I guess there are black people who fear and mistrust all white people. It's not prejudiced to point that out, nor is it something to get angry about - it's something to be sensitive about.
quote:Have a guess which side "all men are sexist" falls on.
Originally posted by QLib:
There's a difference between saying, 'I was mugged by a Martian, so now I get edgy whenver I see a Martian,' and saying, 'I was mugged by a Martian, therefore all Martians are muggers.' One is sad, the other stupid.
quote:Hostly Bowler On
Originally posted by Caissa:
That wasn't a discussion of ship policy Sioni Saia; it was a hllish complaint of ship policy. Can ship policy be called to Hell?
quote:No, unfuck her, and please let her not be a feminist.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You're not a feminist? Shame on you. And fuck you.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Never said was a feminist. In fact said I wasn't in the purg thread.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:No no no. I didn't mean those aliens that aren't Superbad. Don't you see?
Originally posted by claret10:
quote:Nope u fuckwit Aliens = Amazing
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:Aliens = Superbad (n=2)
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's ok, I've figured it out now:
Women = good
men = bad
Glad we got that sorted.
AFZ
(Eta: because on tablet and smilies suck)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
No no no. I didn't mean those aliens that aren't Superbad. Don't you see?
(And n= 3)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Thanks for posting this. At present these subjects are effectively impossible to discuss.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The thread title in reference to the oft-stated view that "people like me" are reason sexism and racism are still around, because some of us want to talk about their causes and agents and that might include people who resemble you physically. People like you are the reason we can't even have a conversation, because you can't even fathom that someone who is a different color or gender might possibly see the world differently too.
A lot of black people are afraid of white people, and a lot of women are afraid of men. But no one is afraid of YOU SPECIFICALLY unless you are a racist or a sexist. So why don't you actually listen for one second and stop focusing on the fact that you as a man or a white person are upset that the feeling is even being expressed.
quote:Agree with your general points here. For the named individuals the fact that some have multiple Hell threads speaks to the fact that this isn't an issue with this specific topic but just a general pattern of behavior, which makes their thread derailing for the sake of apparently nothing even more irritating,
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Seekingsister,
If you are saying some people are offense-sensitive, I agree.
If you are saying offense-sensitive people can make conversation difficult, I agree.
If you are saying that many people, who themselves do nothing to deserve disapprobation, react poorly to discussion regarding groups to which they belong, I agree.
Marvin does, at times, seem fit this description. However, I think him mostly amenable to the conversation.
I do not think orfeo deserves to be called on this thread. I might need to re-read the racism and sexism threads, but this is not my impression of him.
EE, well, he deserves all of the very many Hell threads he's been called on. I've felt like calling him here a time or two, but it is like arguing with a teenager. I mean, how can one? They know everything and are always correct.
And, quite frankly, I think he gets a bit of a chubby every-time he gets called here. This is not something I wish to be responsible for.
As to you not being a feminist, are you serious?
If you are, I am very disappointed. Every woman should be a feminist.* If a person chooses to be subservient to their partner, this is their choice.** But they should support the choice of others to do different. You betray others by not supporting their choices.
*Actually, I think we should all treat each other as people. However, men do not currently need the activism.
**For the record, I do not think this is truly healthy. As long as they do so completely freely, it is their business, not mine.
quote:Listen, I get that. But the comment in e feminism thread about rape and violence to women that used very general language - is the general use of "men" more important than the actual violence women are facing? Why is that the part of the comment that gets leapt on my some people - "hey you said all men suck and I'm a man so boo hoo." I really don't think their issue is the generalization, it's the confrontation with a view point that paints people like them as the bad guy. As a woman and a black person, I have repeatedly in real life and in politics and the media heard people like me blamed for social ills. Women and young girls get raped because they acted slutty and deserve it - like that rape case where the judge said a 13 year old seduced a grown man. Or that if black people didn't act like criminals we wouldn't need stop-and-search to profile us - even though most black people are NOT criminals.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:Feelings - genuine, gut-level feelings based on experience - are not anythingist. It's when, unfiltered by any rational prcess, they become a rationale for action that there's a problem. If a man was abused by a woman or women during his childhood, then he may not be able to help feeling scared or repulsed by women. It only becomes if he starts claiming that all women are filthy or stupid or evil - things that he must know, rationally, aren't true - that it becomes sexist.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Is it ok for a man to not trust any women because of bad experiences? Is it ok for a white person who has been mugged by a black person to fear all black people? No, it isn't. It's sexist and racist respectively.
Originally posted by QLib:
But there are some women who, because of bad experiences are either afraid of or simply don't trust all men. I guess there are black people who fear and mistrust all white people. It's not prejudiced to point that out, nor is it something to get angry about - it's something to be sensitive about.
There's a difference between saying, 'I was mugged by a Martian, so now I get edgy whenver I see a Martian,' and saying, 'I was mugged by a Martian, therefore all Martians are muggers.' One is sad, the other stupid.
quote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/solidarityisforwhitewomen-creator-mikki-kendal-women-of-color-feminism-_n_3749589.ht ml
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It should not be, I do not find this to be the case and I think I would be hard pressed to find anyone I know have this be the case for them.
Can you enlighten me as to how this might be?
Genuine question, no snark.
quote:I think it's quite natural. It's likely to happen anytime someone makes a sweeping generalisation about a whole group of very diverse people, especially if the stereotype they're describing is in the minority.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you are saying that many people, who themselves do nothing to deserve disapprobation, react poorly to discussion regarding groups to which they belong, I agree
quote:Honestly you have not read my posts. I NEVER said all. Someone else did. I was trying to explain why that person chose to use that language.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:I think it's quite natural. It's likely to happen anytime someone makes a sweeping generalisation about a whole group of very diverse people, especially if the stereotype they're describing is in the minority.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you are saying that many people, who themselves do nothing to deserve disapprobation, react poorly to discussion regarding groups to which they belong, I agree
If someone says "football(soccer) fans are all hooligan yobs", then most fans (men and women) would be quick to point out that they and their friends aren't, and that any yobbish behaviour is carried out by a vocal minority.
If someone says that World of Warcraft players are geeks who can't get a girlfriend, that's a guarantee to get a response from all the female and married male players.
If someone says that women are bad drivers, Mexicans are lazy, Germans are unemotional, British have bad teeth, old people complain all the time, Essex girls are sluts, gypsies are all theives, black people ar criminals, whatever... then people who don't fit the statement (usually the majority) take umbridge, quite naturally, and point out that the statement was too sweeping and unhelpful as it reinforces stereotypes and divisions.
Seekingsister, the way you are phrasing things is not enabling discussion, it's shutting it down, and is distracting from the important issues. How hard is it to say "some", or even start "it was men that" before your statements about the attoricities carried out by members of one gender? Or just to admit that the way you phrased things was unhelpful or unclear? You didn't have to say 'all'. The absence of a qualifier still implies the vast majority - that's why people have taken exception, not because they're male drones fighting to maintain the patriarchy.
quote:I think the qualifier in your last sentence unfortunate. To stereotype an entire group for the behaviour of a few is ridiculous. To characterise all for the behaviour of many is wrong, but understandable.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:I think it's quite natural. It's likely to happen anytime someone makes a sweeping generalisation about a whole group of very diverse people, especially if the stereotype they're describing is in the minority.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you are saying that many people, who themselves do nothing to deserve disapprobation, react poorly to discussion regarding groups to which they belong, I agree
quote:I did use some in my posts in male feminism. You haven't read them. So that's why I've said you haven't read them.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I KNOW you never said all. Did you read my post? I said as much. I explained why the lack of a qualifier wasn't sufficient for your post to be unhelpful and inflammatory.
By the way, of course the issue if how you use language is inconsequential compared to sexism or inequality. But, as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm merely pointing out how you could engage in a way that isn't quite so provocative, and won't derail the discussion. Too bad, the discussion's been derailed. Maybe next time you'll just use the word 'some' and it won't be. Like you said, people don't like being confronted with a viewpoint that paints them as the bad guy. That might be because it's difficult to hear, but it might also be because they're not actually the bad guy.
quote:Please comment on this and not an imaginary version of what I supposedly said.
As many feminists say, "patriarchy hurts men too." It can be manifested in sexism but can also be manifested in male-on-male interactions. For example, the way that weaker, "effeminate" boys tend to be bullied and larger "masculine" boys tend not to be. The way that masculinity is in itself defined has many negative consequences on people of both genders. We all know that calling a man something feminine - back in the old days it was sissy, now it's the must cruder b*tch or p*ssy - that it's an insult.
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.
quote:I'm afraid you just have to learn the lesson that hyperbole and any other form of over-the-top rhetoric is not actually compatible with serious debate. It causes a distraction. Again, when you use hyperbole you cause a distraction - so don't then go blaming other people for getting distracted.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I hope you can understand what I find so distasteful about blaming attacking a female poster who made some serious points about sexism - instead of considering the points, getting mad because she was being hyperbolic. They're just defensive and argumentative individuals who find controversial threads to bully people.
quote:I think in general your points are valid but don't apply to this specific situation.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:I'm afraid you just have to learn the lesson that hyperbole and any other form of over-the-top rhetoric is not actually compatible with serious debate. It causes a distraction. Again, when you use hyperbole you cause a distraction - so don't then go blaming other people for getting distracted.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I hope you can understand what I find so distasteful about blaming attacking a female poster who made some serious points about sexism - instead of considering the points, getting mad because she was being hyperbolic. They're just defensive and argumentative individuals who find controversial threads to bully people.
Maybe they're middle-of-the-roaders who just get pissed off by inaccurate statements or maybe they are genuine enemies seeking out your weaknesses and using them against you. But I'm afraid the answer to that is not "Waahhhh!!! You spotted my weakness and used it against me! You are a BAD person!" The answer to that is to slap yourself on the forehead, go 'Doh! I am a fuckwit! I won't get caught like that again!' Apologise for any offence caused by your badly-aimed, crude whatever) hyperbole and carry on.
Hyperbole is better kept for Hell then for Purg - though, of course, there's also a bigger price to pay in Purg. Another thing is that, once you've been around for a while, people tend to recognise when you're being playfully or wittily hyperblic. But, actually, just for the record, lazy, sweeping generalizations are not hyperbole and will get you in shit everywhere. And desrvedly so.
quote:Some of 'these people' are people I've been talking to, on and off, for many years now - so, frankly, I think I'm probably better able than you are to decide how much credit I give them. This is a very thorny issue, and one which interests me, but I've been very busy with Real Life recently and not been able to take much part. What do I find when I look at the thread? That you've trampled all over it in hob-nailed boots, muddying the waters and making the whole thing virtually unreadable - I mean, please, if nothing else, learn to use quotation selectively. It helps if you paste it into a word processor and work on it there.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... frankly I think you are giving too much credit to these people.
quote:I honestly thought the point of Hell was to call people out (one of your buddies has another thread devoted to him so clearly I'm not alone on this). I didn't realize it was supposed to be a measured discussion. There are threads here that don't even have grammatically correct titles. So your point about my editing skills is uncalled for. I type much of this on an iPad and it's not easy to quote on that.
Originally posted by QLib:
You have leapt on board here - welcome, btw - and made all sorts of unfounded assumptions about the people you're dealing with. Based on what? Well, apparently based on them not agreeing with every word you say. Conversely, you claim to be female and a member of an ethnic minority - there's not way we can know whether that's true or no, so you don't get extra credits for it. Time to wise up.
quote:I know of the guy you mean. I hadn't heard anything about his racism until his recent breakdown (and I'm still not quite sure what he did, there, because while I've heard mutterings about racism I've never heard any more details) and he's always been a controversial figure. I agree that people should have paid more attention to the voices of WoC who were criticising him. I don't think it's true, however, that he's been supported by white feminists in general. For as long as I can remember hearing about him, the majority of feminists have disliked and mistrusted him for various reasons. There has been a handful of people who continued to give him a voice - one website in particular. They were wrong to do so and people have been telling them that for at least a couple of years. Certainly my response on hearing what happened was pretty much "Well, duh. Of course this was going to happen. What kind of idiot ever thought this guy was genuine?"
Originally posted by seekingsister:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/solidarityisforwhitewomen-creator-mikki-kendal-women-of-color-feminism-_n_3749589.ht ml
This was a big topic a few weeks ago with the Twitter tag #solidarityisforwhitewomen. The short version is that a "male feminist" who turned out to be racist as well as sexist was being defended by white female feminists despite repeated accusations from WOC about his behavior. He eventually admitted everything and had some sort of mental breakdown.
quote:No, I am irritated by the suggestion that all members of "my group" are responsible for it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But they are just irritated by the suggestion that members of "their group" (however defined) are responsible for much of the inequality in our society.
quote:Since you insist on pretending that I said all, then we're never going to resolve this.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No, I am irritated by the suggestion that all members of "my group" are responsible for it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But they are just irritated by the suggestion that members of "their group" (however defined) are responsible for much of the inequality in our society.
That some (or even most) members of "my group" are responsible is incontestable. That all are is bullshit.
I have little hope that you'll understand the difference this time, given that you haven't understood it the last howevermany times it's been pointed out. But others may read and moderate their behaviour accordingly, and that is reason enough to keep posting.
quote:There you go again - one of my "buddies"? Excuse me? I have no buddies as far as I know, who are currently the subject of a Hell call. There are shipmates I respect (whether we agree or not), shipmates I get on with (and usually agree with) and shipmates who are complete and utter tossers. What you've done is tar them all - and now me - with the same brush.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I honestly thought the point of Hell was to call people out (one of your buddies has another thread devoted to him so clearly I'm not alone on this).
quote:No, you don't have to be measured in Hell, but if you want to win arguments, it helps to be clear and accurate. As for the posting - anyone can make the odd spelling, typo or grammar error, and the post can still be quite readable. But yards and yard of quotation with no clarity about what you're responding to makes life difficult. If you're responding to whole of what someone said, why not just begin "<Name> I disagree ...."?
I didn't realize it was supposed to be a measured discussion. There are threads here that don't even have grammatically correct titles. So your point about my editing skills is uncalled for. I type much of this on an iPad and it's not easy to quote on that.
quote:Ah, so you are a fledgling feminist after all. People on the internet assume other posters are male? In other news, bear shits in the woods. By all means tell us you're female, but don't expect people to take that on trust. My guess is you probably are what you say you are.
My background is relevant because the internet tends to assume all posters are male and whatever dominant ethnicity. You'd be amazed even when I use a female screen name as I do here that I'm referred to as "he." It informs my perspective.
quote:No, the message is that, if your argument is already full of holes, it won't take much effort for those who disagree with you to sink you. And if you hurl shit around, you will get it hurled back at you. Nobody expects you to be a fucking mind reader, just to remember that ther people have feelings too, and trampling roughshod over them is counter-productive. In your case, you have also managed to alienate people who might otherwise be on your side - just like you tried to alienate me with that stupid piece of shite I quoted at the top.
The message I'm getting is that if I say something controversial, I deserve whatever insults are hurled my direction. That I have to tiptoe around some people's personal problems, problems that I can in no way be aware of when I post online in the first place, in order to make certain comments.
quote:Here's what you said, in your own words:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Since you insist on pretending that I said all, then we're never going to resolve this.
quote:Now OK, you are not actually saying "all men are sexist". Not in as many words. But you are saying that anyone who says such a thing is right to do so. Don't try to weasel out of it, your defence of such a comment is pretty much equivalent to saying it yourself.
What I said was that if someone says "all men are sexist" and you're not sexist, then that person is obviously not taking about YOU.
quote:Will you cease defending those who say "all" as well?
I will continue NOT to say all if you will NOT accuse me of doing so.
quote:Everyone has a right to say what they like on here, surely? I'm not going to say that person didn't have the right to make their post.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Now OK, you are not actually saying "all men are sexist". Not in as many words. But you are saying that anyone who says such a thing is right to do so. Don't try to weasel out of it, your defence of such a comment is pretty much equivalent to saying it yourself.
quote:Some of us don't feel that it's a waste of time to argue against such shit. Those attitudes and remarks are the bedrock on which the structures of racism, sexism, etc. are built. Chip away at the bedrock and eventually the whole structure will collapse.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If I read most news sites on any story related to black people, I see comments that all black people are criminals/rapists/drug addicts/prostitutes/you name it. I am none of those things so I do not take it personally. If I attempted to respond to each one of those fools and explain why they are being stupid I'd be wasting my entire life.
quote:What Marvin said, plus this:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If I read most news sites on any story related to black people, I see comments that all black people are criminals/rapists /drug addicts/ prostitutes/you name it. I am none of those things so I do not take it personally. If I attempted to respond to each one of those fools and explain why they are being stupid I'd be wasting my entire life. So I'm passing on what I practice myself.
quote:And a pretty huge one! I believe that feminists are less likely than the general population to be racist, but again that doesn't say a huge amount.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I find calling myself a feminist complicated as a woman of color, that's a whole different can of worms though.
quote:On the other hand, what do you think of people making such a stupid generalisation? That they have something useful to say, or that the best thing you can do is tune them out because they are clearly idiots?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If I read most news sites on any story related to black people, I see comments that all black people are criminals/rapists/drug addicts/prostitutes/you name it. I am none of those things so I do not take it personally. If I attempted to respond to each one of those fools and explain why they are being stupid I'd be wasting my entire life. So I'm passing on what I practice myself.
quote:As I didn't make any blanket generalizations, I agree with you that copying such tactics is bad practice.
Originally posted by QLib:
What Marvin said, plus this:
The point is, you'd be entitled to take it personally. It's one thing to maintain your dignity and not allow your feelings to be hurt, and it's another thing to act as if you don't know that both the content of the posts and the strategy of using sweeping generalisations are wrong, wrong, wrong. These people are not good role models - why would you copy their tactics? You're just shooting yourself in the foot. Well, you can choose to do that if you want, but then you don't get to choose how other people respond.
P.S. I'm wondering which news sites you go on, because I think blatantly racist shite is mostly deleted by moderators, but maybe I need to look around more.
quote:It depends on the comment. If it was "Why are black people mad about Trayvon Martin when there is so much black-on-black violence" then yeah, that's a discussion starter. If it's "Welfare aka n*gger insurance" (which I've seen posted online) then no, I would not respond or consider that the person has anything useful to say.
Originally posted by Justinian:
On the other hand, what do you think of people making such a stupid generalisation? That they have something useful to say, or that the best thing you can do is tune them out because they are clearly idiots?
quote:I'd say the reverse is true. seekingsister is evaluating what's being said, you're drawing on years of having liked them as individuals.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:Some of 'these people' are people I've been talking to, on and off, for many years now - so, frankly, I think I'm probably better able than you are to decide how much credit I give them.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... frankly I think you are giving too much credit to these people.
quote:All internet sites are not alike. I have been posting on this one for thirteen years, and I have not noticed shippies making the assumption you cite. Many of us do make assumptions about the gender of posters, based on the content of their posts. Occasionally there will be a thread where people talk about their mistaken assumptions not just about gender, but about age, profession, and nationality. Many shippies have said they thought I was male for a long time, then something in a post made them realize I am female.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My background is relevant because the internet tends to assume all posters are male and whatever dominant ethnicity. You'd be amazed even when I use a female screen name as I do here that I'm referred to as "he." It informs my perspective.
quote:You've got that right. It's clearly a group of people who have been posting together here for a long time.
Originally posted by Moo:
I think you don't yet 'get' the ship.
Moo
quote:I did. In the specific context of that thread where a declaration that men are sexist had occurred - no qualifiers - I pointed out a very obvious reason why men would react badly to that kind of argument rather than join the feminist cause.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Please comment on this and not an imaginary version of what I supposedly said.
quote:I hope you're not suggesting men can't have personal experiences related to rape or abuse? Not only with themselves as victims but a mother/sister/partner.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, any kind of justification based on having to make allowances for women who have been particularly hurt by men, through rape or any other kind of abuse, isn't going to work in the context of that particular thread, where the 2 posters who were copping flak, The Silent Acolyte and Zach82, are both male.
quote:TSA isn't male. Really she isn't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Silent Acolyte and Zach82, are both male.
quote:...you would be well within your rights to do so. Such careless racial stereotyping has no place in a civilised society.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If I went into a discussion on anti-Semitism and went ballistic because someone said "Europeans persecute Jews"
quote:If you cannot see that my post was an EXPLANATION of why some men are offended by such comments, then you are the one who is keeping the conversation from moving on. Not me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[I did. In the specific context of that thread where a declaration that men are sexist had occurred - no qualifiers - I pointed out a very obvious reason why men would react badly to that kind of argument rather than join the feminist cause.
And you tossed me a response that was linguistically nonsensical. That's precisely how we ended up down here.
Why did you bother trying to defend a statement that all men are sexist by softening it? By telling me that it 'obviously' didn't apply to non-sexist men? If you'd actually said gosh, yes, I can see why men would react badly to being told all men are sexist, then we could have moved the conversation on.
quote:If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
quote:Be my guest to try on the next thread on that topic. I'll be right behind you...[scurries away]
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...you would be well within your rights to do so. Such careless racial stereotyping has no place in a civilised society.
quote:None of that has anything to do with your bullshit claim that "if you're male and not sexist then 'all men are sexist' doesn't apply to you". Which is the claim we're arguing about here. Really and for true.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you cannot see that my post was an EXPLANATION of why some men are offended by such comments, then you are the one who is keeping the conversation from moving on. Not me.
Do you even understand what I wrote? Patriarchy and how it makes some men who don't win out of it feel bad, and how they don't like being lumped in with the men who are committing violence because they are often abused by the same men? How the whole system pits genders against each other and that it's a bad thing?
Seriously if you think that a sexist would make such a comment, then you are seriously deluded. I cannot make any more effort to explain myself to you so I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
quote:Should anybody be stupid enough to post such a sweeping generalisation, you bet I'll call them on it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Be my guest to try on the next thread on that topic. I'll be right behind you...[scurries away]
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...you would be well within your rights to do so. Such careless racial stereotyping has no place in a civilised society.
quote:Oh for fuck's sake Evensong, stop it. It was cute for about the first 5 minutes when I informed you last time. I've sat across the fucking table from TSA and had a beer. Okay?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:TSA isn't male. Really she isn't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Silent Acolyte and Zach82, are both male.
quote:Which I've explained as the type of person the internet tends to be exceptionally cruel to is how I deal with it. I ignore it. I have to or I will go insane.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
None of that has anything to do with your bullshit claim that "if you're male and not sexist then 'all men are sexist' doesn't apply to you". Which is the claim we're arguing about here. Really and for true.
quote:When did I ever say you were sexist?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:If you cannot see that my post was an EXPLANATION of why some men are offended by such comments, then you are the one who is keeping the conversation from moving on. Not me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[I did. In the specific context of that thread where a declaration that men are sexist had occurred - no qualifiers - I pointed out a very obvious reason why men would react badly to that kind of argument rather than join the feminist cause.
And you tossed me a response that was linguistically nonsensical. That's precisely how we ended up down here.
Why did you bother trying to defend a statement that all men are sexist by softening it? By telling me that it 'obviously' didn't apply to non-sexist men? If you'd actually said gosh, yes, I can see why men would react badly to being told all men are sexist, then we could have moved the conversation on.
Do you even understand what I wrote? Patriarchy and how it makes some men who don't win out of it feel bad, and how they don't like being lumped in with the men who are committing violence because they are often abused by the same men? How the whole system pits genders against each other and that it's a bad thing?
Seriously if you think that a sexist would make such a comment, then you are seriously deluded. I cannot make any more effort to explain myself to you so I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
quote:That first sentence is really difficult to parse. Rewrite?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Which I've explained as the type of person the internet tends to be exceptionally cruel to is how I deal with it. I ignore it. I have to or I will go insane.
quote:What logical failure? You're trying to pressure seekingsister to apologise for saying something she never said, which none of you ever actually thought she said, because of what it could sound like to someone determined to be obtuse, in order to prevent the conversation from moving on. It may not be deliberate, it doesn't have to be, that's the effect it has, and it's obvious which 'side' benefits. If you don't want to be identified with the patriarchy, don't identify with the patriarchy. It's not rocket science.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:What logical failure? You're trying to pressure seekingsister to apologise for saying something she never said, which none of you ever actually thought she said, because of what it could sound like to someone determined to be obtuse, in order to prevent the conversation from moving on. It may not be deliberate, it doesn't have to be, that's the effect it has, and it's obvious which 'side' benefits. If you don't want to be identified with the patriarchy, don't identify with the patriarchy. It's not rocket science.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
NO!!! We are NOT trying to pressure her to apologise for something she never said!! We're trying to get her to recognise the mistake in what she DID say!!quote:Her comment was this:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What logical failure?
quote:Do you see it? It's pretty obvious. I even pointed it out in my next post, where I said this:
I also (as observed in the race thread) don't understand why people act as though a general comment is a personal attack. If you're a man and you're not sexist, then obviously "men are sexist" doesn't apply to you.
quote:Clearly my point has not been made. Would you like me to carry on giving examples of exactly the same sentence construction until one of them 'clicks' in your mind?
If you're a woman and you're not bad at maths, then obviously "women are bad at maths" doesn't apply to you.
If you're gay and you're not promiscuous, then obviously "gays are promiscuous" doesn't apply to you.
If you're black and you're not a criminal, then obviously "blacks are criminals" doesn't apply to you.
Have I made my point yet, or shall I carry on?
quote:It means the person who made the comment probably spoke from an emotional place that might be worth considering in the context of a world where there is sexism. Because OBVIOUSLY all men are not sexist.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[That's her insistence that the sentence, sourced from elsewhere, that "all men are sexist" obviously doesn't mean that all men are sexist, it just means that the sexist men are sexist.
quote:Trust me, if anything like that gets posted in seriousness round here it gets jumped on very quickly. We tend not to be a group that has a high tolerance for offensive stereotypes, whomever they're directed towards.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
"All Americans are fat" or "Everyone in the US has a gun" or "Americans are all stupid" will be said.
quote:You're trying to force her into a defensive position for saying something essentially accurate about language. Hyperbole is part of speech. It may be banished from discourse that aspires to be authoritative, but many people dealing with oppression and 'othering' have no expectation that their testimony ever will be authoritative. There will always be something they did wrong that means that privileged people don't have to listen yet. This seems relevant here. Of course a woman with experience of abuse saying, in an informal setting,'all men are sexist' is not the same as a scientist saying for the record that sexism is just part of nature.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:What logical failure? You're trying to pressure seekingsister to apologise for saying something she never said, which none of you ever actually thought she said, because of what it could sound like to someone determined to be obtuse, in order to prevent the conversation from moving on. It may not be deliberate, it doesn't have to be, that's the effect it has, and it's obvious which 'side' benefits. If you don't want to be identified with the patriarchy, don't identify with the patriarchy. It's not rocket science.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
She said it in Purg, she said it again in Hell. She said that "All men are sexist" obviously doesn't apply to men who aren't sexist. We're not asking her to apologise for saying the bit in quotes. We're exasperated by her dogged insistence on avoiding the standard logical syllogism that if all A are B, and you are A, then you are also B.
That's all HER. That's her insistence that the sentence, sourced from elsewhere, that "all men are sexist" obviously doesn't mean that all men are sexist, it just means that the sexist men are sexist.
God help you if you can't see the distinction between calling her on that and calling her on actually uttering the sentence "all men are sexist". Which she didn't.
quote:Indeed. She didn't even say 'all'! It's really, really obvious what is happening here.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Her comment was this:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What logical failure?
quote:Do you see it? It's pretty obvious.
I also (as observed in the race thread) don't understand why people act as though a general comment is a personal attack. If you're a man and you're not sexist, then obviously "men are sexist" doesn't apply to you.
quote:I see three puppies fighting over a pic of a bone when there is a pile of real bones just behind them.
Indeed. She didn't even say 'all'! It's really, really obvious what is happening here.
quote:I don't WANT your empathy. I wouldn't have continued to harp on it if you hadn't continued to deny me any kind of acknowledgment that your comment didn't make logical sense. That's got nothing to do with 'empathy'. I'm not looking for some kind of emotional moment with you.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:It means the person who made the comment probably spoke from an emotional place that might be worth considering in the context of a world where there is sexism. Because OBVIOUSLY all men are not sexist.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[That's her insistence that the sentence, sourced from elsewhere, that "all men are sexist" obviously doesn't mean that all men are sexist, it just means that the sexist men are sexist.
Your empathy doesn't extend to someone who makes a silly comment but we are expected to extend it to you for being upset by said silly comment. Even though no one with a brain takes the silly comment as a factual statement.
You're making yourself look extremely petty by continuing to harp on this point, honestly.
quote:Interesting. I honestly didn't know TSA was male. I think even less of him now than I did a few days ago when he was posting crap in Purgatory on the male feminist thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh for fuck's sake Evensong, stop it. It was cute for about the first 5 minutes when I informed you last time. I've sat across the fucking table from TSA and had a beer. Okay?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:TSA isn't male. Really she isn't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Silent Acolyte and Zach82, are both male.
quote:.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You're trying to force her into a defensive position for saying something essentially accurate about language. Hyperbole is part of speech.
quote:Oh yes. 'Obviously'. And again you've missed the fact that the Shipmates who said it, or a version of it, weren't women.
Of course a woman with experience of abuse saying, in an informal setting,'all men are sexist' is not the same as a scientist saying for the record that sexism is just part of nature.
quote:Yes. Hello, my name's orfeo. Clearly we haven't met before, because if you knew much about me you wouldn't be asking this. I won't bore you with all the details of my professional history or my Ship history because the Greek chorus will be along shortly to explain it all to you.
I'm sorry, but the urgency you're conveying about getting her to see the error of her ways is out of all proportion to the ostensible reason. Do you really think it's about an error of linguistic logic?
quote:Ah yes, the "I didn't mean for it to be taken seriously" defence.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It may be banished from discourse that aspires to be authoritative, but many people dealing with oppression and 'othering' have no expectation that their testimony ever will be authoritative.
quote:Interesting that you add the "with experience of abuse" qualifier in there, given that you have no idea if it applies to anyone on that thread. And the chief culprits of saying 'all men are sexist' were men anyway, so the "a woman" part doesn't apply either.
Of course a woman with experience of abuse saying, in an informal setting,'all men are sexist' is not the same as a scientist saying for the record that sexism is just part of nature.
quote:No. What I really think it's about is the bullshit idea, held by far too many people, that it's OK for women to be prejudiced against men.
I'm sorry, but the urgency you're conveying about getting her to see the error of her ways is out of all proportion to the ostensible reason. Do you really think it's about an error of linguistic logic?
quote:Yes, it is. AFZ summed it up at the bottom of page 1.
It's really, really obvious what is happening here.
quote:Indeed. He's probably lurking and enjoying the kerfuffle. The smug bastard.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Interesting. I honestly didn't know TSA was male. I think even less of him now than I did a few days ago when he was posting crap in Purgatory on the male feminist thread.
quote:WHICH RENDERS YOUR OBJECTION EVEN MORE FUCKING NONSENSICAL.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh yes. 'Obviously'. And again you've missed the fact that the Shipmates who said it, or a version of it, weren't women.
quote:HAHA, YOU'RE AT IT AS WELL! This is golden. If men are able to say that without including a bunch of qualifications to let themselves off the hook, how can you possibly justify obstructing the discussion with this tone-policing?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Interesting that you add the "with experience of abuse" qualifier in there, given that you have no idea if it applies to anyone on that thread. And the chief culprits of saying 'all men are sexist' were men anyway, so the "a woman" part doesn't apply either.
quote:Why? Why is a stupid defense of a statement from a man any less objectionable than a stupid defense of a statement from a woman?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:WHICH RENDERS YOUR OBJECTION EVEN MORE FUCKING NONSENSICAL.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh yes. 'Obviously'. And again you've missed the fact that the Shipmates who said it, or a version of it, weren't women.
Seriously!
quote:If your defense is "my friends think I'm right too" then you have none. There are people in this thread defending me as well. I can post on any number of websites in which my opinion is the dominant one on these issues or race and gender, but I would not support mistreating a new member who has a different one UNLESS it was egregiously offensive.
Originally posted by orfeo:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
quote:I'm a man, and I got what was meant. It's not a question of lashing out, it's a question of perspective. You have no basis for patronising anyone else's sophistication if you're going to portray yourself as someone who doesn't 'get' language or the significance of privilege.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And AGAIN, I've already pointed out to you that the posters in question are male. I suppose there's a sliver of a chance that you're proposing that these men have been so scarred by witnessing an instance of sexism against a woman that it's put them in an 'emotional place' where they lash out at all men as sexist, but I'm not convinced you have the level of sophistication required to develop that argument. I certainly don't think you have the sophistication required to express that argument.
quote:Er, because they're still fucking wrong?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If men are able to say that without including a bunch of qualifications to let themselves off the hook, how can you possibly justify obstructing the discussion with this tone-policing?
quote:The fact that you think I'm taking issue with your opinions on race and gender tells me you still don't understand what my problem with your approach is.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I can post on any number of websites in which my opinion is the dominant one on these issues or race and gender
quote:Think about it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:WHICH RENDERS YOUR OBJECTION EVEN MORE FUCKING NONSENSICAL.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh yes. 'Obviously'. And again you've missed the fact that the Shipmates who said it, or a version of it, weren't women.
Seriously!
quote:You talk of perspective while defending rank generalisations against half the species? You've got some gall.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not a question of lashing out, it's a question of perspective.
quote:I did. And I had the exact same reaction as Marvin. You appear to be saying that if a man says something offensive about men, then either (1) we shouldn't care, 'cause a man said it, or (2) we shouldn't have a problem with a woman justifying, defending and minimising the offence of what the man said.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
quote:Firstly, I do not 'like' all long term shipmates and/or all the other people posting on that thread. Secondly, I'm a socialist who grew up in a family of Tories - I don't let how much I like people affect how much credit I give their opinions. On the other hand, if I respect someone, and find that I differ with them, then that might make me think twice. I say "might" - there are plenty of people who I respect and also disagree with quite a lot, so I don't usually stop for a re-think everytime we find ourselves at a point of difference.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:I'd say the reverse is true. seekingsister is evaluating what's being said, you're drawing on years of having liked them as individuals.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:Some of 'these people' are people I've been talking to, on and off, for many years now - so, frankly, I think I'm probably better able than you are to decide how much credit I give them.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... frankly I think you are giving too much credit to these people.
quote:This is inane. Offence has to be taken. What you're effectively saying is 'hey male allies, shut up so you don't care off those liberal guys who don't give a fuck, we need them if we're going to water the discussion down to just how I like it'. OK! I haven't returned to the male feminism thread. I find EE's thread on 'misandry' hilarious, because THAT is what tonal tiptoeing makes way for.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I did. And I had the exact same reaction as Marvin. You appear to be saying that if a man says something offensive about men, then either (1) we shouldn't care, 'cause a man said it, or (2) we shouldn't have a problem with a woman justifying, defending and minimising the offence of what the man said.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
Both of those propositions are, frankly, sexist.
quote:No, I expect you to accept that if men are able to acknowledge the nature of the patriarchy without such self-exempting asides, the statement was not in any meaningful sense offensive. Of course, perhaps it's because you've accepted this that you've been using Mr. Logical wall-headbutting to use in order to shut down the discussion. If you want to end the days of people saying 'men do this shit' sooner, what you're doing is not the way of doing it. People aren't going to reach the conclusion you might think they are. Of course, if you just want people who talk about these issues to shut the fuck up and leave, what you're doing will probably eventually work.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Er, because they're still fucking wrong?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If men are able to say that without including a bunch of qualifications to let themselves off the hook, how can you possibly justify obstructing the discussion with this tone-policing?
Do you seriously expect me to accept something as OK just because it was said by a man?
quote:I've got no idea why you think a man who says something I completely disagree with would be my male ally.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:This is inane. Offence has to be taken. What you're effectively saying is 'hey male allies, shut up so you don't care off those liberal guys who don't give a fuck, we need them if we're going to water the discussion down to just how I like it'. OK! I haven't returned to the male feminism thread. I find EE's thread on 'misandry' hilarious, because THAT is what tonal tiptoeing makes way for.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I did. And I had the exact same reaction as Marvin. You appear to be saying that if a man says something offensive about men, then either (1) we shouldn't care, 'cause a man said it, or (2) we shouldn't have a problem with a woman justifying, defending and minimising the offence of what the man said.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
Both of those propositions are, frankly, sexist.
quote:People who aren't capable of talking rationally should probably keep away from internet debating threads. People there can only judge others by what they post - we can't judge by the size and extent of people's wounds because we can't truly know about them, and even if we could it would be a silly and undignified competition.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That's what my problem is with all of this. Not that generalizations are OK - but some come from a real place of hurt and violence and the person is not talking rationally.
quote:I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
There's nothing wrong with qualifying certain behavior, these are not binary actions of 100% right vs. 100% wrong.
quote:I wasn't saying they were your allies. You know the term 'male ally'? I was using that term.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I've got no idea why you think a man who says something I completely disagree with would be my male ally.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:This is inane. Offence has to be taken. What you're effectively saying is 'hey male allies, shut up so you don't care off those liberal guys who don't give a fuck, we need them if we're going to water the discussion down to just how I like it'. OK! I haven't returned to the male feminism thread. I find EE's thread on 'misandry' hilarious, because THAT is what tonal tiptoeing makes way for.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I did. And I had the exact same reaction as Marvin. You appear to be saying that if a man says something offensive about men, then either (1) we shouldn't care, 'cause a man said it, or (2) we shouldn't have a problem with a woman justifying, defending and minimising the offence of what the man said.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
Both of those propositions are, frankly, sexist.
Have we found ANOTHER word that is going to be used to mean something the complete opposite of its typical meaning?
Also, the video that EE posted, presumably because he liked it, is being roundly criticised by all and sundry.
quote:As far as I know the term is applied to males who are allies. So how are you saying they aren't allies?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I wasn't saying they were your allies. You know the term 'male ally'? I was using that term.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Google 'male allies'.
Originally posted by QLib:
]As far as I know the term is applied to males who are allies. So how are you saying they aren't allies?
quote:Ah. I see. As in, men who support feminism?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I wasn't saying they were your allies. You know the term 'male ally'? I was using that term.
The video is being criticised, but the discussion isn't being shut down.
quote:Again: Hi there, my name's orfeo. Clearly we haven't met before.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
But, of course, if you just want to be popular, that will probably work.
quote:Thanks for all of this post. I'm aware that people side with their buddies; that was the point I made earlier to QLib. It's a question of who is regarded as reasonable by whom, on what subject. For people who simply don't want to hear a certain perspective, the tone will always be wrong, and if the speaker defends their position, their 'vitriol' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyone gets snappy if they're answering multiple posters who all agree with each other in real time, especially if they're being derisive. Context is vitally important, of course; the derision of an admin has a different impact from the derision of a new poster.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
**If one treats harshly a community member who is viewed as reasonable and thoughtful, one loses much sympathy. One can disagree with them, but the vitriol is seen as misplaced.
Racism and sexism are especially difficult topics. For one they are not on/off positions, but rather graded scales. If one argues on/off, those on the lesser end of the scale will learn nothing.
Feel free to tell me to sod off, I can handle it.
quote:This is not what I meant. There are people here who I neither like nor dislike but will consider their opinion more carefully than others.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:Thanks for all of this post. I'm aware that people side with their buddies;
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
**If one treats harshly a community member who is viewed as reasonable and thoughtful, one loses much sympathy. One can disagree with them, but the vitriol is seen as misplaced.
Racism and sexism are especially difficult topics. For one they are not on/off positions, but rather graded scales. If one argues on/off, those on the lesser end of the scale will learn nothing.
Feel free to tell me to sod off, I can handle it.
quote:Say 'familiar faces' rather than 'buddies', then. It's the same principle.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is not what I meant. There are people here who I neither like nor dislike but will consider their opinion more carefully than others.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:Thanks for all of this post. I'm aware that people side with their buddies;
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
**If one treats harshly a community member who is viewed as reasonable and thoughtful, one loses much sympathy. One can disagree with them, but the vitriol is seen as misplaced.
Racism and sexism are especially difficult topics. For one they are not on/off positions, but rather graded scales. If one argues on/off, those on the lesser end of the scale will learn nothing.
Feel free to tell me to sod off, I can handle it.
I will disagree with people who I do like and agree with people who I do not particularly care for.
I will add another thought. Read and attempt to process what is actually written.
We all process through our own particular filtres, but we discuss better when we recognise this.
quote:No, no it is not. I mean the aggregate of ones positions outweigh one post in most cases.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Say 'familiar faces' rather than 'buddies', then. It's the same principle.
quote:Our perceptions are rarely as accurate as we perceive them, it is the nature of how the brain works. It is my opinion that you have reacted more to the subject than to the actual words. I may be wrong, that has certainly happened before.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I have invariably responded to what has been written. The idea that I must not know how to have a discussion because I accurately perceive and disagree with the arguments of people you know better than you know me is ill-founded.
quote:Indeed, you're more likely to give people you've known longer the benefit of the doubt, as seekingsister said earlier. How many different ways ought I rephrase it?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No, no it is not. I mean the aggregate of ones positions outweigh one post in most cases.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Say 'familiar faces' rather than 'buddies', then. It's the same principle.
quote:They're all very well practiced at testing each other's ideas. It would be a pretty unique phenomenon if their acquaintance with each other didn't play some role in the reception of those ideas. Remind me why we're doing this semantic tennis?
Originally posted by orfeo:
When a bunch of people all line up around here, it isn't because they're a bunch of 'buddies'. It's because they're all very well practiced at testing ideas and they've all come to the same conclusion about the particular idea.
quote:Mostly because a few of us think that referring to buddies is a lazy way of explaining why more than one person might disagree with one's position.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Remind me why we're doing this semantic tennis?
quote:What?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Mostly because a few of us think that referring to buddies is a lazy way of explaining why more than one person might disagree with one's position.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Remind me why we're doing this semantic tennis?
You don't appear capable of working out that the people who happen to disagree with you on this particular occasion will quite happily be on opposing sides of some other debate on the Ship. You've deduced from a single point of data: because you can see a particular list of Shipmates agreeing with each other at this moment, they're buddies who habitually agree with each other.
Which is tosh. You need a far larger sampling set than one thread to ascertain any trends as to how often poster X will agree with or stand up for poster Y.
I mean, off the top of my head I suspect I actually agreed with YOU during your contribution on the original male feminism thread. Shock. Horror. What are the odds? Encountering you on 2 threads and thinking you had a point on one while thinking you're badly misguided on the second?
quote:I haven't suggested it would make you more receptive, but I think, all things being equal, it would make you more likely to respect the foundation of their thinking in lived experience. Less likely to patronise them. Seekingsister was talking about the way people actually use language.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Actually, the most obvious refutation of your whole theory is the considerable number of people who I've known on the Ship for 5 years and still think the vast majority of their ideas are tosh. Your proposition is that becoming more familiar with them should have made me more receptive. There are lots of cases where it hasn't.
quote:As I said in this post, the internet is not a monolith. Each site has its own characteristics.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Which I've explained as the type of person the internet tends to be exceptionally cruel to is how I deal with it. I ignore it. I have to or I will go insane.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
None of that has anything to do with your bullshit claim that "if you're male and not sexist then 'all men are sexist' doesn't apply to you". Which is the claim we're arguing about here. Really and for true.
quote:I usually use "he" for a person whose sex I don't know, if I need to use a pronoun, because that's how the English language works. If it's important that I phrase something in a way that is explicitly gender-inclusive, I'll try to rephrase it in a way that doesn't use a personal pronoun. The gender-neutral "he" seems to be falling out of favour these days, so I find myself taking this second option more often. I find the singular "they" unaesthetic, and constructions like he/she clumsy, so tend to avoid them if I can. Mrs. Cniht once had a (female) German tutor, who addressed the entirely female class (in English) with the wonderful sentence "Will everybody ensure that he has handed in his homework before he leaves today." I don't think even I would push the gender-neutral "he" quite that far, though.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My background is relevant because the internet tends to assume all posters are male and whatever dominant ethnicity. You'd be amazed even when I use a female screen name as I do here that I'm referred to as "he." It informs my perspective.
quote:Well, I'm a man. I don't think I'm sexist, and I don't like being lumped in with men who commit violence.
Patriarchy and how it makes some men who don't win out of it feel bad, and how they don't like being lumped in with the men who are committing violence because they are often abused by the same men? How the whole system pits genders against each other and that it's a bad thing?
quote:The thing is that sexism and racism are embedded in our cultures. I'm a woman. I, too, disapprove of sexist and racist behaviours, but I occasionally catch myself out when I'm making judgements - thoughts and feelings pop up and sometimes I have to think, 'Where the fuck did that come from?'
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm a man. I don't think I'm sexist, and I don't like being lumped in with men who commit violence.
This is because I disapprove of sexist behaviour, and don't think I exhibit it. It has nothing to do with being victimized by patriarchal alpha-male sportsmen or anything. I would also dislike being lumped in with people who cheat at cards, and this has nothing to do with my having been oppressed by card-sharps.
quote:Dude. Aren't you an atheist?
Originally posted by Justinian:
Who amongst us has never made a hyperbolic statement in their lives? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
quote:I don't think less of him. I just thought he was rather pretty. Such a shame.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And mark me down as someone else who thinks a whole lot less of TSA since finding out he is male.
quote:Cool. Getting it right 5 times doesn't make it okay the 1 time you get it wrong. I was talking about the two specific instances that you've been challenged on where your language was sweeping and unhelpful.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I did use some in my posts in male feminism. You haven't read them. So that's why I've said you haven't read them.
quote:Cool. Getting it right 5 times doesn't make it okay the 1 time you get it wrong. I was talking about the two specific instances that you've been challenged on where your language was sweeping and unhelpful.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I did use some in my posts in male feminism. You haven't read them. So that's why I've said you haven't read them.
quote:I think that goes both ways. Seekingsister went pretty strongly on the offensive against those who had challenged what she said.
Originally posted by Mili:
Picking up on lazy language is one thing. I think the reaction has been a bit stronger than that.
quote:I echo that sentiment.
Originally posted by Mili:
I hope you stay Seeking Sister. With the wide variety of views and worldviews on here there are nasty clashes at times. I'm pretty sure if you post on a variety of topics, that most posters will come to appreciate your intelligent input, even when they disagree with you.
quote:ITTWACW?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Dude. Aren't you an atheist?
I'm not sure you're allowed to use that phraseology.
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
I think EE perhaps is just being hyperbolic too, rather than really believing everything he says
quote:I'll thank you not to tell me how I feel. You have no idea how I feel, and it is rude beyond reckoning to presume to know, and to tell me that I feel a certain way if I have denied it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But they are just irritated by the suggestion that members of "their group" (however defined) are responsible for much of the inequality in our society.
quote:The question is, why were you so cocksure so as to contradict someone, when you had absolutely nothing to go on except an avatar?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well why didn't you say so?
quote:.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You're trying to force her into a defensive position for saying something essentially accurate about language. Hyperbole is part of speech.
quote:This is very interesting because the person defending you, Plique-à-jour, showed up at roughly the same time you did. The dynamic of a newb making an ass of him/herself and then another newb who showed up at the same time making an ass of him/herself defending the first newb is so common here it's something of a running gag.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There are people in this thread defending me as well.
quote:Well you have to admit, "all" and "ally" do look a lot alike.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've got no idea why you think a man who says something I completely disagree with would be my male ally.
Have we found ANOTHER word that is going to be used to mean something the complete opposite of its typical meaning?
quote:I'm serious when I say I hope he's just a sad twisted man trying to rile people up by saying ridiculous things on the internet. Otherwise I have to accept that he actually believes everything he says, including things like anyone who supports affirmative action is as bad as the Nazis. So not a compliment, no.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
I think EE perhaps is just being hyperbolic too, rather than really believing everything he says
Oh, wait, you were not serious, were you?
So, he is either a WUM arsewipe or has the mental ability of a brain-damaged pigeon with Alzheimer? I would not consider either to be much of a compliment.
quote:Of course, it would be far better if idiots in the feminist camp were allowed to talk as much offensive bollocks as they liked without being called on it. Obviously.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It would be great if racism and sexism drew the same level of criticism and invective that hyperbolic accusations of racism and sexism do. But no, seekingsister upset the menfolk, so she must be punished and made to see the error of her ways.
quote:I am leaning toward agreement.
Originally posted by Mili:
Picking up on lazy language is one thing. I think the reaction has been a bit stronger than that. Seeking Sister has explained what she meant and numerous times has said that she doesn't hate men or think men are all sexist. However some people are refusing to let the issue go until she grovels and offers a full apology for using language once or twice that offended them. Some people even seem to want to drive her right off the website.
And she's a newbie too. We've had some interesting newbies lately who were given a lot more slack for far less logical arguments. People debated with them, but there wasn't the sense of anger shown here, even when someone claimed racism was normal because her cats were racist.
I hope you stay Seeking Sister. With the wide variety of views and worldviews on here there are nasty clashes at times. I'm pretty sure if you post on a variety of topics, that most posters will come to appreciate your intelligent input, even when they disagree with you.
quote:Hear! Hear!
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Horsehockeys.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Of course, it would be far better if idiots in the feminist camp were allowed to talk as much offensive bollocks as they liked without being called on it. Obviously.
quote:Nope, she got upset and came down here to Hell and painted a target on herself. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and more power to her.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It would be great if racism and sexism drew the same level of criticism and invective that hyperbolic accusations of racism and sexism do. But no, seekingsister upset the menfolk, so she must be punished and made to see the error of her ways.
quote:So why do you have so much to say on the subject?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Men become allies by becoming ready to hear what women have to say.
quote:Seems like an irregular verb:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:So why do you have so much to say on the subject?
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Men become allies by becoming ready to hear what women have to say.
quote:She's "explained" by suggesting phrases like "Europeans persecute Jews" and "Americans are all stupid" as examples of allegations which she thinks are obviously unobjectionable in civil discussion, in order to argue by analogy that "men are sexist" is OK as well.
Originally posted by Mili:
Picking up on lazy language is one thing. I think the reaction has been a bit stronger than that. Seeking Sister has explained what she meant and numerous times has said that she doesn't hate men or think men are all sexist.
quote:Actually, on Ship of Fools anti-American bigotry has been an issue. You gotta stop talking like the internet is all one big homogenous thing.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm American. Now and then BBC News or the Guardian will put up an article about America. Inevitably there is a wave of British posters who don't like any comparison between the US and UK that favors the former. "All Americans are fat" or "Everyone in the US has a gun" or "Americans are all stupid" will be said. I also know that America is globally dominant particularly in media and culture, and that their response is probably not an indication of hatred of Americans but rather something else - say being tired of having US movies/TV/etc all over the place. Do I go into that thread and say that they are anti-American bigots? No, because that looks ridiculous to most people due to America's status. No one thinks anti-American bigotry is an issue.
quote:What RuthW said, but from the other side of The Pond.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Actually, on Ship of Fools anti-American bigotry has been an issue. You gotta stop talking like the internet is all one big homogenous thing.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm American. Now and then BBC News or the Guardian will put up an article about America. Inevitably there is a wave of British posters who don't like any comparison between the US and UK that favors the former. "All Americans are fat" or "Everyone in the US has a gun" or "Americans are all stupid" will be said. I also know that America is globally dominant particularly in media and culture, and that their response is probably not an indication of hatred of Americans but rather something else - say being tired of having US movies/TV/etc all over the place. Do I go into that thread and say that they are anti-American bigots? No, because that looks ridiculous to most people due to America's status. No one thinks anti-American bigotry is an issue.
quote:I don't use generalisations myself (unless I slip up accidentally) and agree they usually just cause people to be upset. I don't have a problem with people arguing with Seeking Sister about her use of language, I just think the anger is a bit extreme for the circumstances. However as others have said these things can be cultural and people have different buttons that when pushed can make them hit the roof.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:She's "explained" by suggesting phrases like "Europeans persecute Jews" and "Americans are all stupid" as examples of allegations which she thinks are obviously unobjectionable in civil discussion, in order to argue by analogy that "men are sexist" is OK as well.
Originally posted by Mili:
Picking up on lazy language is one thing. I think the reaction has been a bit stronger than that. Seeking Sister has explained what she meant and numerous times has said that she doesn't hate men or think men are all sexist.
That is, if her opinions are not either ludicrous or bigoted (and it is just possible that they aren't) she has explained them very badly indeed, because I imagine that most Americans object to being called stupid, and most Europeans don't like to be thought of as anti-Semitic. And then she has chosen to start a personal argument with people who think there's something to be said against making sweeping generalisations of an offensive nature about 'people like you'.
It is pretty obvious that if there is any serious point behind the generalisations, it could put in a way that is both clearer and less offensive ("there are still places in Europe where anti-Semitism is common", "the American media reports a lot of stupid comments with apparent approval", "there are many men who have sexist attitudes to women"... would be my guesses at the serious points behind the generalisations, but the reason they have to be 'guesses' is that the "all [X]s are [Y]" format is such a poor way to communicate with [X]s who don't think that they are [Y]). So why she's angry at people who apparently lack the telepathic ability to discern the insightful, true, inoffensive intention from the lazy, false and offensive form of expression is a bit of a mystery to me.
quote:It wasn't to start with, but she blindly refuses to see the point we're making. That's the sort of thing that pisses people off. And let's not forget who it was that brought the issue to Hell. That escalation was all her.
Originally posted by Mili:
I just think the anger is a bit extreme for the circumstances.
quote:Good enough for me.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's not good for me to get involved in this type of negativity and I apologize for my role in it.
quote:Oy! So to does the dogged pursuit of a pedantic point. At least it was here and not further muddying the Purg thread.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It wasn't to start with, but she blindly refuses to see the point we're making. That's the sort of thing that pisses people off. And let's not forget who it was that brought the issue to Hell. That escalation was all her.
Originally posted by Mili:
I just think the anger is a bit extreme for the circumstances.
