Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II

[11sjw]

I think it says equal amounts about us both.

Me: able to spot dickheadish posts.

You: able to post dickheadish posts.


Where are the mods? Surely they cannot allow this abuse to continue!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Given most understood (hell it even got some Likes) it and you had NFI illustrates where the stupidity resides in this conversation.

 

[The Delusionist]

His little rant was littered with why women were different to men - all his opinion. That’s sexist.

Women are different to men. That isn't a sexist statement, it's factual.

Now, I am thinking that you mean that in terms of interests and abilities that women and men can be/are the same.
But it is an important distinction.

So it's easy for someone to look at your post when singled out and misconstrue your actual argument, as Appa has done.

And from what I understand, that was one of the points that Mr Damore was trying to make. That debates are difficult to have because people cherry pick sound bites and ignore the actual content.
Which I think is also what Shandog is saying has now happened to Mr Damore.
That the content of his memo has been ignored because some singled out parts have been misconstrued in a way that can be viewed as sexist.

Meaning that now, many people have very strong opinions on Mr Damore and his memo, without having ever actually read it.

 

[Chief]

Given most understood (hell it even got some Likes) it and you had NFI illustrates where the stupidity resides in this conversation.

From your venom I am guessing it is a feminist you dislike and wanted to show this dislike in meme form, without having to give any reason for this dislike? Yeah? Maybe fish for likes from others who dislike that particular person? Without the bother of adding to the conversation in any way whatsoever? A bit of virtue signaling perhaps?

Am I getting warmer?

 

[ShanDog]

Breitbart is well known for its nuanced analysis and honest consideration of opposing views. Not an ounce of venom to be found.

Those chaps marching with mosquito repellent torches or whatever, chanting “Jews will not replace us”? Just looking for venom-free, sophisticated discourse.

Yeah they're the opposite end of the spectrum I've mentioned.

 

[Chief]

Yeah they're the opposite end of the spectrum I've mentioned.

The reactions from "the far left" (whoever that homogeneous group is) seem more venomous than genocide?

 

[11sjw]

From your venom I am guessing it is a feminist you dislike and wanted to show this dislike in meme form, without having to give any reason for this dislike? Yeah? Maybe fish for likes from others who dislike that particular person? Without the bother of adding to the conversation in any way whatsoever? A bit of virtue signaling perhaps?

Am I getting warmer?

Again showing you have NFI.

I'll help you along. I'll even type slowly as I assume you don't read too fast. The 2nd pic was of a woman during the recent protests in Iran removing her Hijab in an act of defiance against the regime.

 

[The Delusionist]

We were talking about the far left's tendency to throw up huge barriers to any non-accepted point of view, mischaracterise the person trying to share that view and to argue along extremes in order to segregate anyone not far left enough to be deemed part of the in-group.

You were called a 'lefty' just for becoming a mod. People feel embarrassed to admit they support feminism, the same way people feel are hesitant to admit they prefer AFL to AFLW.

It's done by all sorts of ideologues. Some are just better with PR and memes.
It's a very tight line you need to walk and you'll still nearly always step on someone's toes.

 

[Chief]

Again showing you have NFI.

I'll help you along. I'll even type slowly as I assume you don't read too fast. The 2nd pic was of a woman during the recent protests in Iran removing her Hijab in an act of defiance against the regime.

And you wanted to virtue-signal a bit without having to add to the conversation, right?

Don't worry mate, I've got it now.

 

[ShanDog]

The reactions from "the far left" (whoever that homogeneous group is) seem more venomous than genocide?

It's a different venom. One that purportedly carries the weight of the high moral position, which is the thing that grinds my gears. It's being preached at Vs yelled at. Would rather be yelled at.

 

[11sjw]

And you wanted to virtue-signal a bit without having to add to the conversation, right?

Don't worry mate, I've got it now.

Call it what you like but it made a very clear delineation between someone who calls herself a feminist despite lobbying for a regime that oppresses women (won't bother getting too far into her terrorist ties) and someone who actually is. It was just you that didn't seem to understand it.

 

[Chief]

It's a different venom. One that purportedly carries the weight of the high moral position, which is the thing that grinds my gears. It's being preached at Vs yelled at. Would rather be yelled at.

Do you think "the far right" (whoever they are) doesn't act like its message has moral authority?

 

[Chief]

Call it what you like but it made a very clear delineation between someone who calls herself a feminist despite lobbying for a regime that oppresses women (won't bother getting too far into her terrorist ties) and someone who actually is. It was just you that didn't seem to understand it.

Ah! Real words!

Good stuff. This is progress. You'll be making a real point and posting supporting evidence in no time!

 

[The Delusionist]

It's a different venom. One that purportedly carries the weight of the high moral position, which is the thing that grinds my gears. It's being preached at Vs yelled at. Would rather be yelled at.

There were white supremacists marching the streets, one of which drove his car into a group of people and killed someone.
And what did we all end up talking about and taking away from the incident?
That ANTIFA is a problem.
And they did it using a 'high moral position'.

This isn't a 'left vs right' thing. This is ideologues getting more and more out of hand. Changing accepted norms to more extreme levels.

 

[11sjw]

Ah! Real words!

Good stuff. This is progress. You'll be making a real point and posting supporting evidence in no time!

Again it was rather self evident (even tied into Lethality 's post #1313 head there if you need help understanding it), seems only you couldn't understand it.

 

[Chief]

Again it was rather self evident (even tied into Lethality 's post #1313 head there if you need help understanding it), seems only you couldn't understand it.

More words! Great! Keep typing, lad! You'll become a world champion and lift your family out of poverty. I can feel it in me water.

 

[The Delusionist]

Call it what you like but it made a very clear delineation between someone who calls herself a feminist despite lobbying for a regime that oppresses women (won't bother getting too far into her terrorist ties) and someone who actually is. It was just you that didn't seem to understand it.

Who is she?
Is she supporting female oppression, or the rights for female's to choose?

If it's in a Western country it would make sense. There are pushes for women to be banned from wearing face coverings in Western societies.

Very different to Muslim countries where women are forced to wear coverings.

 

[King Brown]

Breitbart is well known for its nuanced analysis and honest consideration of opposing views. Not an ounce of venom to be found.

Those chaps marching with mosquito repellent torches or whatever, chanting “Jews will not replace us”? Just looking for venom-free, sophisticated discourse.

Isn't this whataboutism?

What ShanDog is referring too actually isn't really the far left. The idea that certain topics are taboo (ie the kind of thing that will see you lose your income / livelihood) is fairly prevalent in current discourse.

 

[Chief]

Isn't this whataboutism?

No - the argument was that the far left are the most venomous about their prejudices, acting like they have a higher moral authority.

Read on a bit. I pointed out that a) it isn't like they are looking for genocide and b) more to the point, asking if SD thinks that the far right don't think they are acting with moral authority.

 

[ShanDog]

There were white supremacists marching the streets, one of which drove his car into a group of people and killed someone.
And what did we all end up talking about and taking away from the incident?
That ANTIFA is a problem.
And they did it using a 'high moral position'.

This isn't a 'left vs right' thing. This is ideologues getting more and more out of hand. Changing accepted norms to more extreme levels.

I didn't like that narrative either, but there was some clear difference evident after that incident. The extreme left like to play mental gymnastics to justify using violence to combat rhetoric, yet the extreme right will denounce the action of a ******* who thought running over a bunch of ANTIFA flogs was a good idea. Exceptions exists on both counts, but it's there.

Someone has no doubt articulated the difference in discourse between the left and right far better than I could. The far left lose me when they attempt to shame people who don't share their views and act as though they are the true bastions of morality and care for their fellow humans. The far right lose me when they place such constrictive lines around everything so as to deny the grey areas that inhabit every issue, shout and stamp about everything that resembles change and refuse to acknowledge the validity of people's differing viewpoints. It's all crap.

 

[ShanDog]

Read on a bit. I pointed out that a) it isn't like they are looking for genocide and b) more to the point, asking if SD thinks that the far right don't think they are acting with moral authority.

It's not so black and white as I've already said Chief.

If you could possibly boil down the average shouting match between a lift winger and a right winger to identify their meta-narrative, it would be one person shouting "I am better than you" and the other shouting "I am more sensible than you". That's the vibe I get, and I don't claim it as some absolute truth.

 

[Chief]

It's not so black and white as I've already said Chief.

If you could possibly boil down the average shouting match between a lift winger and a right winger to identify their meta-narrative, it would be one person shouting "I am better than you" and the other shouting "I am more sensible than you".

OK, but I can't see how they are any different. Both seem to me to be claims of superiority.

 

[11sjw]

More words! Great! Keep typing, lad! You'll become a world champion and lift your family out of poverty. I can feel it in me water.

Hey thanks for the attempted life tip. Given the amount of stupidity you've shown I might heed those passed on by others.

 

[King Brown]

No - the argument was that the far left are the most venomous about their prejudices, acting like they have a higher moral authority.

Read on a bit. I pointed out that a) it isn't like they are looking for genocide and b) more to the point, asking if SD thinks that the far right don't think they are acting with moral authority.

No, the argument is that the left are more likely react aggressively to people who share similar views to them but disagree on certain points. For example, if you're a left winger who thinks there are fundamental differences between men and women (and have evidence to demonstrate it), you are more likely to be called a member of the alt-right than be engaged in polite discourse. It's like a religious order shunning someone who has transgressed sacred vows, like the Amish.

I don't think anyone on the far right is casting out people who say Jews aren't as bad black people, or whatever minor points of difference they have. At present, you can freely disagree with parts of the far right ideology so long as you agree with core principles, but the orthodoxy of the left is increasing all or nothing. This may change in the future, but that's how it appears at present.

This is what Pinker touched on in his remarks lately - that one side of politics is increasingly strict and doctrinaire about what can and cannot be said, but the other side is more accomodating for alternative view points. And that even though the latter is worse in terms of world view, they can say they are on the side of freedom and facts, even if this itself is also incorrect.

 

[ShanDog]

OK, but I can't see how they are any different. Both seem to me to be claims of superiority.

It's a different kind though. One's an appeal to virtue, the other to pragmatism, I guess. Or perhaps think of it as a horrible relationship where one partner is emotionally abusive and the other is just overtly abusive. Both s**t. But different.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Separate but equal is the theme of the night.