welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Feminism because why not make a thread for it?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 99, 100, 101 ... 312, 313, 314  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You really like adding subtle hints of insults in your posts, don't you? Also, I couldn't help but notice you didn't jump to the challenge of mentioning other people who've commited these grave crimes of "failing not to generalise" in this thread, instead choosing to specifically target me as if I'm the sole culprit of such an offense.

If I focus on the negative things, it might be because I decide to focus on them deliberately and saying 'I disagree with this' (point) and not being vague and, dare I say, general? about it. When you disagree with something, it tends to be something you feel is a negative aspect. But do I continually do it? Well, considering that in this thread the focus has become a pissing match whenever someone disagrees (vehemently or otherwise) rather than actual calm and rational discourse (which you've mastered, Bart, you crafty Dutchman), and in my case it's been justifying things wrongly attributed to me, I haven't really been given the chance to provide positions for or against it. Then again, I've continually said -- in this thread -- that I've got nothing against feminism. I've instead focused on the individuals, the feminists. Like Dworkin. Like Watson. Like McCreight. But the focus is turned back to me (and not because I want it to), for which I'm ironically accused of derailing the thread. So if you will, Bart, don't have me derail this thread by focusing your vitriol on me.

Quote:
Edit; To clarify a bit more, you're behaviour in this thread is a bit like a person saying he's not racist while posting a few dozen news articles which curiously all have black persons committing crimes. If you truly have a nuanced view of feminists, you might want to show this in your posts instead of just saying "I'm not generalizing".

... So calm, but not necessarily rational? Try again.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
You really like adding subtle hints of insults in your posts, don't you?


Don't pretend to miss the point of my posts and I won't insinuate you're stupid. Deal ?

Guest wrote:
Also, I couldn't help but notice you didn't jump to the challenge of mentioning other people who've commited these grave crimes of "failing not to generalise" in this thread, instead choosing to specifically target me as if I'm the sole culprit of such an offense.


No I didn't. Of course I didn't. I'm not going to plough through a 100 page thread to humour you. I'm focussing on you because you happened to be the last person posting with whom I strongly disagreed (and that I strongly disagreed with a number of your posts earlier in the thread didn't help.) If you feel unfairly targeted because of this then so be it.

Guest wrote:
If I focus on the negative things, it might be because I decide to focus on them deliberately and saying 'I disagree with this' (point) and not being vague and, dare I say, general? about it. When you disagree with something, it tends to be something you feel is a negative aspect. But do I continually do it? Well, considering that in this thread the focus has become a pissing match whenever someone disagrees (vehemently or otherwise) rather than actual calm and rational discourse (which you've mastered, Bart, you crafty Dutchman), and in my case it's been justifying things wrongly attributed to me, I haven't really been given the chance to provide positions for or against it. Then again, I've continually said -- in this thread -- that I've got nothing against feminism. I've instead focused on the individuals, the feminists. Like Dworkin. Like Watson. Like McCreight. But the focus is turned back to me (and not because I want it to), for which I'm ironically accused of derailing the thread. So if you will, Bart, don't have me derail this thread by focusing your vitriol on me.


So basically, you acknowledge that in this thread you've been focussing on feminists that you think are wrong, but you're mad because people get the impression that you're completely anti-feminism. Look, if you go on and on about what you think is wrong, you can put "but I have nothing against feminism though" at the bottom of every post, people will not believe you. (BTW, I'm Belgian)

Quote:
Quote:
Edit; To clarify a bit more, you're behaviour in this thread is a bit like a person saying he's not racist while posting a few dozen news articles which curiously all have black persons committing crimes. If you truly have a nuanced view of feminists, you might want to show this in your posts instead of just saying "I'm not generalizing".

... So calm, but not necessarily rational? Try again.


I have no clue what you're trying to say here. What exactly is irrational ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
You really like adding subtle hints of insults in your posts, don't you?


Don't pretend to miss the point of my posts and I won't insinuate you're stupid. Deal ?

Why would you have to in the first place?

Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
Also, I couldn't help but notice you didn't jump to the challenge of mentioning other people who've commited these grave crimes of "failing not to generalise" in this thread, instead choosing to specifically target me as if I'm the sole culprit of such an offense.


No I didn't. Of course I didn't. I'm not going to plough through a 100 page thread to humour you. I'm focussing on you because you happened to be the last person posting with whom I strongly disagreed (and that I strongly disagreed with a number of your posts earlier in the thread didn't help.) If you feel unfairly targeted because of this then so be it.

It would be great if you could specify exactly what you 'strongly disagree' with. I don't know what I should be focusing on. Is it the generalisation? Is it the post about Dworkin? What?

I wrote:
If you were to do the same to feminism, citing singular incidents of hatred or bigotry or insanity, you'd be ridiculed and rightly so. Stepping back for perspective is exactly right.

Is this it? Help!

Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
If I focus on the negative things, it might be because I decide to focus on them deliberately and saying 'I disagree with this' (point) and not being vague and, dare I say, general? about it. When you disagree with something, it tends to be something you feel is a negative aspect. But do I continually do it? Well, considering that in this thread the focus has become a pissing match whenever someone disagrees (vehemently or otherwise) rather than actual calm and rational discourse (which you've mastered, Bart, you crafty Dutchman), and in my case it's been justifying things wrongly attributed to me, I haven't really been given the chance to provide positions for or against it. Then again, I've continually said -- in this thread -- that I've got nothing against feminism. I've instead focused on the individuals, the feminists. Like Dworkin. Like Watson. Like McCreight. But the focus is turned back to me (and not because I want it to), for which I'm ironically accused of derailing the thread. So if you will, Bart, don't have me derail this thread by focusing your vitriol on me.


So basically, you acknowledge that in this thread you've been focussing on feminists that you think are wrong, but you're mad because people get the impression that you're completely anti-feminism. Look, if you go on and on about what you think is wrong, you can put "but I have nothing against feminism though" at the bottom of every post, people will not believe you. (BTW, I'm Belgian)

Right. Belgian. Sorry.

Again. Focusing on the feminists, not feminism. I suppose I'm one of those people who wants to judge individually, and not one of those dogmatic types that judges based on what creed they happen to follow, or whatever.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit; To clarify a bit more, you're behaviour in this thread is a bit like a person saying he's not racist while posting a few dozen news articles which curiously all have black persons committing crimes. If you truly have a nuanced view of feminists, you might want to show this in your posts instead of just saying "I'm not generalizing".

... So calm, but not necessarily rational? Try again.


I have no clue what you're trying to say here. What exactly is irrational ?

What exactly is irrational? You crash in here and call me the equivalent of a racist who's trying to convince people that he's not a racist. (It doesn't help that Him, the loveable idiot that he is, already have delusions of what type of person I am. He doesn't need anymore ideas.) Well, Bart, I'll make it absolutely clear for you: I'm not a racist. I'm not an anti-feminist. Get over yourself. All you've managed to do, along with Feit, is removing the focus on the issues I brought up and redirecting it onto me. So... *tsk* Well done?
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
You really like adding subtle hints of insults in your posts, don't you?


Don't pretend to miss the point of my posts and I won't insinuate you're stupid. Deal ?

Why would you have to in the first place?


If you're deliberately missing the point of my posts, you are doing so just to be annoying. If people deliberately annoy me I tend to insult them.

Guest wrote:
Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
Also, I couldn't help but notice you didn't jump to the challenge of mentioning other people who've commited these grave crimes of "failing not to generalise" in this thread, instead choosing to specifically target me as if I'm the sole culprit of such an offense.


No I didn't. Of course I didn't. I'm not going to plough through a 100 page thread to humour you. I'm focussing on you because you happened to be the last person posting with whom I strongly disagreed (and that I strongly disagreed with a number of your posts earlier in the thread didn't help.) If you feel unfairly targeted because of this then so be it.

It would be great if you could specify exactly what you 'strongly disagree' with. I don't know what I should be focusing on. Is it the generalisation? Is it the post about Dworkin? What?


I could make a list, but it would be rather long. The summary would be the focus on attacking feminists/feminism (I know you're saying that you make a distinction, I'll get to that later) and the outright refusal to acknowledge problems of sexism in your favourite subcultures/groups (gaming and atheism) and the rather aggressive responses whenever they get brought up.

Guest wrote:

I wrote:
If you were to do the same to feminism, citing singular incidents of hatred or bigotry or insanity, you'd be ridiculed and rightly so. Stepping back for perspective is exactly right.

Is this it? Help!

Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
If I focus on the negative things, it might be because I decide to focus on them deliberately and saying 'I disagree with this' (point) and not being vague and, dare I say, general? about it. When you disagree with something, it tends to be something you feel is a negative aspect. But do I continually do it? Well, considering that in this thread the focus has become a pissing match whenever someone disagrees (vehemently or otherwise) rather than actual calm and rational discourse (which you've mastered, Bart, you crafty Dutchman), and in my case it's been justifying things wrongly attributed to me, I haven't really been given the chance to provide positions for or against it. Then again, I've continually said -- in this thread -- that I've got nothing against feminism. I've instead focused on the individuals, the feminists. Like Dworkin. Like Watson. Like McCreight. But the focus is turned back to me (and not because I want it to), for which I'm ironically accused of derailing the thread. So if you will, Bart, don't have me derail this thread by focusing your vitriol on me.


So basically, you acknowledge that in this thread you've been focussing on feminists that you think are wrong, but you're mad because people get the impression that you're completely anti-feminism. Look, if you go on and on about what you think is wrong, you can put "but I have nothing against feminism though" at the bottom of every post, people will not believe you. (BTW, I'm Belgian)

Right. Belgian. Sorry.

Again. Focusing on the feminists, not feminism. I suppose I'm one of those people who wants to judge individually, and not one of those dogmatic types that judges based on what creed they happen to follow, or whatever.


This is a problem of perception that you are creating. As far as I can tell (I've only reread about 10 pages of the thread + what I remember from the thread as it was growing), you have disagreed with every single feminist that has been brought up. You have challenged almost every single example of sexism. You have only brought up stories that paint feminists in a bad light. While it might be clear to you that you are only disagreeing with the feminists and examples brought and while you might know that there are feminists you agree with and problems you acknowledge, readers of this thread can't see that. All they have is your word that you actually support feminism at least partially and reading your other posts in this thread that's not very convincing.

Guest wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit; To clarify a bit more, you're behaviour in this thread is a bit like a person saying he's not racist while posting a few dozen news articles which curiously all have black persons committing crimes. If you truly have a nuanced view of feminists, you might want to show this in your posts instead of just saying "I'm not generalizing".

... So calm, but not necessarily rational? Try again.


I have no clue what you're trying to say here. What exactly is irrational ?

What exactly is irrational? You crash in here and call me the equivalent of a racist who's trying to convince people that he's not a racist. (It doesn't help that Him, the loveable idiot that he is, already have delusions of what type of person I am. He doesn't need anymore ideas.) Well, Bart, I'll make it absolutely clear for you: I'm not a racist. I'm not an anti-feminist. Get over yourself. All you've managed to do, along with Feit, is removing the focus on the issues I brought up and redirecting it onto me. So... *tsk* Well done?


Did you again deliberately misread my post ? I never said you were a racist, so no need to defend yourself from the accusation. I also did not say you are the equivalent of a racist who's trying to convince people he's not. I'm saying that you look like an "anti-feminist" who's trying to convince people he's not. The difference may be small in wording, but it's pretty big though, I'm leaving open the option that you are just bad at expressing yourself and your opinions.


Last edited by Bart on Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ten Thousand Things



Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 89
Location: Glorious City of Luna Llena (no refunds)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You see, this is what I was talking about earlier. Quoting each individual paragraph because each and every thing must be responded to. Coy, rhetorical questions don't progress the discussion. Guest, you have a snap-trigger temper whenever you or something you identify with is criticized. You react with the haste and stubbornness of a knight templar.

*If you don't want to be accused of being against feminism or its values, then maybe you should give some examples of feminists/tenants of feminism you do agree with.

(*this being the important part of my post)
_________________

"Wealth beyond measure, outlander."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh noes! I agree with Guest on this specific example!

Jerk-ass convention-goers vs. transphobic radfems! Which is worse?!? WHICH?
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
transphobic radfems!


Am I the only one who suddenly imagines something from Star Trek here? "Cap'n! We canna go any faster--the ship's warp drive is full of transphobic radfems!" or "We'll have to take the shuttle because the planet's high ratio of transphobic radfems intereferes with the transporter" or "The ore on this planet could help the Federation--it's giving off high amounts of transphobic radfems!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It also occurs to me that being jerky or phobic could be the problem, rather than being a convention-goer or a feminist. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, Bart, I don't see why you would have to in the first place. You're the one that turned to me first and you brought up my continually generalising in this thread. If that wasn't your point, then how was I supposed to know what your actual point was?

Quote:
The summary would be the focus on attacking feminists/feminism (I know you're saying that you make a distinction, I'll get to that later) and the outright refusal to acknowledge problems of sexism in your favourite subcultures/groups (gaming and atheism) and the rather aggressive responses whenever they get brought up.

So this is what you "strongly disagreed" on? Great! A point of reference! I'm going to put this down for later.

Quote:
This is a problem of perception that you are creating. As far as I can tell (I've only reread about 10 pages of the thread + what I remember from the thread as it was growing), you have disagreed with every single feminist that has been brought up. You have challenged almost every single example of sexism. You have only brought up stories that paint feminists in a bad light. While it might be clear to you that you are only disagreeing with the feminists and examples brought and while you might know that there are feminists you agree with and problems you acknowledge, readers of this thread can't see that. All they have is your word that you actually support feminism at least partially and reading your other posts in this thread that's not very convincing.

Hehe, it's funny you should mention perception. You're going to get a chuckle out of that in the later pages. By the way, if I remember (which I didn't, hence why I re-read the first few pages just now), the first thing that happened in the thread was how I specifically cited Dworkin as an insane misandrist, and then Dennis took that to mean I'd meant the majority of feminists as insane misandrists. Words have meaning? What? I guess it's all a matter of perception, eh? Also, sounding like a broken record, which isn't something new in this thread, again, individuals. Singular. Saying I'm painting feminists (that is, if I read you correctly, all feminists) in a bad light is a form of, you guessed it, generalisation! I haven't said anything against feminists (as a whole) in this entire thread, nor to feminism, yet this is how I'm being perceived (chuckle I tell you). If the readers interpret my contention as something else, that's not really my problem, is it?

And the chance for conversation has been bogged down, yet again, and now I can't be arsed getting into it. Every time. You guys.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why don't you just say, Guest, "I do believe this; I don't believe that," as simply and clearly as possible and basically chalk up any prior confusion to a failure to communicate (without ascribing the precise blame for that, to whatever degree, to either or both sides)? Smile Kind of like rebooting a browser after too many pop-up ads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9552

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChastMastr wrote:
Why don't you just say, Guest, "I do believe this; I don't believe that," as simply and clearly as possible and basically chalk up any prior confusion to a failure to communicate (without ascribing the precise blame for that, to whatever degree, to either or both sides)? Smile Kind of like rebooting a browser after too many pop-up ads.
did you read what happened last time he needed to and was asked?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arc Tempest



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 4903
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Elucidation is for cheaters and communists anyway.
_________________
The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
did you read what happened last time he needed to and was asked?


No... Shocked I take it that didn't help?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6077
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neheheheheheheheheheheheh no it didn't
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6503

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So... this isn't technically about feminism. It's about business. It sort of struck home, though. It really seems like it applies to a lot of things.

Quote:
...one day you'll understand that it's harder to be kind than clever.


I'm posting this as a reminder to myself, not as a jab to anyone else.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 99, 100, 101 ... 312, 313, 314  Next
Page 100 of 314

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group