|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: "It's because of people like you"
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... frankly I think you are giving too much credit to these people.
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.
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.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I think you don't yet 'get' the ship.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think you don't yet 'get' the ship.
Moo
You've got that right. It's clearly a group of people who have been posting together here for a long time.
Unfortunately I think that affects how you view the behavior of some of your friends, because maybe you've had meetups and been chatting for years. They get the benefit of the doubt and I don't.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Fear not seekingsister.
I was told I didn't "get the ship" early on.
Now I'm a farkin expert.
STAND TALL SISTA!
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Please comment on this and not an imaginary version of what I supposedly said.
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.
[ 30. August 2013, 14:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
You mightn't know that, but I certainly did. And you've subsequently been made aware of it. So I don't know why, down here, you would continue to offer that kind of plea for understanding why they (and TSA in particular) might have made sweeping generalisations about the nature of all men.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Who's making generalizations about gender now?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Silent Acolyte and Zach82, are both male.
TSA isn't male. Really she isn't.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If I went into a discussion on anti-Semitism and went ballistic because someone said "Europeans persecute Jews"
...you would be well within your rights to do so. Such careless racial stereotyping has no place in a civilised society.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Be my guest to try on the next thread on that topic. I'll be right behind you...[scurries away]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
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.
Be my guest to try on the next thread on that topic. I'll be right behind you...[scurries away]
Should anybody be stupid enough to post such a sweeping generalisation, you bet I'll call them on it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Silent Acolyte and Zach82, are both male.
TSA isn't male. Really she isn't.
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?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Well why didn't you say so?
*walks off muttering about stupid people using female avatars when they're male*
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
You don't deal with it that way obviously. Toys out of the pram and all over the floor. Good for you. Keep with your tactics if you think they work.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
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.
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.
When did I ever say you were sexist?
I've only ever being attacking the logic of your use of the word 'obviously'. That's it. That's where it started for me. Because I'm one of those super-analytical people that Kelly Alves referred to. Using a word like 'obviously' to make an assertion that the true meaning of a sentence is the reverse of it's literal meaning is a red rag to a bull.
It matters not one jot that the sentence was a sentence uttered by someone other than you. You were the one trying to explain the meaning of the sentence. It's no different to you offering an explanation of a sentence by Jesus in the Bible, or by President Obama, or by Lady Gaga. I get that you didn't utter the sentence, but your interpretation of the sentence was on its face nonsensical, and you completely failed to offer me anything enlightening. Dafyd did offer some interesting food for thought, but you just decided it was time to complain how you were being put upon.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
That first sentence is really difficult to parse. Rewrite?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
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.
[ 30. August 2013, 14:59: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
The internet is cruel to people of my ethnicity. I ignore sweeping negative generalizations rather than get upset about them or pretend that they are significant to the wider issues plaguing society. They are a reflection of them but not their cause.
Now let's put a different identity hat on. 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.
What I'm hearing from several here is that yes, I should spend my time online informing non-Americans that any anti-American comments are bigotry. I happen to emphatically disagree.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
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.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) 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!!
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What logical failure?
Her comment was this:
quote:
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.
Do you see it? It's pretty obvious. I even pointed it out in my next post, where I said this:
quote:
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?
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
[ 30. August 2013, 15:21: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
"All Americans are fat" or "Everyone in the US has a gun" or "Americans are all stupid" will be said.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
seekingsister is evaluating what's being said
If that were the case, she'd surely have got round to evaluating the massive logical failures in her own words by now.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What logical failure?
Her comment was this:
quote:
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.
Do you see it? It's pretty obvious.
Indeed. She didn't even say 'all'! It's really, really obvious what is happening here.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Indeed. She didn't even say 'all'! It's really, really obvious what is happening here.
I see three puppies fighting over a pic of a bone when there is a pile of real bones just behind them.
Alright, yes, I do this as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You've then come down here, making 'jokes' and flailing about at a whole pile of posters. Your interaction with QLib was especially poor.
If you want to get into detailed, serious arguments here on the Ship, then you're going to have to improve your debating skills and not react in such downright peculiar ways when someone challenges you on something. Okay? That's got precisely nothing to do with your gender (or your race for that matter), either, unless you can provide some convincing arguments why a 'level playing field' in Purgatory isn't truly level. And I'm going to take some persuading to give you any kind of leeway when there are some mighty fine female debaters on here, who regularly give me a lot to think about. I can start rattling off names if you like.
As far as I'm concerned, your debating skills are pretty wobbly. I've encountered you on the Ship just twice so far, and both times I've been left with the sensation of "what on earth is she on about". This was the second time. Obviously (HA!) I didn't call you on whatever your weird reasoning was the first time around.
Of course, there are quite a few other Shipmates who give me the same "what on earth is she/he on about" sensation. But none of the others have decided to enjoin me in a 3-person Hellcall. I'm trying to remember if we've ever HAD a 3-person Hellcall. Partly because most people are vaguely capable of figuring out that if several people are saying the same thing, they might have a point.
In fact several OTHER people said the same thing as Marvin and I after you started the Hellcall. I wonder if you've noticed that. Are they all harping on too? Or are they just attempting in various ways to get it through your stick skull that you said something wrong?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Silent Acolyte and Zach82, are both male.
TSA isn't male. Really she isn't.
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?
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
.
Oh yes. 'Obviously'.
quote:
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.
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:
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?
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Ah yes, the "I didn't mean for it to be taken seriously" defence.
quote:
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.
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.
Oh, and Purgatory is our board for serious debate (yes, really), which kinda puts a question mark against the "informal setting" clause.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
It's really, really obvious what is happening here.
Yes, it is. AFZ summed it up at the bottom of page 1.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Indeed. He's probably lurking and enjoying the kerfuffle. The smug bastard.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
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.
WHICH RENDERS YOUR OBJECTION EVEN MORE FUCKING NONSENSICAL.
Seriously!
quote:
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.
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?
I said 'abuse' because I couldn't think of another synonym for 'the patriarchy in practice'.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
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.
WHICH RENDERS YOUR OBJECTION EVEN MORE FUCKING NONSENSICAL.
Seriously!
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?
I don't think it makes the slightest difference whether the maker of the original statement is a man or a woman, without more*. I also don't think it makes the slightest difference whether the defender of the original statement is male or female.
* If someone is scarred by particular experiences, I do think that makes a difference. But that's a characteristic of an individual, not a characteristic of an entire gender.
[ 30. August 2013, 16:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
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.
My original comments speak for themselves and have been revealed to be neither as extremist or generalized as you and others have claimed. Nothing I have said has been frankly and so that's why you seem petty.
A moderator came into the Purg thread and said personal comments about specific posters should move to Hell. So I started a Hell thread to allow the Purg thread to continue. Now you're saying that either I shouldn't have done it, or that I've done it incorrectly.
Since you have nothing left to say except repeating yourself and calling me stupid, you should stop wasting your time here. It's tedious and it makes you look very very bad.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Er, because they're still fucking wrong?
Do you seriously expect me to accept something as OK just because it was said by a man?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
Also, the maturity of your 'quote' of my post was exquisite.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
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.
WHICH RENDERS YOUR OBJECTION EVEN MORE FUCKING NONSENSICAL.
Seriously!
Why?
Think about it.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's not a question of lashing out, it's a question of perspective.
You talk of perspective while defending rank generalisations against half the species? You've got some gall.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
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.
Both of those propositions are, frankly, sexist.
[ 30. August 2013, 16:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... frankly I think you are giving too much credit to these people.
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.
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.
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.
So what I meant was, I'll decide for myself how much weight to give to other people's opinions.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
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.
Both of those propositions are, frankly, sexist.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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?
Er, because they're still fucking wrong?
Do you seriously expect me to accept something as OK just because it was said by a man?
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.
[ 30. August 2013, 16:30: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
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.
Both of those propositions are, frankly, sexist.
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.
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?
Also, the video that EE posted, presumably because he liked it, is being roundly criticised by all and sundry.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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. quote:
There's nothing wrong with qualifying certain behavior, these are not binary actions of 100% right vs. 100% wrong.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Think about it.
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.
Both of those propositions are, frankly, sexist.
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.
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?
Also, the video that EE posted, presumably because he liked it, is being roundly criticised by all and sundry.
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.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
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.
As far as I know the term is applied to males who are allies. So how are you saying they aren't allies? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You and seekingsister are making the same mistake of over-personalizing everything. You assume that if people disagree with you it's because they don't like you - and you further appear to think that all the people disagreeing with you are all united in some huge conspiracy against you. The alternative, much simpler, explanation is that you are arguing your case badly and insulting people left, right and centre, by being careless about your language and making some pretty random assumptions about where others are coming from.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
