|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I'm a feminazi. And so's my wife.
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?
[ 11. January 2013, 00:19: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?
Of course it is. "Feminazi" with a double m is much worse.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?
What A.R. said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
ES, however, was claiming that a quotation attributed to Jesus in the gospel of Luke proved that Jesus called people nasty names.
And my point is that it was a bad example to use, as there was a descriptive point to the term. Even if it is pristinely accurate in a factual sense, it still doesn't make his point. It's like saying calling someone a Momzer (Yiddish for "conman" or thereabouts) is the same as calling someone fuckwit.
Thank you for magnanimously giving me permission to believe that this may have indeed been a snappy one-liner that someone liked and remembered for posterity. It just has that feel, to me. How snakey hair got into it, I don't know.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Even though this is Hell, the notion that staunch proponents of women bishops voted against the measure in synod still needs citations, or it's just a loudly repeated assertion. Neither you or St Punk have enough credit in the bank to make me take you at your word.
Also, I know how Hell works, you bumptious buffoon. It's a damn sight easier to understand than why you've got your panties jammed tight into your buttcrack.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?
What A.R. said.
That word aside (obviously) yes.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...
Devastating.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Even though this is Hell, the notion that staunch proponents of women bishops voted against the measure in synod still needs citations, or it's just a loudly repeated assertion. Neither you or St Punk have enough credit in the bank to make me take you at your word.
Come off it, Doc - the evidence is all over the net! You could start here. You did spot that the Punk was talking about the spring (i.e., February) Synod, not the November one, didn't you?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, I know how Hell works, you bumptious buffoon. It's a damn sight easier to understand than why you've got your panties jammed tight into your buttcrack.
Not me, old sport. I don't think you had any real difficulty understanding me. If I were you, I'd just back down a bit. But you just go right ahead trying to save face by conceding nothing if it means that much to you.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?
What A.R. said.
That word aside (obviously) yes.
But that word is not aside. It is part of what was said, and the vehemence of the word is presumably part of the intended message.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?
What A.R. said.
That word aside (obviously) yes.
But that word is not aside.
Well, it's not an aside - I never said it was. But maybe it wasn't less inflammatory. Oh well. Since it was never my intention to fly in to defend anyone's use of that term in the first place, I'm happy to leave that there.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...
Devastating.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Even though this is Hell, the notion that staunch proponents of women bishops voted against the measure in synod still needs citations, or it's just a loudly repeated assertion. Neither you or St Punk have enough credit in the bank to make me take you at your word.
Come off it, Doc - the evidence is all over the net! You could start here.
The BBC news item linked there doesn't talk about that at all.
(link corrected by host, in case anyone is still arsed about this)
[ 11. January 2013, 16:51: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Come off it, Doc - the evidence is all over the net! You could start here.
If it's all over the net, then you won't have any trouble finding at least one credible source.
I also note you've moved the goalposts already.
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
You think the second way of putting it, using "feminazi," was less inflammatory?
What A.R. said.
That word aside (obviously) yes.
But that word is not aside.
Well, it's not an aside - I never said it was. But maybe it wasn't less inflammatory. Oh well. Since it was never my intention to fly in to defend anyone's use of that term in the first place, I'm happy to leave that there.
I wasn't saying you said it was an aside; I was trying to say that the statement can't be considered for its full effect if that word is set aside by saying "that word aside" as you had. I'm happy to leave it here too. Thank you for saying that you don't intend to defend anyone's use of the word.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Ken said: quote:
The BBC news item linked there doesn't talk about that at all.
It doesn't talk about what Doc Tor seems to think St Punk said - he seems to think he was talking about proponents of women bishops voting down the proposal on the table at November Synod - but it does talk about what St Punk actually said, which was (and as I've already quoted and re-emphasised before): quote:
It is well known and was widely reported that the reason the Women Bishops legislation was pulled back in the Spring was that the feminazis were prepared to vote it down due to the provisions for traditionalists proposed at that time.
This (apart from the "f" word) is borne out by quotes such as this one, from my BBC link: quote:
Legislation as it stands would allow traditionalist parishes to have the right of access to an alternative male bishop - one who would intervene in the diocese of a woman bishop only at her discretion.
The amendment aimed to define the alternative bishops' authority in such a way that it did not derive from that of the woman diocesan bishop.
A number of speakers at the General Synod including Rt Rev Michael Perham, the Bishop of Gloucester, said they were opposed to such changes.
He warned that the Church could face the prospect of campaigners in favour of women bishops unable to vote for final approval of the legislation in July if it were amended in the way proposed by the Manchester Diocesan Synod.
"The worst possible outcome would be for the legislation to go down at final approval and that would be a disaster," he said.
And just how, Doc Tor, have I shifted the goalposts? The issue here is what St Punk actually said and whether, as you claimed, it was worthy of comparison to Hitler. Well, that (what I've quoted above) is what the Punkster actually said. And it's something the BBC refers to it its report.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Find me a quote from one of the synod proponents that says they'd vote against the motion as was extant in the spring. Looking at the WATCH website (probably your very definition of feminazis), they were entirely in favour of the motion up to May 22, when the House of Bishops unilaterally amended the motion. Which incidentally satisfied no one, including Reform et al.
After consulting with their members, which isn't a very national socialist thing to do, they issued a release on 11th June saying that quote:
if the amendment to clause 5 is not withdrawn, the amended measure is in very serious danger of being voted down by those who support women bishops
. The decision was taken by Synod to adjourn the vote in July.
So, to conclude. In the spring of 2012, the chief and most vocal proponents of women bishops, WATCH, were entirely for the motion as tabled, the motion that had been passed by the vast majority of diocesan synods in the CofE. Unless we're all feminazis now, I believe you and St Punk are talking utter arse.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Find me a quote from one of the synod proponents that says they'd vote against the motion as was extant in the spring.
I've just given you one - from the Bishop of Gloucester! He, a proponent, was warning that the motion as it stood then was in danger of being rejected by proponents - even back in February.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Looking at the WATCH website (probably your very definition of feminazis)
Um, you got the wrong guy. I don't define OoW proponents as feminazis. I've repeatedly distanced myself from such a usage, in fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
they were entirely in favour of the motion up to May 22, when the House of Bishops unilaterally amended the motion. Which incidentally satisfied no one, including Reform et al.
It certainly didn't satisfy the proponents. But it is not true to say that it satisfied no-one. The Catholic group in synod, if I recall correctly, would have taken that. But I could be wrong. Anyway, by my book, May is still the spring. I thought that St Punk was referring to February, but perhaps he meant May. So, suppose I grant you the February point. By May (still the spring) the "staunchest proponents" of OoW were almost entirely against the measure. That would certainly have meant that it would have failed.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
After consulting with their members, which isn't a very national socialist thing to do,[ ] they issued a release on 11th June saying that quote:
if the amendment to clause 5 is not withdrawn, the amended measure is in very serious danger of being voted down by those who support women bishops
.
That just gives St Punk the very evidence he needs to show that his claim - that "the Women Bishops legislation was pulled back in the Spring [becuase the proponents] were prepared to vote it down due to the provisions for traditionalists proposed at that time" - at least arguable. WATCH were commenting on the May (i.e., spring) amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, to conclude. In the spring of 2012, the chief and most vocal proponents of women bishops, WATCH, were entirely for the motion as tabled, the motion that had been passed by the vast majority of diocesan synods in the CofE.
This is just silly now. I concede the February point - anything to move this forward. But May is still the spring. And what the Punk said was the spring. You're just scrabbling now. No-one seriously contests that if the proponents of women bishops had been in favour of the measure as amended by the bishops in May it probably would have been carried. That's all St Punk needs to show that his claim was at the very least arguable, if not actually proven to the point of demonsatration. And that's all it takes to make you calling that claim a Hitlerian "big lie" screamingly ridiculous.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The issue here is what St Punk actually said and whether, as you claimed, it was worthy of comparison to Hitler.
FWIW, which may not be much, though Hitler coined the phrase "the big lie" (except, you know, in German), the phrase has been so widely used that it doesn't refer directly to Hitler anymore. Here are some examples:
The Nation
Huffington Post
Salon
NY Times
I'd say at this point the term has in fact been misused so much that it barely functions as shorthand for "the lie so big no one can possibly think it's a lie."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Thanks for that Ruth - it is worth noting. But Doc Tor added after citing it:
quote:
Remind me who else used that tactic?
If that was not meant to be an allusion to Hitler, I am a junkie's monkey.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc has been clear that he isn't defending the use of 'feminazi'. St Punk the Pious, however ...
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I, for one, think "feminazi" is quite an appropriate term for the most extreme of the advocates of Women Bishops in the CofE.
What, specifically, did they do that made 'Nazi' an appropriate description?
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue. They not only wanted women bishops; they also wanted traditionalists to be made to kiss their rings, or else.
How does that make them Nazis? You seem to be using 'Nazi' as an all-purpose boo-word for things that you really don't like.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Okay, one last time. For those of you who aren't bored to tears by this, St P said:
quote:
These extremists were so intent on NOT providing space for those who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of women bishops that they were prepared to shoot down the whole thing over that issue.
I called this a big lie.
He backtracked and said this:
quote:
It is well known and was widely reported that the reason the Women Bishops legislation was pulled back in the Spring was that the feminazis were prepared to vote it down due to the provisions for traditionalists proposed at that time.
This is, however, still a lie, just a slightly less in-your-face one.
In the spring of 2012, the dioceses of the CofE had overwhelmingly endorsed a motion proposing women bishops. Everybody except the traditionalists were on board.
The HoB unilaterally pulled the motion back in for amendment 21-22 May 2012. Why did they do this? Was it because the uppity women and their supporters were demanding less protection for traditionalists than was provided in the extant motion? No. It was for exactly the opposite reason. Reform were against the motion, FiF were against the motion: both wanted it amended. WATCH was for it, and didn't want it amended.
It was the opponents of women bishops who wrecked the motion in the spring, not the proponents. Blaming someone for wrecking something that you wrecked yourselves is simply wrong. Or are you going to add revisionism to the list of things that it's okay for you to do but the worst crime ever when someone else does it?
I'm sure St P appreciates the white-knighting you're doing on his behalf, but frankly, I can't see the point. What he said was demonstrably wrong, both times.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'm not going all over this again, Doc Tor. The actual evidence to settle the question is a matter of public record. I've put my case for Punk's statement being at least arguable and I stick to that.
I'm going right back to why I posted - and how I now wish I hadn't - in the first place. The entirety of my original point was to point out your laughable inconsistency in calling some one Hitlerian (because of their take on the women bishops debate) on the very thread you started to complain about someone else comparing feminists to Nazis (because of their take on the women bishops debate). That you're prepared to wheedle and cavill and avoid the straight questions put to you about it shows that if anyone is a "hypocrite" on this thread, you're a pretty strong contender yourself.
Please feel free to have the last word.
[ 12. January 2013, 11:39: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm not going all over this again, Doc Tor. The actual evidence to settle the question is a matter of public record. I've put my case for Punk's statement being at least arguable and I stick to that.
I'm going right back to why I posted - and how I now wish I hadn't - in the first place. The entirety of my original point was to point out your laughable inconsistency in calling some one Hitlerian (because of their take on the women bishops debate) on the very thread you started to complain about someone else comparing feminists to Nazis (because of their take on the women bishops debate). That you're prepared to wheedle and cavill and avoid the straight questions put to you about it shows that if anyone is a "hypocrite" on this thread, you're a pretty strong contender yourself.
Please feel free to have the last word.
I have no opinion on what the CoE does with regard to bishops (well, I do, but not one that would be of interest in this debate). But it seems to me there is a distinct difference between a wholesale comparison of a particular group of people to Nazis, and claiming that the use of a particular type of debating is similar to what Hitler did in one respect.
Frankly, to me there's no comparison in degree of insult in the two cases, and to use the term hypocritical seems inappropriate.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Please feel free to have the last word.
Thank God and all His angels for that.
Hosts - feel free to kill this thread with flaming hammers if you see fit...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The entirety of my original point was to point out your laughable inconsistency in calling some one Hitlerian (because of their take on the women bishops debate) on the very thread you started to complain about someone else comparing feminists to Nazis (because of their take on the women bishops debate).
I know you've offered Doc Tor the last word, and he's accepted that offer, so I should probably shut up. But please, Chesterbelloc, before you jump into a thread of this sort again, please consider how your words are likely to be perceived. I know you were defending the factual accuracy of Punk's statements, and not the misogyny in which is statements were packaged. But that's a fine line to walk, and you cannot be surprised when people suspect that you are on the wrong side of the line, and respond accordingly.
Imagine, if you will, a conversation that had gone like this: "Of course she got raped! Did you see the way she was dressed? When someone is dressed like a slut, what do you expect?"
"She was not dressed immodestly. It's my understanding that she was wearing a long skirt and a long-sleeved blouse. And only a misogynist is going to blame a rape on a woman's clothes anyway."
Now let's say you googled, and saw a picture of the victim, and she was wearing a long skirt, but it was skin-tight and up past the middle of her thighs, and the long-sleeved blouse was low-cut and showed her cleavage. I am quite certain that you would not jump in and say, "Really, I saw her picture, and I don't think her clothes were modest at all."
Maybe they were modest, and maybe they weren't. But I am sure that you would recognize that that was entirely beside the point.
And maybe the situation was as Punk described, and maybe it wasn't. But that is also entirely beside the point.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
As was that post.
Thank you all for your contributions.
Hostly Bowler on
Thread closed
Hostly Bowler off
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
