Sexism
Quoting Baden
I was explaining what happens when something is left standing that should have been torn down. The fact that sexist remarks are preserved does give me the feeling that the moderators don't care. I did complain to Unenlightened about it at one point. He said he had passed the info along. Nothing happened.
But if I understand you correctly, you'll delete any future sexist remarks from Agustino if I flag them?
Is that right?
:)
1) Opinion noted, but believe it or not, we don't read every Agustino post (at least I don't) and rely on members to a degree to flag offensive posts. That or a PM is the most direct way of getting something dealt with.
2) Please use the feedback forum if you want to continue this. This discussion is not about Agustino and any more from anyone about him here will be deleted.
I was explaining what happens when something is left standing that should have been torn down. The fact that sexist remarks are preserved does give me the feeling that the moderators don't care. I did complain to Unenlightened about it at one point. He said he had passed the info along. Nothing happened.
But if I understand you correctly, you'll delete any future sexist remarks from Agustino if I flag them?
Is that right?
:)
Comments (286)
Of course. And that's always been the case as per the guidelines. Let's not pretend though that there won't be disagreement over what constitutes a sexist remark.
I can only hope that @Agustino will use this opportunity to try to understand the effect some of his comments have had and will adjust himself accordingly.
Quoting Mongrel
You are such a liar, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Quoting Mongrel
Of course nothing happened, cause none of them were sexist. Please list one single sexist comment I made. As I told you in a PM long ago, you have a mental issue it seems where you perceive regular and normal sentences as sexist. In fact, you said to me in one of your last PMs:
So now please, where the hell are all the people who think that I'm a sexist?! You said everyone thinks I'm a sexist. Let's see the evidence. They can freely speak here, I hold no authority, I'm not even on good terms with the moderators, nobody has any reason to be afraid of me. They can speak their mind. So let's see. But quite the contrary, I predict that many will come to defend me.
Now let's have a look at how crazy Mongrel is. Just look at this:
Now notice. Out of nowhere. The true wacko:
Let's see another example of "sexism":
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Mongrel
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Mongrel
Quoting Mongrel
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Mongrel
Quoting Agustino
And now, because she was proven wrong, not only by me, but also by Thanatos Sand in that thread, look what she does:
Quoting Mongrel
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Every reasonable person will look at Mongrel, and the only plausible reaction will be laughter. Because let me tell you, those crocodile tears of hers, and protestations are nothing but sheer slander. I've never made any sexist comment, unless, of course, you count my arguments against abortion, against casual sex, and such as sexism. Which only a wacko, indeed a true wacko, could think.
Now, back to the topic. Mongrel doesn't understand what sexism is, nor is capable to combat it. If anything, I'm the opposite of sexist, because I respect women. I value women, and they aren't just sexual objects to me. It seems though that Mongrel is upset that women aren't sexual objects to me, because she perceives the freedom of women to be identical to sexual slavery - for her, promiscuous sexual behaviour is freedom. But I argue, as Spinoza did, that quite the contrary, vice and licentiousness is not freedom, but poison, and contrary to the opinion of the dumb majority, it is the ones (both male and female) who give in to their lusts who are in bondage, and those who don't, who are truly free.
I've asked Mongrel multiple times how I or my remarks were sexist. She never said anything, because she slanders based on lies. And why does she slander? Because I'm a conservative, and she has no other way to combat my arguments, but the crocodile tears.
Quoting Mongrel
Lies, lies, lies. First of all, where are the nasty comments?! If you cannot produce these nasty comments, I expect a public apology.
Second of all, you already are peripheralized by the very fact that you cannot have a proper conversation. In the middle of a normal conversation you suddenly call people you converse with sexists, and jerks and other things out of nowhere. That's the behaviour of a crazy person.
Third of all, with regards to sexism, "we the people" have actually declared that we are sexist. That's what they declare everytime when you see advertisements which objectify women and their bodies. That's what they declare every time they admire men like Donald Trump who grab women by the pussy (and most men in the US, by the way, are just like Trump - Trump is the alpha male, they'd all want to be like him). That's what they declare every time when they make everything about a woman her physical beauty. That's what your dear American society is doing, not me. Quite the contrary, Agustino is against and fiercely opposed to the objectification of women's bodies. He is opposed to treating women as sexual objects. He wants women to be valued as human beings, and exposes the hypocritical Western society who claims to oppose sexism, while actually loves it and endorses it with its whole heart - including YOU Mongrel.
If you cannot produce the evidence that I am a sexist, do you agree to receive a warning from the moderators for slander? After all, this is exactly what you are doing. If I was amongst the moderators, I'd certainly give you a warning if you fail to produce the evidence. As I said before with TimeLine, it's unacceptable to accuse someone in the absence of evidence - that's slander, and it makes the forum a worse place for all of us.
Yes of course they will, IF THEY ARE SEXIST. But I don't think you understand what that means. You'll most likely flag my comments about the Orthodox Church or Kierkegaard >:O
Okay, that's enough. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk >:O >:O
[hide="Reveal"]I flagged your comment for sexism, btw. The moderators promised they will delete future sexist remarks from Agustino, you're not Agustino, but hopefully they will remove yours too if I flag them >:O[/hide]
Actually, it's Buxtebuddha since he just trolled me out of nowhere again. It's what people who can't actually contribute tend to do...poor kid.
Rofl. Right on queue, you fucking madman, >:O
>:)
Rofl. The only mad man is you, and your trolling and mad emolji proves it. Keep on causing conflict, though...:)
Because I respond to your trolling? That only makes the children you who aren't here to talk philosophy but immaturely try to get reactions out of people. How sad.
Yes, I am a child and you are my toy! X-)
No, I've clearly made you my toy in our discussions, where you've been left a child well-"spanked"...:)
Oh yes, my butt is red.
I've already pushed too many buttons needing to debunk so many of your arguments, I'll let you figure that out.
Wow, are you making fun of American Indians? You goddamned racist.
On that we can agree...:)
It's nice to know there won't be any more. I just have to remember to flag them when Baden is here. None of the others would do anything about it.
I would rather clean out the NYC sewer system than go rambling through his posts, but you can if you want. It's all there (unless he deleted it himself... which would great.)
How typical.
You don't have any evidence that I ever made any sexist replies. I ask the moderators to come up with a policy against slander, because it's not the first time things like this happen, and it shouldn't, since it makes the forum a worse place for all of us. It's not fair that particular members get accused based on fancy; it's disgraceful.
@jamalrob
@Baden
Looks like somebody's buttons really got pushed...:)
Precisely.
He posts too much for me to do that without losing my mind, :(
Otherwise look at his comments from December of last year. Prior to Trump's taking office his reactionary views were flowing pretty freely.
That's all I really want.. stop saying sexist crap. But no. You've got to turn it back on me like I'm the villain.
He also said in a thread about Trump that most women would enjoy the particular "treatment" he bragged about giving them during the campaign. It was pretty vile.
I am a bit surprised that you decided to take your dispute with Agustino public. I'm not worried about Agustino's feelings -- he's quite capable of taking care of himself. But you're likely to not achieve a great victory in this.
Why don't you give us a string of Agustino's alleged sexist comments? If you reported them by PM to the moderators, then you presumably have them in the record of your PMs.
Quoting Mongrel
Well, dig them up and put them on display.
As for sexism, racism, etc., of course there are sexists and racists here. "We the People" are sexist and racist. Maybe, perhaps, possibly "we the people" wish to be, and it could be that we will be less sexist and racist in the future, and if we do, congratulations to we all. But not yet.
You also: go get the quote and put it up for examination. Why should anyone take your word for it? (And please differentiate between what Trump said and what Agustino said about, or in response to, Trump.
Sigh. I guess nobody cares that I was making about point about the effect of apathy when I brought this up (in another thread).
One of my first big life lessons was that complaining about sexism is pointless. I was working as an engineer at AT&T surrounded by guys. It was the mid-80s. Big shoulder pads. But thanks for wanting to give me a bit of heads up. Jesus. You know, I have noticed that you feel the need to register your apathy every time sexism or racism comes up. Odd.
Quoting Bitter Crank
You think? I wasn't expecting any. Baden told me to respond to his comments in the Feedback section. So I did.
[Comment deleted. Flaming is against the rules]
Now, now...
I do actually resent your response. But I assume you have your reasons. Either way I'm done witcha.
I legitimately cannot tell what's real and what's banter in this thread, but seemingly the burden of proof lies on you.
You pity them, do you? Why, that sounds a bit sexist to me.
[hide="Reveal"]
Likewise, I don't care if Agustino is sexist. I just want him to keep his sexist comments to himself. Now I know that at least Baden will delete his sexist crap. He knows it too.
Yay!
But... this assumes you know what sexism is. If sexism means "whatever Mongrel and Baden deem to be sexist," then anything could be sexist, and that's a recipe for abuse.
(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) :D
Merciful God.
In any case, folks, here are the relevant guidelines:
"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."
"Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied."
So, the best use for this discussion would be to clarify as best we can what we consider sexist and how it will be dealt with.
Quoting Dogar
I didn't feel any lacerations from the verbal lash wielded by our esteemed colleague, Ms. Mongrel, so it would seem that her admonition "Why don't you go fuck yourself" was probably closer to banter than a real suggestion.
Were I to have felt lacerated, it would be evidence that my skin was thinning out -- an unfortunate condition I had suggested that SHE might be suffering from. (I use a personal deflector shield which is fairly effective at neutralizing caustic comments (comments far worse than "go fuck yourself").
My response to you is 100% banter, with just enough edge to it so that if Mongrel read it she will be further annoyed--not annoyed a lot, of course, since this is a civilized cyber salon.
We try not to actually enrage each other because we just never know when someone will finally lose their grip on reality and will tear themselves away from the computer and begin devastating the countryside in acts of appalling mayhem. While the spectacle of wise and learnéd philosophers melting down and going ballistic is really quite interesting, it is dangerous.
I agree that's sexist. Any dissenting opinions?
But yes, that is sexist, and I'm surprised to find that Agustino said that. but it's not a direct quote, so I would appreciate a proper quote so as to see context.
Any off-topic stuff will be deleted. Let's try to stay on track here. (Start a separate discussion if you want to do that.)
How many do you want?
Quoting Agustino
I agree that's sexist (towards the end at least). Any dissenting opinions?
As I said, setting benchmarks here so feel free to pipe in.
This is a statement about his opinion on the state of submissiveness in the sexes. It's not specifically sexist.
Quoting Agustino
Same
Quoting Agustino
No mention of gender
Quoting Agustino
Vague; not a sentiment I would tentatively agree with, but it's hard to know what he means here without more context.
Quoting Agustino
Definitely not sexist.
Quoting Agustino
Definitely sexist.
It is, I suppose, sexist and certainly unflattering. It would be more serious if the comment were directed at women here because it would be more personal and hurtful. Men and women speculate on the motives and flaws of each other's behavior all the time and while it may be sexist and unflattering, it doesn't rise to the level of a "hanging offense".
It may be sexist to suggest that women are not as good at math, or music, or art as men are, but that seems to me to be a possible opinion. Camille Paglia noted in her book Sexual Personae that women have had two centuries of extensive access to art instruction and art materials without producing much notable art. Is that sexist?
Do you disagree that women have lower testosterone levels?
Interestingly enough, the ending is rather reminiscent of the Google memo making headlines at the beginning of this week (which was, as per usual, hilariously misinterpreted by leftists desperate to outleft each other). It could be argued that such claims are considered sexist under neo-cultural Marxist ideology - yet many social scientists would agree that such discourse is and should be up for debate and that more research should be done on the topic. It's not inherently sexist to question the status quo.
Edit: it could also be argued that attempting to silence dissenting views as sexism is in actuality a form of censorship. All of the quotes supplied thus far have been brash and self-assured, sure, but are they really topics we should not contemplate, especially in an era of diversity and identity politics? Can we justify gender quotas et cetera if we are not prepared to ask difficult questions pertaining to their effectiveness? The quotes seem acceptable for discussion to me. In my opinion sexism is too easily thrown around in 2017 as a synonym or excuse for not having to read an opinion one disagrees with.
Edit 2: John Harris' post below me embodies the type of attitude I'm referring too. Delete evil, see no evil, hear no evil, immune to the possibility of ever actually having to debate evil... is this not a philosophy forum I have recently joined? One should be convicted enough in their own beliefs to be capable of challenging them!
Is it bad to say that women aren't ruthless, aggressive, and competitive enough? When did ruthless aggressive competitiveness become a virtue to be prized?
That's the irony of the world we live in. It's wrong for men to force those characteristics on women; but it's liberating for women to force those characteristics on men. Revenge, mothaf***as!
Some people maintain that there just are no differences (other than anatomical) between men and women. It seems to me that evolution would have led to differences beyond the anatomical. But the "biology is not destiny" crowd dislike that kind of idea. To some extent biology is destiny -- Guys, just try to conceive a baby in your belly.
As Freud observed, "People are not masters of their own houses."
This is exactly the problem. "Rules".
It will be easy to identify neo-nazi views--they are (supposedly) outside commonly recognized norms of rational thinking. Racism, homophobia, and sexism, however, fall outside, inside, and astride the commonly recognized norms of rational thinking BECAUSE the book hasn't been closed on what are acceptable and unacceptable ideas about sexuality, race, and homosexuality.
Whoever it was who wrote the guidelines probably had a picture of racists, sexists, and homophobes in their mind, and were confident that they would be able to pick out violations of the rules. Perhaps they can. But it is as likely that the moderators will have fairly fuzzy ideas of how sexists, homophobes, and racists write, and will get it wrong -- at least sometimes. (That's not a deficiency on the part of moderators. It's just life.)
You're not even on the field with such objections. The issue is not that there no difference between any one, but rather that the identification of any such difference is misused.
In the sort of position and questions you are asking, you take difference not to be a measure of someone's behaviour or even competency performing a task, but rather a purveyor of status, that is, the existence of some particular difference gives a certain category of people the right to a certain value, authority or role.
Differences are used in this way to split society into respective teams of value (women and men) and then said difference is used to cordon off a particular social context (e.g. art, math, emotion, etc.) to one particular sex, such that it becomes unthinkable to consider a sex ever possessing authority on that context.
So yes, this sexist. Not because of a lack of differences, but rather because it is born from a use of "difference" which uses it as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The value of any art by women cannot be recognised, for it is outright dismissed, for because of "difference," women just don't do that sort of thing. Bring up the work of a women and the hoops will come out-- "She's not famous enough," "Her work only follows the experiences of a family," "She didn't made enough money," "It's not a totalising work of genius," etc.-- which are laden with dismissive value judgements which lock the work of women out of "notable art" as is required.
Women don't have anything to prove. The abilities of a person or the role they fill isn't dependent on some "difference" they've been assigned because of there category. It just a question of what they do. The status posturing of "prove someone X category" can do this just isn't relevant. If they do, a person will act.
With respect to sexism, the of differences wants no difference. Highly different or completely the same, the sexist nature of the difference argument remains. In either world, it's possible for there to be individuals who break such generalised rules, meaning such rules have no impact with respect to defining the presence of someone who does or doesn't do something.
In this identification of sexism, we move from descriptions or questions which claim status of a particular group (e.g. only men are suited to be leaders because they are more often aggressive, only women are suited to be carers because the are more often nurturing), to descriptions of the people as the exist interacting in society (e.g. this women's art has been dismissed because society has a cultural system which rejects it's value).
The categories "male" and "female" simply have no relevance because they are not any existing person who performs an action or role. Any individual's competence, and so their value at performing a certain task, cannot be measured in such a category.
On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and woman:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/testosterone-rex-stop-blaming-sexism-on-hormones/8310854 [article]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine [article]
https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Myths-Science-Society/dp/0393082083 [book]
On the institutional basis of gender differences in art:
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf [essay, pdf]
On the general myths regarding biological difference and behaviour, with respect to the recent 'Google memo' fracas:
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/08/the-ugly-pseudoscientific-history-behind-that-sexist-google-manifesto/ [article]
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-better-than-women/ [article]
Other resources re: biological difference and behaviour:
https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511
https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Gender-Biological-Theories-Revised/dp/0465047920
--
Re: moderation; I think it is fair to consider the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes as sexist. I think that within certain limits, it is also fair to allow posts that perpetuate those myths to stand, if only so that others can expose them for the myths that they are. Beyond which, as usual, moderation will be contextual.
Quoting Agustino
Noice.
No, postmodernism and other pseudo science is not evidence. Let me provide you with some actual medical articles cited in MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, not philosophy pretending to be science by your favorite authors:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388783/
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v22/n12/full/nm1216-1370.html?linkId=32115028
Quoting StreetlightX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Nochlin - art historian, not a scientist.
Quoting StreetlightX
Bullshit non-medical articles.
Quoting StreetlightX
Academic psychologist.
Quoting StreetlightX
Academic psychologist (same as before).
Sociomedical scientist.
Professor of Biology and Gender studies.
Please give some reputable scientific - not philosophic - discussions of gender differences by actual scientists - I'm referring here to MEDICAL doctors primarily, neuroscientists, and the like.
1. Thanks for the reminder of the context. I still think it's profoundly sexist: you claim to know what women secretly want, and you don't. I think you were sexist towards Mongrel, and to and about TimeLine.
2. Responding to a thread about a complaint with a long diatribe as you did at the beginning of this thread was rude and bullying. It's a rhetorical way of saying, If you complain about me, I'll harangue you in return.
3. To all: this forum has very few women in it. Sometimes it seems to me appallingly like a men's club. Some of the remarks on this thread remind me of blokes either ganging up together, or finding nits to pick when they know in their hearts that the smell of a place is masculine. We should be welcoming to all, and focus on philosophy, not personalities.
None of them are sexist. The middle one saying that women (and men) should be more submissive is a fact. We're all too arrogant. The last one is the only possible one which you can argue about, but it is based on statistical evidence that we have in leadership. If you read the thread, I gave examples of it such as:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2012/04/10/brain-scientists-tackle-possible-biological-basis-for-gender-leadership-gap/#4d5991706154
Now if Stanford brain scientists are sexist for trying to explain the leadership difference through biological differences, then I don't know what planet you are living on. Now science will not be allowed - that's what the postmodernists like StreelightX want - they want to shame science, because it doesn't give them the conclusions that they want.
So you claim that none of the women on TV for that matter want to have sex with Trump or even be dominated be him?! You claim it's incoherent that any of the woman in question have such a desire? Is that your claim? Because I can tell you that most men would want to have sex with someone famous, as would most women, by the way. That's what our society encourages (badly), not me.
Quoting mcdoodle
Can you please cite one instance of me being sexist towards Mongrel or TL?
Quoting mcdoodle
No, I think what's rude is accusing me publicly based on no evidence for being a sexist. That's indeed rude.
Quoting mcdoodle
Agreed. I am welcoming to women, I even speak with some of them frequently via PMs. So I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to me.
Nah, it's pretty fucking disgusting, tempered only by the fact the whole piece of writing is so numbingly overwrought and self-unaware that the only way to read any of it is as inadvertent self-parody.
Re: sources, I've no desire to get into a citation war with you. I'll only mention that (1) to think that issues of gender difference can only be legitimately discussed by medical or scientific sources exclusively is already to illegitimately pre-suppose the terms of discussion, and that (2) your (consistent) inability to see past labels and titles leaves any discussion of substance woefully hollow.
No, they believe in postmodernist philosophy :P
You mean my criticism on doctor's diagnosing people with regards to, especially, mental illnesses? What does that have to do with this? :s Yes I distrust the diagnosis of practicing doctors, not the knowledge that doctors who work in research are accumulating.
You are right, it is. That's why I wrote it, to show how disgusting our society is. It's a critique, not an agreement.
Quoting StreetlightX
Oh, so the issues of gender differences must be discussed by postmodernist feminist philosophers, otherwise they're wrong and have to be shamed in public as you advocated right?
Right, what does this have to do with medical research? :s I clearly trust medical research, otherwise how do you think I gained a decent grasp of medicine? How can I question a doctor and distrust him when he wants to treat me, if not by referring to medical research? :s
I'm not sure that you know what self-parody is, but sure, ok.
Quoting Agustino
For someone who complains about being read badly, you sure have a singular inability to, er, read.
---
I'll also note that that your Forbes article simply points to the sheer fact that the Stanford team are looking into any such differences; it doesn't say anything about the results of any such investigation. The article itself emphasises that much of the difference in gender behaviour is culturally and not biologically accounted for. Again, so much for your reading abilities.
So again, please explain to me how I will distrust my doctor if not by appealing to medical research? I can give you one specific example of when I distrusted my doctor, and we can discuss it if you want. This should be very easy for you to explain, granted that you think my grasp of medicine is minimal (although I've been told my doctors that my grasp is similar to a 3rd year medicine student). In fact, here's an explanation of what can account for shortness of breath to Tiff in the Shoutbox:
Quoting ?????????????
:-}
I believe his claim was just that you don't know that all the women on TV who claim to be disgusted by Trump are just pretending and secretly desire what Trump does to women.
I agree with that though. Of course I don't. I'm arguing that just some of them are like that, of course not all, that would be silly.
So please, I'm waiting for you to respond. You've made two claims, (1) that I have a poor grasp of medicine, and (2) that I'm contradicting myself by distrusting my doctors during treatment and by trusting medical research with regards to gender differences and other things. So now please show us how you're right. Because I think you're just slandering, and you should be ashamed of yourself to tell you the truth.
What did I say about that piece of writing?
Quoting Agustino
Yes, he would have been right if I made that assertion in a context which leaned itself to be interpreted as a categorical statement. But in the context of the rest of the writing, which is just exaggerated for polemical and rhetorical effect, it cannot be interpreted as anything else but hyperbolic.
Yes, how about you worry about Nietzsche's writings then, will you?! If what I wrote is sexist, then what Nietzsche wrote is racist, sexist and psychotic to the extreme. But of course it seems you will selectively distinguish between polemic writing, depending on who the author happens to be.
My other point is that that entire post had nothing to do with gender differences or sexism, but rather the state of Western society. So if to talk about the state of Western society is sexism, then I think you need to check what sexism means. I gave examples of hypocrisy there.
Quoting Agustino
How is this sexist for example?
Quoting Agustino
How is this sexist?! :s
Yes, I generally distrust doctors and favour independent thinking (using your own brain). But what do you need to do to think independently? Don't you need to know medicine?! If you don't know medicine, how will you be able to think independently? It's not that hard is it?!
Oh.
Quoting StreetlightX
So based on 10% or less of that post, you call it a polemic sexist piece of writing, and yet nobody said it was sexist. Great.
Yes, it's sexist and arguably misogynist. You context didn't help things at all. It was sexist polemic writing, and its hyperbole to emphasize things doesn't change that. And many great philosophers have been very sexist; that doesn't help you.
But keep defending that sexist passage, Augustino. You'll just keep digging a hole you should probably start filling.
Care to explain why?
Where?
:s So then you did call it sexist, and then you said
Quoting StreetlightX
Great!
You can't honestly be this dense.
Oh, so then the entire posting wasn't a polemic sexist piece of writing right? Now we're getting somewhere.
So don't you have to read the supposed "polemic sexist piece of writing" in the context of the rest of the post, which isn't a polemic sexist piece of writing? :s
Just as if I were to say "London is the capital of England and women are inferior to men" then my statement would be sexist, even though my claim that London is the capital of England isn't.
Perhaps others have a different opinion, but for me hyperbole tends to significantly lessen an argument's overall effect. Maybe among the general populace it works better than moderation and subtlety, but I'd imagine it's unnecessary and even counter-productive here.
I also vaguely recall the debate form which these quotes were drawn, and remember thinking to myself something along the lines of, "This is unfortunate since I really respected the intelligence and character of this guy."
But anyway, I think you're a great poster overall, and I can appreciate those like you who challenge dominant values and beliefs. JS Mill's On Liberty has always resonated with me a great deal, and I appreciate seeing ideas defeated rather than silenced.
Do the authors that SX cited work in the field of medical research? My point in replying to SX was not that his citations have no value, but rather that the issue is a lot more controversial than he wants to claim it to be:
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
So apparently he thinks these things are definitely myths which need to be exposed and shut down, even though many who engage in medical research have uncovered scientific evidence that there exist biological differences between the sexes. I linked him to several articles that he has ignored. Instead, he will hold tight to his prejudice.
Doesn't make a difference. But I've reached the limit of your equivocations. You're on notice for what is and is not considered sexist here, whether you like or agree with it.
Okay, so let's discuss this from the ground up then. Why do you think that specific part was sexist?
Hi, I have a quick question about the forum guidelines: what exactly counts as a nazi sympathiser?
1) Being a nazi
2) Promoting being a nazi
3) Not having any strong opinions on nazism, including not having anything against it
4) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to their opinion
5) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to spread their ideas
6) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to, well, do anything, including killing people
7) Justifying nazism with cultural relativism
The first two and last two probably count, but especially #2 and #3 are unclear. What about the last one as a provocative thought experiment? #justcurious
-BlueBanana
Let me tell you what counts towards being a Nazi. We all remember our friend who was unfairly banned for "being a Nazi", even though he was no Nazi:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/57934#Post_57934
Apparently if you hold some right-wing views that's sufficient.
Well they clearly can't cite the research I've cited, because that would be against their own assessments. Furthermore if they do, it might be only to criticise it, but since the research is reporting facts - biological differences - they'd have to deny them.
Quoting ?????????????
Some of them are pseudo-scientific since they're not written by scientists with expertise in medicine, neuroscience, and the like.
Quoting ?????????????
As someone's thinking about the issues, yes of course. They'd be an interesting perspective, but if they deny scientific facts, as SLX made it sound, then they're certainly wrong. When it comes to what the facts are, we should listen to researchers who actually work in the domain, not philosophers.
Ah, so that's your goal. I see.
It seems so.
The whole premise of the statement and the value by which the polemic functions is sexist. It's outright rape apology, drawn out of the notion a women is their for whatever the rich man wants to do. Any question of what a women thinks or is interested is rejected in favour of assuming a (the problem is merely defined by you saying "all," but any) woman wants some sort of sexual attention just because a man is rich/famous and he wants to harass them.
Even a woman who was attracted to a famous rich man would fall under these concerns. Attraction is not the same as a desire to engage in sexual activity, let alone sexual activity in a public space (or close to a public space) with a famous rich man who you're never going to see again.
No, that can't be the case because I think rape, including grabbing women by the pussy and the things Trump advocated are wrong (that's one of the things my post criticised - that the world pretends to hate Trump, but actually voted for him). So how does your interpretation square with this fact? How can I be an apology for rape culture when I claim precisely that neither men nor women should use sex in the manners that they do use it?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Okay, agreed. So what's your point? :s
The world didn't vote for Trump. 62,979,879 people voted for Trump. And I'm sure a good number of those voted for Trump only because he was a Republican or only because he wasn't Hillary. There is a good amount of genuine hate for Trump.
Do you agree that a majority, or at least close to a majority voted for Trump? Again, a polemical writing uses hyperbole to make a point. Do you actually think I meant to say that the world - namely China, India, etc. - voted for Trump? :s How can you interpret that writing so stupidly and literarily?!
:s "Mine" is just the scientific facts I cited in the articles linked. Those scientific facts weren't recorded or written by me.
Apart from quoting different sentences and calling them crap, you've proved nothing. Even a child can do the same thing. Thanks for admitting you're here just to throw stones.
Yes, largely because 50% of that is sexist. If you wrote an entire essay of 5000 words, which contained the sentence "women are inferior to men" in one single random instance which had little to do with the topic of the essay, the essay wouldn't be sexist. That sentence may be sexist, but not the essay.
No, a majority didn't vote for Trump. There are 7 billion people in the world, 323 million people in the United States, 231 million eligible voters in the United States, and 129 million actual votes were cast. Trump's 63 million isn't a majority by any measure. And I don't know if 46% of the actual votes cast counts as close to a majority.
Then who were you referring to when you said "[the world] actually voted for him"? And who were you referring to when you said "the world pretends to hate Trump"? Is this some false equivalency where you're using the term "world" to refer to two different groups of people? In which case your criticism of hypocrisy rests on a very obvious and nonsense equivocation.
The best you can do is claim that anyone who hates Trump but voted for him is a hypocrite. And I'd agree.
Which is another problem especially since most moderators lean on the same side with regards to their personal political and religious views. We should try to have a balanced moderator team, without an overwhelming number leaning towards one side. I've criticised this many times before, and even nominated people I'd think would make great moderators, but alas, they don't seem to be interested in altering the moderator team.
I referred to the same group of people. The majority who voted for him. The polls were wrong because many people were dishonest with the polls, but not dishonest in the voting booth.
What? It is a fact that Trump received 46.1% of the votes. That's not a majority.
Furthermore, the vast majority of the people who hate and criticise Trump didn't vote for him, so your accusation of hypocrisy against Trump-haters in general doesn't work.
Again, the best you can say is that anyone who hates Trump but voted for him anyway is a hypocrite. But that number is going to be even less than the 46.1% who voted for him (and he does have genuine supporters, given his current 34% approval rating). Definitely not a majority.
Right, so I couldn't be referring to that right? Or do you take it that I'm just very dumb and ignorant and am not aware of the population of the world vs the population of the US?
Quoting Agustino
You never addressed those points.
To get Agustino under watch and eventually banned ;)
So who are you referring to when you say "the world hates Trump"? And who are you referring to when you say "the world voted for Trump"? Because it's pretty obvious that these are two separate groups (with perhaps only a small overlap). Most of his haters didn't vote for him, and I'm sure a lot of his voters don't hate him (or even pretend to hate him).
Clearly you don't think it's wrong enough to be honest about it.
You would spread the myth that, somehow, being on TV means a woman wants to be harassed or assaulted. You would approve the falsehood that a women on TV who is attracted to a foamier, rich man desires to be harassed and/or assaulted. You would claim opposition to the harassment and assault of women who appear on TV, is somehow inconsistent with those women appearing on TV, as the women on TV "really wanted it."
The polemic itself is based on sexist values. That, somehow, the right of women not to be subjected to harassment and assault, is dependent on their own behaviour, as if "women who appear on tv" were to be justly subjected to some sort of corrective harassment or assault.
Okay, so let's look at it. Finally we have an explanation that we can discuss intelligently!
Quoting Agustino
I think that quite the contrary I made disparaging remarks about women on TV on the basis that they're HYPOCRITES - and I may be wrong that they are (certainly that's what you will claim) - NOT on the basis that they're women.
No, you're accusing them of hypocrisy because you believe that they secretly desire him. But on what grounds do you base this accusation/belief? On the grounds that they're women, and according you women desire men like Trump.
No, that's not at all true. I don't understand how you essentially tie being on TV with hypocrisy. I'm criticising hypocrisy, and giving the example of "the women on TV" to do it. The fact that they are women, and that they are on TV are secondary to the underlying hypocrisy that my post is targetting. Namely that our society wants to abolish sexism on the surface - we criticise Trump on TV and in the polls - but in the voting booth we cast our votes for him.
So if Trump was gay, and he grabbed men by the whatever, and I therefore said that men on the TV pretend to hate Trump but actually love him and desire what he'd do to them, would I be a sexist? Or is it only being a sexist when the same is said with regards to women?
No, the accusation that they desire him isn't based on their sex, but rather on their lust combined with their heterosexuality and the values of our society. We encourage people - both men and women - to want to have sexual intercourse with rich and famous people. If Trump was attracted to men, I would've said the same thing about them.
But that's just the problem-- they're aren't hypocrites. Even if they were attracted to Trump, they could still object to his harassment and assault without any issue. They could even vote for him and they still wouldn't be hypocrites in identifying his sexist behaviour, harassment and assault of women.
For the argument of your polemic to function, you have to equivocate attraction with consent, voting for Trump with identifications of his sexist character, etc. For you polemic to have any force, you literally have to believe a lie, confuse the significance of different actions for each other.
If a woman wants a man to touch her, is that assault if the man touches her? I am condemning their lust in that part - namely that they secretly desire such things - NOT excusing Trump. Trump's behaviour is still immoral - EVEN IF - they actually do want to be touched by him.
Depends on why you believe that the men on TV secretly desire it. If it's because they're men, and you believe that men desire this kind of attention from men like Trump, then you're making a disparaging remark about people based on a stereotype of their gender. That's sexism. If, however, your accusation has nothing to do with their gender then no, it wouldn't be.
So you're claiming that heterosexual women are lustful and desire the sexual attention of men like Trump, and so the heterosexual women on TV are hypocrites who secretly desire Trump. That's a disparaging remark about people based on a stereotype of their gender, i.e. sexism.
Even worse, if we do consider people who are hypocrites, that is, who calling we ought to disavowal Trump becasue of his sexism but who then turn around and vote for him, their statements are actually trustworthy with respect to the given moral goal.
If it were true, as the hypocrite stated, that we ought not vote for Trump because of his sexism, then we'd ought to agree with the statement, even if the person ended up being a hypocrite and voted for Trump.
I think some of them secretly desire Trump's attention because we are educated, as a society, to draw self-esteem from sex, especially with people in a position of authority/power. That's why people, including women, do sometimes desire that. As you can see, it's a critique of a social value - women on TV in this case are just an example.
Quoting Michael
Yes, except that it's not their gender which causes them to desire attention from men like Trump, but their values.
This one may be even worse than the original post.
Care to explain why? If a woman actually wants to be touched by a man, that isn't assault, by definition it's not assault. Now if the woman doesn't want to be touched, then yes, that would be assault.
And I've stated that Trump's behaviour (touching them) would be immoral even if they wanted to be touched in that post. So how you can possibly claim that's sexist, I have no idea.
That's incoherent. If a woman had consented, it would not be assault or harassment, whether it was immoral or not.
This instance cannot be applied to any instance of harassment or assault we might be talking about. If we are talking about an instance of assault or harassment, the morality of a consensual activity isn't at stake.
Sure, I agree with this.
Your argument says otherwise. You're tying the immorality of sexual harassment and assault to that of consensual lust, as if the two were equivalent. The polemic supposed that, if one is to be against the immorality of sexual assault and harassment, then then they must also be against consensual lusts.
The hypocrisy is supposedly defined by someone being against sexual harassment or assault but for consensual lusting, as if being against the former mean you must be against the latter. This is simply not true. One is free to attack the immorality of sexual assault and harassment while also accepting consensual lustings. The former is a different question of value than the latter, no matter how moral or immoral consensual lustings might be.
No, the "retarded" one is clearly you. In this vile post of yours, you claim that it is not assault to grope a woman if she actually wanted it, which is defending sexual assault. And instead of condemning the assaulting male, you condemn the assaulted woman--pure sexism. And then you continue your vile sexism by asserting the women want to be groped when you have no reason to believe or know that at all.
That is pathetic, and sickening, and you and I are done. I have no more time for your sexist filth.
Well is it assault if you grope a woman who wants you to grope her, maybe even asks you to grope her?! :s
Quoting John Harris
Sorry to tell you, but there's no other possible conclusion. IF a woman wants it - then she is not assaulted. IF she is assaulted - then she doesn't want it. You can't have it both ways. Do you understand that?! Now you can say that I am wrong, that the women on TV don't want it, and would therefore be assaulted, sure! But you can't say that I am a sexist.
Also I did condemn the male, in fact I condemned the male EVEN IF the woman in question wants it, since I condemn the lust of the activity first and foremost. The assault itself presupposes lust, so striking at lust is striking at the root of the problem.
And you just proved you should have addressed this to you...:)
Well, let's consider a hypothetical scenario where a woman wants to be groped but tells you not to grope her. Is consent (or lack thereof) defined according to desire or by words?
Let's consider another hypothetical scenario where a woman doesn't want to be groped but tells you that you can grope her because of social or peer pressure say. Is consent defined by her words or by her desire?
That wasn't the scenario. So, you're moving the goalposts just further shows how wrong you were.
In practice, by words, since we cannot with great certainty predict her real desires. But theoretically, it is by her desire, not by her words. If she says yes, but physically resists it for example, then it would be assault to grope her.
And the women in your scenario never said yes, so you're moving the goalposts again. You keep showing how wrong you were.
Quoting Agustino
And you keep proving I'm right since you fail to even address my correct argument and fall back on sad childish personal attacks. Now you're sexist and a troll. And I'm talking to a sexist much less intelligent than me.
Her desire. That's why you have to be thinking about others. One cannot just treat words as a permission slip. You have to be considering what another person thinks and wants.
I agree :)
But you didn't agree in this previous statement, since you said a woman who wants groping, but doesn't give consent, is not assaulted if groped.
You're not very good at this, sexist. I suggest you go back under that bed you're probably already occupying...:)
As much as it brings joy to my heart to be reminded of those events, we're not here to talk about vacuumbrain or whatever the Nazi sympathizer's name was. Any more off-topic stuff will be deleted.
I've been getting a lot of PMs lately so I've had to prioritize. If you want to open a separate discussion, feel free.
And here again, Agustino blames the woman's desire and says it is enough to merit unsolicited groping.
And what if they say "no"? Can we just treat the words as a rejection, or do we have to consider what they think and want, and plough ahead if we think they secretly desire it?
Is it a case of erring on the side of caution, where "no" means no but "yes" doesn't always mean "yes"?
As I said, in practice you're best off - generally - to listen to the words, especially if they're a no. But this doesn't mean that the words are where consent is coming from.
When you start an engagement with that hostile tone, it's clear the only bitter one is you.
Why are you asking these confrontational questions? Do you have sexist views you feel are being threatened?
You haven't been causing problems lately as far as I know. If you could just acknowledge your past comments have caused offence, and show a bit more restraint in future, we could move on. We don't have many female members here and we're not going to if they feel the environment is not conducive to their presence. Also, the guidelines are the guidelines.
This is a standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use to justify rape or assault of those who havent given verbal consent. Unbelievable.
Whatever. I completely understand why I want to ignore you. And I'm starting now.
Tiff, TimeLine (not anymore because she sent me a PM saying she's gone to work on a documentary), Mongrel, River and Lone Wolf are just some quick examples which come to mind.
Quoting Baden
That they have caused offence to some people I can acknowledge (and I apologise to those they have offended), but I believe it's important to discuss whether or not they were sexism. For example the comment in my long post in the Post Truth thread, as I was discussing with Michael here, can hopefully be regarded in the context of the essay, and isn't sexism. The critique wasn't based on a discrimination of their gender, but rather on our social values, which apply to men and to women equally. So please join in the discussion and let's see what you find sexist in it if you do, and let's discuss it. This is important.
Says someone who is sitting behind a screen and hypocritically judging me. How lame.
Goodbye, Beebee
Yes, it is the standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use. But why is it wrong when they use it? Because they're lying about the intentions of the woman. The woman doesn't want to have sexual intercourse with them (exemplified by her words, by her physical resistance, etc.), but they WRONGLY claim she does. For if she truly did want to have sex with them, it would not be assault.
This guy really can't stop digging his sexist hole. Unbelievable.
I think you'll get banned even before I do, to tell you the truth >:O
Quoting Agustino
I have.
I really appreciate that you think it's a serious accusation. I take it seriously. Agustino has made a lot of sexist remarks on this forum and we've gotten in the habit of ignoring it. I realize it can be hard to draw a line, but the suggestion that women want to be assaulted should clearly be recognized as a particularly ugly kind of sexism.
I've never been much of a flagger, but when I'm here I'll start using it to point out offensive comments.
I think most of the men on this forum are not sexist... which is awesome. The sexist ones just tend to be louder.
Well actually Mongrel does usually privately apologise, to her credit:
But of course, it's always after she publicly accuses and offends.
That's a contradiction in terms, I never asserted women want to be assaulted. If they want to have intercourse, then they can't be assaulted, since assault presupposes they don't want it and are forced to do it.
That's false. There's so far only ONE accusation of a sexist statement that we haven't yet got around to discussing. The others have been discussed, and hopefully I've shown how they're not sexist. Furthermore, several other members have argued that they're not sexist either. It seems that you will ignore everyone and stick to your false beliefs, as you often do. You are very deluded, about sexism, about America, and about a host of other issues as well.
None of these are sexist. Furthermore, you're the kind of crazy who even thought that thread was sexist and was actually started by another account of mine (Thinker) :s - then of course you apologised about it. You seriously have some mental health issues that you need to address. You seem to have a phobia regarding sexism, that you just can't discuss issues regarding the different genders without feeling there's sexism involved. If someone asks if women are more submissive than men, that's sexism to you. You even started another thread back then about it and desperately PMed moderators to delete that thread. Holy moly...
And to put things in perspective I don't think the other women on these forums found that thread sexist at all. One woman (River) even said she likes to be dominated actually. So I absolutely don't think this has to do with "protecting female members" or some such bullshit. I think most people are mature and rational enough to discuss these issues without getting offended or spewing hatred like you tend to do (there's a few others such as SLX who show such an inability).
Now this statement is still under question given Michael's definition of sexism. But we haven't yet got around to discussing it. I'm still trying to see if Baden and Michael are on boat with the Post-Truth comment before we discuss this one, where we'll also discuss whether biological differences between the genders count as sexism, or how sexism should be defined granted that there are such differences as a matter of fact. This will illuminate how such issues must be discussed and addressed in the future.
More accurately, the one who leaves after admitting the other person isn't wrong.
>:O >:O Yes, there are some people like that. I don't understand why they behave so strangely, and even how they can live in this world like that. It seems they've all internalised the Hollywood modern pop culture to me with its set of stock answers.
For example, this is a true statement. But Hollywood and our pop culture act disgusted when they hear it. Fake disgust of course. The fact it's true is exactly why rapists try to use it as a defence. Otherwise why would they even try to use it to defend themselves? :s After all no sane rapist would say that women want to be assaulted/raped - that would be a self-contradictory statement as I have just shown.
The point that has to be distinguished is that when a rapist uses it, they LIE about the woman's desire to have intercourse with them. They say she wants it, while actually she clearly didn't want it, as evidenced by her words, her physical resistance and so forth. Now practically speaking the only way we know what others want is through what they say and how they act. So the rapist should have assumed, based on her words and her deeds, that she doesn't want to have sexual intercourse with him. Since her words and her deeds are the only sources of knowledge he has access to with regards to what she actually desires. So he is lying because he's saying the woman wanted it but at the same time denying what the sources of evidence he had available with regards to her actually suggest she desired. So he's affirming she desired sex, contrary to all evidence available. His affirmation can only be based on his imagination - what he wanted reality to be like - and not on what reality actually was like. So that's why what he's doing is disgusting - it's not because he uses that statement.
Where?
Quoting Baden
I'm not at all clear about what is expected, and I suppose most other members aren't either. They will speak for themselves though. All I know is no sexism (I knew that before too!). But what is sexism? We haven't discussed that at all. All we've heard is a bunch of people saying my statements weren't sexist, and another bunch saying they were. Great. So what are we to understand from that? And you're telling us that it should be clear what is to be expected...
To establish guidelines we have to come to a common understanding, which we by all means haven't.
And how is that any different to what you were saying about the women on TV?
Because I was discussing a hypothetical scenario where what I said about them held true (and therefore there would be no assault involved). The rapist isn't discussing a hypothetical scenario, he's actually carrying it out. That's the difference between practice and theory. As I told you before, in theory it's their desire which determines whether there is consent or not. In practice, it's their words and behaviour, since we cannot determine their desire except through those means.
I'm not talking about the actual act of having sex. I'm talking about his defence. You're condemning his claim that the women wanted it, despite their actual words, whilst at the same time claiming that the women on TV want Trump, despite their actual words.
He's lying (or mistaken) about what women secretly want but you're not?
Pretty much. I mean there are certain role playing situations where one might define exceptions, but short of that one has to treat a "No" as genuine.
Would you ever be comfortable continuing were your partner to suddenly interject "No?" No-one can honestly just continue and claim to be concerned about another's well-being. If we are thinking of others, a sudden "no" prompts clarification if something is wrong.
This isn't a "hypothetical" at all. Agustino is now resorting to lying about his sexist post
Yes, which is entirely possible. We're discussing theoretically, not practically. If you asked me whether Trump would assault them if he grabbed them by the pussy while they said they don't want to be grabbed, I would say of course he'd be assaulting them! Because that's a practical situation.
In the theoretical situation, where we talk about their desire independently from their words - because they could afterall say they don't want it, while in truth they do - people often do that - then the discussion doesn't occur on the practical level.
Not from me. That's sexist.
Quoting Baden
Again, not from me. That last paragraph is sexist, and it reminds me of that tripe from that former Google employee that has recently made the news.
So in theory Trump isn't a rapist but in practice he is?
IF the women on TV want to have sex with him while saying they don't, he's not a rapist. If he actually tries to have sex with a woman on TV who tells him she doesn't want to, then yes, he would be one.
Now answer this Michael.
You asked for opinions on whether certain of Agustino's comments were sexist and got mixed replies. The policy statement is not in question, but whether you are an adequate judge of what constitutes sexism. My hope would be that you let the person accused appeal their case, as Agustino has done in this thread, before removing posts.
As much as you are loathe to talk about our dear old friend Emptyheady, he is precisely the reason why I and others are suspicious of moderation here, especially when it comes to political and social issues. Mongrel told BC to go fuck himself earlier in the thread, apparently in jest. That post is still up. If Agustino told someone to do the same, would you also leave it alone? Judging by the discussion in this thread, it seems that a lot of people refuse Agustino the ability to make similarly "hyperbolic" statements. Instead, they read the worst possible motive into his posts. I have found that if you press Agustino on statements you find prima facie absurd or offensive, using the same hyperbolic method he employs, he will eventually acknowledge your criticism and revise his statements so that you understand what he's trying to say.
Why is it hard to say? It's a relatively simple matter. You said that it's sexist because it's based on gender discrimination - namely that they secretly want to have sex with Trump because they're women. I showed you that it's not based on sexual discrimination - they could be men (if Trump was gay) in the same way. Rather it's based on their lust and values - which are used as an example of our society's hypocritical values that I'm aiming to criticise. You then stopped commenting and replying to those posts. Why?
Yeah... that's pretty much the sexism people have been hitting you for. Under that "theory", all women are equated as wanting their assualt or harassment, are projected as "untrustworthy" in any instance where they've been reportedly harassed or assaulted.
It's rape apology because it is a "a theory" which imagines a world that replaces the actual "practical" one in which people live. The use of such "theory" is to literally imagine a world in which unsolicited sexual attention or action doesn't violate consent and amount to harassment or assualt.
Ressentiment! Ressentiment! Stop this.
Well he has to make a practical judgement about what the women want in a situation where he's actually confronted by a woman saying no, and even physically resisting him, etc.
I don't, I'm making a theoretical judgement about their values based on what they say, and how I suppose they'd actually act if given the chance to act. And for some of the women on TV I'd be right. On camera they'd say they hate Trump, while behind closed doors, they'd be partying with him (or having sex with him or whatever).
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, I haven't replaced reality with my theory at all.
Because I don't know if making disparaging remarks about both men and women in general counts as sexism against both sexes or if it counts as misanthropy.
Quoting Agustino
I don't think I said anything about discrimination. I said that if you make a disparaging remark about someone based on a gender stereotype then you're being sexist. The ambiguity is in interpreting a claim like "people secretly want to have sex with people like Trump". Does it count as both a stereotype of (gay) men and a stereotype of (straight) women or just a stereotype of men-liking people?
I'm at work and so shouldn't be posting at all. :-*
Mongrel, I genuinely care when someone speaks with their heart and I will listen with mine. I am only on page 2 of 13 on this thread but I can tell you that I appreciate anytime you bring up personal experiences of you life lessons because there is often something I can relate to. While I realize that as gender we are in the extreme minority on any philosophy forum, I find it incredibly valuable to have the perspective and expression of another woman. I can count on two hands the female "thinkers" that I have known over decade and I am almost always sorry when they pull back.
My fellow thinkers, all we have is each other to learn from since none of us came with an instruction manual and hard as we may try and as empathetic as we may allow ourselves to be, it is impossible to experience the same life events as the thinker next to us. It is for that reason that some words should be measured before used, some thoughts might be better left unsaid and genuine apologies should never be considered a loss in a battle of ideas.
Just my two cents, that no one asked for. So if I can get my change, I will be on my way.
By your own terms it would count as sexism if it's based on their gender. And presumably it would count as misanthropy if it's based on their humanity. I'd say it's neither. It's based on their values.
Quoting Michael
But it wasn't based on gender stereotype. It was based on our social values, which as I've said encourage self-esteem associated with sexual intercourse, especially if that sexual intercourse is done with people "high" on the social ladder. All this while also discouraging publicly admitting to such things as immoral, etc. Hence the hypocrisy.
~raising an eyebrow
Could you please explain why HR people are to be laughed at and shunned?
But that's the only way the argument works. It needs people to function by this theory. That, somehow, they world is full of women who want unsolicited sexual attention and groping, such that they would be lying when the came out and said: "I was harassed and/assaulted."
Your argument doesn't function unless this particular theory is true of people in the world. We can't take that theory as true without repeating the rapist's fantasy that their victims actually wanted it. In practice, it's just repeating the idea women just want whatever attention a man gives them, especially if they only say "no" and don't get into a big fight when he doesn't stop.
The argument isn't about any actual act of sex, but rather about the values of the people. It's not even about the fact they're women. That is only relevant because Trump is heterosexual. If he was gay, I would've used men in the example. The example illustrates what they say on TV vs how they behave, act, think and speak behind closed doors.
I think the deeper problem is that such passionate individuals often make others look at themselves honestly for the first time.
I mean, the reason why Mongrel is upset isn't because I'm a sexist, but rather because she fears her society is sexist. Which is true - it is sexist! So she wants to shut me up, only because she wants to avoid the truth - she thinks that if she silences someone pointing to the truth and removing our hypocritical façade, then she'll no longer have to face it.
What else, but a Trump, can you expect to emerge out of this?! Trump is a national hero - he's what every man aspires to be (hopefully people do read this hyperbolically and don't really think I think EVERY man wants to be like Trump). And this is a criticism, not a praise of our culture. Our culture is so terrible and rotten morally speaking that it produces sexism! It is the cause of sexism.
What relevance can it have then?
We are talking about actions, about the way people act towards women and how these actions relate to the valuing of women-- namely that the sort of argument you made equivocates women as the things for male sexual authority, such that harassment and rape are considered myths because women "always want it."
You are replacing the question of action, that is assault and harassment in the world, with your "theory and value", as if that could represent the actual world we are speaking about. The way the argument works is to imagine the women you are speaking about are only values, which must fit this "theory", rather recognising they are people in the actual world.
You think you can talk about this issue while ignoring the actual world in which women are assaulted and harassed. That's sexism. You replace living women with your imagined theory of values.
The argument isn't about women, sexism and harrassment though. It's about public vs private life of the women on TV. Read this again:
Quoting Agustino
What is the TV? The TV is a metaphor for public life. And what are their secret desires? That's how they act in private life. So in public - on camera, on TV - they say "No, we hate Trump!". And in private, they call Trump and say "Mr. Trump, we want to spend time with you!".
Agustino, please put the shovel down with the personal assessments of others thoughts.
I know that, but the argument supposedly reflects what women want, such that they would be hypocrites for taking issue with harassment and assualt in public life. You can't make that connection without repeating the myth women want to be assaulted and harassed.
If no woman wants what you say, your hypocrisy argument doesn't run. The women in question would just be arguing against others who are responsible for assualt and harassment.
No, the argument neither suggests this, nor affirms this. First of all, the similarity wouldn't hold precisely because they do take issue with regards to assault in public and in private equally much. Their secret desire isn't to be assaulted.
...in which case they wouldn't be hypocrites at all and your theory only has application in your wild imaginings.
Because they're in the business of brainwashing.
:s
Again. The argument is that they hate Trump in public, but love him in private. Is that hypocritical? Yes. There's NOTHING - ZERO - about any kind of assault here.
I am going to walk away believing you mean that in jest.
@Mongrel
I only recently began reading this discussion, and when I noticed that comment, I raised the issue in the moderator forum. If it was in jest, then that wasn't clear to me. I took it to be flaming, and I have since deleted that part of the comment. Flaming is against the guidelines and will not be tolerated.
Then why are you making arguments like it is? What relevance does whether some women on TV denounces Trump's sexism, but still likes him, have to the question of harassment and assualt? Why you would suggest these women wanted to be subjected to actions as performed by Trump in his instances of harassment and assualt?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Read the paragraph again. What is the first sentence? The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them.
The second sentence is an example of this. The women - ON TV - pretend to be disgusted at Trump (based on what he does to women). But secretly, they all desire it. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone in the booth, they place their vote on him. Etc. All of them are contrasts of public vs private life. So no, there's no question of adopting the rapist theory or whatever of that sort.
The salient point of course is that these women in the example don't claim in private that they don't want to have sex with Trump. They only claim that in public, on TV, not behind closed doors.
Believe what you like.
In general (not picking on any particular person here): bossiness, argumentiveness, name-calling and labeling, swearing, nay-saying, pedantic comments, lecturing, going off-topic, self-righteousness, demanding others answer one's questions, etc. are "alpha male" type traits that wear out one's welcome. If the conversation were in person, things like shouting and being physically intimidating would fit this pattern. It absolutely doesn't NOT matter what the gender is of the person committing these errors. A woman could commit these behaviors just the same as men. Thankfully, no one person embodies all of these extreme, pushy, over-ripe qualities. I know i have erred similarly in my life, though I try to avoid that on this forum. But anyone is apt to be mistaken in judgment or in knowledge from time to time.
If someone here doesnt AT LEAST understand that there is some truth in this statement, I am beginning to be worried.