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 ... 98, 99, 100 ... 344, 345, 346  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: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heh. It's amusing how much rationalising the feminist movement gets when you realise, it's actually full of detestable people too! But the 'atheist' movement (which isn't really a movement), the gamer culture, and so on, they're not 'safe' environments. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Then this dichotomy is mentioned once again,

Quote:
Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men”

The current atheist movement is "just a bunch of" these people. She doesn't provide any evidence for this, of course, but that doesn't matter: what matters is what she perceives it to be. (Right, Samsally?) Now you would be stupid as sin to believe the *ahem* atheist movement is "just" populated with these people, so I'm guessing this has to do with the patriarchy. But as an idiot from another thread pointed out (you know who you are), the dichotomy of "middle-class, white, [cisgender], heterosexual and able-bodied men" doesn't matter. Feminists doesn't discriminate! Unless it's to describe a movement which they believe -- or perceive -- is "just a bunch of."

Dismissing an entire group with singular incidents aside, though, you people are fine with dismissing the 'atheist movement' out of hand -- seemingly because someone else did -- but when I dismiss the label of feminist, decide to call myself a humanist, and not being apart of the feminist movement, apparently that's an act of cowardice. Yeah. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't so obviously lopsided.

The so-called 'atheist movement' is a "boy's club" now? When the fuck did that happen? And just a few paragraphs down, she speaks of applying scepticism to everything? Oh. So I guess calling it a "boy's club" was with proper scepticism applied? Fan-fucking-tastic.

Oh, and her closing statement?

Quote:
The Boy’s Club may have historically ruled the movement, but they don’t own it. We can.


_________________
"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
Ten Thousand Things



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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, I'm sure that you could look at every single article on any side of the issue, and someone could nitpick or focus in on content as if every word written is the cornerstone of the author's beliefs. Step back, and judge if you agree with the concepts they're professing.

Bad elements are omnipresent regardless of creed (even an assassins creed). To say that it is hypocrisy for one group to criticize another of disreputable elements is distracting to the issue at hand.
_________________

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



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's hypocrisy to criticise one group of 'disreputable elements' and say they would never associate with them, and then in the same vein laud another group of 'disreputable elements' and say to not associate with them would be cowardice. For clarity, I'm only telling what happened to me on this forum.

No, I don't agree with what she's saying at all. She's judging the entire "movement" from incidents here and there, ignoring whether or not they were condemned from people of the same "movement" she's judging, to fit with her narrative that there needs to be a "new wave of atheism." Because of what she perceives to be the problem. That it's a "boy's club." Is it? Because it's filled with misogyny and sexism. Is it? Is it the norm for atheists to be misogynistic and sexist? What does "middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual [and able-bodied? what does this even mean in the context?] men" have to do with it? Are they the ones perpetuating the misogyny and sexism? Are they the ones perpetuating the idea of a "boy's club"? And if so, pretty damn vague accusation then, isn't it? Is she condemning all of them within the 'atheist movement' or just some of them? The irony being she wants to create a group that applies scepticism to everything, except for when it comes to her own creed. 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.
_________________
"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
Him



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4367
Location: On edge

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
Heh. It's amusing how much rationalising the feminist movement gets when you realise, it's actually full of detestable people too! But the 'atheist' movement (which isn't really a movement), the gamer culture, and so on, they're not 'safe' environments. The hypocrisy is staggering.

We already know your seething hatred for women/feminists. And no, it's not fucking hypocrisy, do you even know the meaning of "safe environment"? Of course you don't.

Quote:
The so-called 'atheist movement' is a "boy's club" now? When the fuck did that happen? And just a few paragraphs down, she speaks of applying scepticism to everything? Oh. So I guess calling it a "boy's club" was with proper scepticism applied? Fan-fucking-tastic.

Yeah, she lists several, several examples which you, of course are oblivious to. You know real examples of harassment and how it was responded to. She also links a series of prominent, male (so maybe you'll listen to them) atheist/skeptics speaking out against the prevalent sexism in the "movement". So, yeah, maybe read before you post next time? Although no big hope of that. Seriously, why do you even post here?
_________________
A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11274
Location: PDX

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Every time someone asks me to prove misogyny is a problem we have this same problem. No matter how much evidence you provide it's never enough to constitute a widespread problem. It's always a few bad apples that don't represent the whole. It's a reverse sorites, where no matter how many grains you add it's never a heap, just a collection of independent grains.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest 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.


Hey Guest, this thread is rather long, so you may have forgotten by now, but this was your first post in it.

Quote:
Oh, great, I've been wanting an excuse to bring up Dworkin again. I'll just start by saying that if Dworkin considered herself feminist, and she apparently had (and still has) a large following, then I'm not surprised when people say feminism has been hijacked. Dworkin was possibly one of the biggest misandrists alive. I mean, to reiterate, seduction was no different than rape and marriage was an invitation to rape and slavery (to women, of course). That's the small stuff. She then goes on how women cannot be free until all men are dead (or she says 'manhood', which I assume is exactly what it means, and how it will 'perish' when 'ravaged feminity (rape) no longer sustain it'. yeah.) and then that wishing for equality with men is akin to becoming the rich, the rapist and the murderer. (Which we'll assume with the inclusion of rapists and murderers are all bad.) It's weird, though, because I can't make out if she plain spells out her misandry or if she's rooting for it to happen. Logically it'd mean you'd be top dog, but er...

You can listen to one of her speeches on pornography here, which is just creepy.

I mean, even Ann Coulter is considered a feminist icon. Ann fucking Coulter. That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end. So to cut out the middle man, I just call myself humanist now. (Which, ironically, is also what Hugh Hefner did.)


Tell me Guest, what was this post about ? Because it seems like the second the word feminism fell, you went straight to talking about "feminists" (in paraphrases because of Coulter) you think are extreme/insane.

As a bonus, you are again proving an example of behaviour you believe to be uncommon. A problem with sexism is pointed out to you and instead of trying to have a calm and rational discussion about the extent of the problem (feel free to think the problem isn't as big as the article would suggest, but at least argue it calmly) you go straight into attack mode against feminism and the messenger. Gives people real hope that those problems will be handled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Misogyny and sexism are not "prevalent" in the atheist community no more than delusional radicals are "prevalent" in the feminist community. To say it is such because of some incidents is paranoid, bordering on delusional, certainly not scientific and willfully ignorant of how the real world works. The atheist community is not swirling with misogynists and sexists, the atheist community does not suffer from misogyny and sexism all day, every day, and the atheist community is not "just" misogyny and sexism. Or as Jen McCreight says, "just a bunch of" privileged and entitled people who've discovered the folly of homeopathy. (I'm paraphrasing.) The atheist community may well be full of detestable people, but then we should also acknowledge that the feminist community may also well be full of detestable people. Or have I simply imagined all those horrible feminists?

Safe environments? I suppose she's referring to sites like Freethoughtblogs? First of all, I'm not making an equivalent to the feminist or atheist community here, but Freethoughtblogs? Not the greatest example of a 'safe environment.' Many of the names on the FTB roster make Freethoughtblogs out to be some bastion of feminist dogma - and they do not like dissent. Because Richard Dawkins had some things to say about Skepchick and her, in my opinion, pity party, he's been called a number of things: misogynist, chauvinist, a horrible man who doesn't care about other people's experiences as an atheist because with too much privilege and entitlement because he's white ... and a man ... and (not joking) a white supremacist. Really. On a panel for women in secularism, with Skepchick herself, Sikivu Hutchinson (the accuser), Ophelia "dehumanising t-shirt" Benson and Jennifer "boy's club" McCreight.

And Kim, you're a poor judge of character and you really suck at arguing.

Dogen wrote:
Every time someone asks me to prove misogyny is a problem we have this same problem. No matter how much evidence you provide it's never enough to constitute a widespread problem. It's always a few bad apples that don't represent the whole. It's a reverse sorites, where no matter how many grains you add it's never a heap, just a collection of independent grains.

Basically what I'm saying is that misogyny or sexism is not a problem, but rather the assertion being made that the atheist community, or 'the atheist movement', are "just a bunch of" entitled men, who practice misogyny and sexism. Which is different to your general example. As for the evidence, I guess we can say the same thing about Muslims and suicide bombings? Or black people and theft?
_________________
"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
Feiticeira



Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 1798

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, ignoring everything else

Guest wrote:

And Kim, you're a poor judge of character and you really suck at arguing.


Huh. This raises the question: Who is truly the least credible and most consistently nauseating toolbag in a debate? Him or Guest? It seems like with the mountain of compelling evidence available on both sides this is a question that would be very difficult to answer conclusively.

I think I'm probably leaning towards Guest. At least Him is only particularly annoying when socialism is mentioned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bart wrote:
Guest 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.


Hey Guest, this thread is rather long, so you may have forgotten by now, but this was your first post in it.

Quote:
Oh, great, I've been wanting an excuse to bring up Dworkin again. I'll just start by saying that if Dworkin considered herself feminist, and she apparently had (and still has) a large following, then I'm not surprised when people say feminism has been hijacked. Dworkin was possibly one of the biggest misandrists alive. I mean, to reiterate, seduction was no different than rape and marriage was an invitation to rape and slavery (to women, of course). That's the small stuff. She then goes on how women cannot be free until all men are dead (or she says 'manhood', which I assume is exactly what it means, and how it will 'perish' when 'ravaged feminity (rape) no longer sustain it'. yeah.) and then that wishing for equality with men is akin to becoming the rich, the rapist and the murderer. (Which we'll assume with the inclusion of rapists and murderers are all bad.) It's weird, though, because I can't make out if she plain spells out her misandry or if she's rooting for it to happen. Logically it'd mean you'd be top dog, but er...

You can listen to one of her speeches on pornography here, which is just creepy.

I mean, even Ann Coulter is considered a feminist icon. Ann fucking Coulter. That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end. So to cut out the middle man, I just call myself humanist now. (Which, ironically, is also what Hugh Hefner did.)


Tell me Guest, what was this post about ? Because it seems like the second the word feminism fell, you went straight to talking about "feminists" (in paraphrases because of Coulter) you think are extreme/insane.

As a bonus, you are again proving an example of behaviour you believe to be uncommon. A problem with sexism is pointed out to you and instead of trying to have a calm and rational discussion about the extent of the problem (feel free to think the problem isn't as big as the article would suggest, but at least argue it calmly) you go straight into attack mode against feminism and the messenger. Gives people real hope that those problems will be handled.

Yes, like fearmongering and asserting ridiculous things without evidence. Definitely calm and rational. In contrast, my post is a rabid dog. I assume you're referring to my post about McCreight and not Dworkin? Oh, and I've since said -- in this thread -- that I was wrong to generalise feminists like that. I don't blame you for not knowing about that, though. It is rather long.

Feit: No. That was just what I wanted to get across. That he's a poor judge of character and that he sucks at arguing. Still clings to his delusions of my evident -- albeit fictional -- hatred of women/feminists, his inability to ... what was it, Bart? Engage in a calm and rational discussion? and his penchant to lash out for no discernible reason, making everything so personal. I wonder where he got it from.
_________________
"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
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
Bart wrote:
Guest 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.


Hey Guest, this thread is rather long, so you may have forgotten by now, but this was your first post in it.

Quote:
Oh, great, I've been wanting an excuse to bring up Dworkin again. I'll just start by saying that if Dworkin considered herself feminist, and she apparently had (and still has) a large following, then I'm not surprised when people say feminism has been hijacked. Dworkin was possibly one of the biggest misandrists alive. I mean, to reiterate, seduction was no different than rape and marriage was an invitation to rape and slavery (to women, of course). That's the small stuff. She then goes on how women cannot be free until all men are dead (or she says 'manhood', which I assume is exactly what it means, and how it will 'perish' when 'ravaged feminity (rape) no longer sustain it'. yeah.) and then that wishing for equality with men is akin to becoming the rich, the rapist and the murderer. (Which we'll assume with the inclusion of rapists and murderers are all bad.) It's weird, though, because I can't make out if she plain spells out her misandry or if she's rooting for it to happen. Logically it'd mean you'd be top dog, but er...

You can listen to one of her speeches on pornography here, which is just creepy.

I mean, even Ann Coulter is considered a feminist icon. Ann fucking Coulter. That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end. So to cut out the middle man, I just call myself humanist now. (Which, ironically, is also what Hugh Hefner did.)


Tell me Guest, what was this post about ? Because it seems like the second the word feminism fell, you went straight to talking about "feminists" (in paraphrases because of Coulter) you think are extreme/insane.

As a bonus, you are again proving an example of behaviour you believe to be uncommon. A problem with sexism is pointed out to you and instead of trying to have a calm and rational discussion about the extent of the problem (feel free to think the problem isn't as big as the article would suggest, but at least argue it calmly) you go straight into attack mode against feminism and the messenger. Gives people real hope that those problems will be handled.

Yes, like fearmongering and asserting ridiculous things without evidence. Certainly calm and rational. In contrast, my post is a rabid dog. I assume you're referring to my post about McCreight and not Dworkin? Oh, and I've since said -- in this thread -- that I was wrong to generalise feminists like that. I don't blame you for not knowing about that, though. It is rather long.


My apologies, I read a bit more through the thread and noticed you did pay lip service to that idea. And then you again started posting on any little controversy you could find to try and discredit feminism ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
Bart wrote:
Guest 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.


Hey Guest, this thread is rather long, so you may have forgotten by now, but this was your first post in it.

Quote:
Oh, great, I've been wanting an excuse to bring up Dworkin again. I'll just start by saying that if Dworkin considered herself feminist, and she apparently had (and still has) a large following, then I'm not surprised when people say feminism has been hijacked. Dworkin was possibly one of the biggest misandrists alive. I mean, to reiterate, seduction was no different than rape and marriage was an invitation to rape and slavery (to women, of course). That's the small stuff. She then goes on how women cannot be free until all men are dead (or she says 'manhood', which I assume is exactly what it means, and how it will 'perish' when 'ravaged feminity (rape) no longer sustain it'. yeah.) and then that wishing for equality with men is akin to becoming the rich, the rapist and the murderer. (Which we'll assume with the inclusion of rapists and murderers are all bad.) It's weird, though, because I can't make out if she plain spells out her misandry or if she's rooting for it to happen. Logically it'd mean you'd be top dog, but er...

You can listen to one of her speeches on pornography here, which is just creepy.

I mean, even Ann Coulter is considered a feminist icon. Ann fucking Coulter. That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end. So to cut out the middle man, I just call myself humanist now. (Which, ironically, is also what Hugh Hefner did.)


Tell me Guest, what was this post about ? Because it seems like the second the word feminism fell, you went straight to talking about "feminists" (in paraphrases because of Coulter) you think are extreme/insane.

As a bonus, you are again proving an example of behaviour you believe to be uncommon. A problem with sexism is pointed out to you and instead of trying to have a calm and rational discussion about the extent of the problem (feel free to think the problem isn't as big as the article would suggest, but at least argue it calmly) you go straight into attack mode against feminism and the messenger. Gives people real hope that those problems will be handled.

Yes, like fearmongering and asserting ridiculous things without evidence. Certainly calm and rational. In contrast, my post is a rabid dog. I assume you're referring to my post about McCreight and not Dworkin? Oh, and I've since said -- in this thread -- that I was wrong to generalise feminists like that. I don't blame you for not knowing about that, though. It is rather long.


My apologies, I read a bit more through the thread and noticed you did pay lip service to that idea. And then you again started posting on any little controversy you could find to try and discredit feminism ...

You don't think I'm being sincere?

By the way, not feminism. People. And not discredit; ridicule. I'm not poisoning the well, but when these people are held as monuments of reason, it's really hard to take that seriously when they're raging on a t-shirt and calling it a "dehumanising experience." EDIT: Oh, and "any little controversy?" Really? Yeah, what thread are you reading again? I think I'm in the wrong one.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2


Last edited by Guest on Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:31 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
Bart wrote:
Guest wrote:
Bart wrote:
Guest 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.


Hey Guest, this thread is rather long, so you may have forgotten by now, but this was your first post in it.

Quote:
Oh, great, I've been wanting an excuse to bring up Dworkin again. I'll just start by saying that if Dworkin considered herself feminist, and she apparently had (and still has) a large following, then I'm not surprised when people say feminism has been hijacked. Dworkin was possibly one of the biggest misandrists alive. I mean, to reiterate, seduction was no different than rape and marriage was an invitation to rape and slavery (to women, of course). That's the small stuff. She then goes on how women cannot be free until all men are dead (or she says 'manhood', which I assume is exactly what it means, and how it will 'perish' when 'ravaged feminity (rape) no longer sustain it'. yeah.) and then that wishing for equality with men is akin to becoming the rich, the rapist and the murderer. (Which we'll assume with the inclusion of rapists and murderers are all bad.) It's weird, though, because I can't make out if she plain spells out her misandry or if she's rooting for it to happen. Logically it'd mean you'd be top dog, but er...

You can listen to one of her speeches on pornography here, which is just creepy.

I mean, even Ann Coulter is considered a feminist icon. Ann fucking Coulter. That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end. So to cut out the middle man, I just call myself humanist now. (Which, ironically, is also what Hugh Hefner did.)


Tell me Guest, what was this post about ? Because it seems like the second the word feminism fell, you went straight to talking about "feminists" (in paraphrases because of Coulter) you think are extreme/insane.

As a bonus, you are again proving an example of behaviour you believe to be uncommon. A problem with sexism is pointed out to you and instead of trying to have a calm and rational discussion about the extent of the problem (feel free to think the problem isn't as big as the article would suggest, but at least argue it calmly) you go straight into attack mode against feminism and the messenger. Gives people real hope that those problems will be handled.

Yes, like fearmongering and asserting ridiculous things without evidence. Certainly calm and rational. In contrast, my post is a rabid dog. I assume you're referring to my post about McCreight and not Dworkin? Oh, and I've since said -- in this thread -- that I was wrong to generalise feminists like that. I don't blame you for not knowing about that, though. It is rather long.


My apologies, I read a bit more through the thread and noticed you did pay lip service to that idea. And then you again started posting on any little controversy you could find to try and discredit feminism ...

You don't think I'm being sincere?

By the way, not feminism. People. And not discredit; ridicule. I'm not poisoning the well, but when these people are held as monuments of reason, it's really hard to take that seriously when they're raging on a t-shirt and calling it a "dehumanising experience."


I believe you sincerely try not to generalize. Unfortunately you continually fail to do so and you fail to notice this about yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I continually fail not to generalise. Okay. Nevermind I spoke up when gamers were being painted with a broad brush as being nothing but horrible people, or when atheists were being painted with a broad brush as being nothing but [insert target group here], and nevermind my admission to my own generalisation. That's just lip service. Joking aside, though, my memory is a bit fuzzy. Mind reminding me of the many times I failed not to generalise in this thead? And not to be seen as lopsided, mind reminding me of the other people in this thread who failed not to generalise in this thread? (That is, besides me. You have, after all, decided to call me out specifically for this and not anyone else. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're being unfair.) Since you recently read through the thread again, you would know. Personally I don't recall anywhere where I callously generalised and judged collectively in this thread apart from that which I've already acknowledged as being wrong, but...

Not that I'm saying you're being insincere or anything, but if you would be so kind, Bart. Please. Enlighten me.
_________________
"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
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The irony is the focus of the thread (feminism) and my post (about feminists) is being redirected to focus only on me (and not by my own doing) - I, who've been accused of derailing the thread. Mustn't have occured to you, I guess.
_________________
"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
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
I continually fail not to generalise. Okay. Nevermind I spoke up when gamers were being painted with a broad brush as being nothing but horrible people, or when atheists were being painted with a broad brush as being nothing but [insert target group here], and nevermind my admission to my own generalisation. That's just lip service. Joking aside, though, my memory is a bit fuzzy. Mind reminding me of the many times I failed not to generalise in this thead? And not to be seen as lopsided, mind reminding me of the other people in this thread who failed not to generalise in this thread? (That is, besides me. You have, after all, decided to call me out specifically for this and not anyone else. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're being unfair.) Since you recently read through the thread again, you would know. Personally I don't recall anywhere where I callously generalised and judged collectively in this thread apart from that which I've already acknowledged as being wrong, but...

Not that I'm saying you're being insincere or anything, but if you would be so kind, Bart. Please. Enlighten me.


You're right Guest, "continually fail to do so" could technically be interpreted as saying you do so in every single instance. Some slight awareness of context should have told you that in this instance I was talking about your views on feminism.

Now, about how you continually generalize; you continually focus on every negative thing about feminism/feminists you can find. You don't have to say "all feminists are like this" for us to understand how you look at them.

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".
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 - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 98, 99, 100 ... 344, 345, 346  Next
Page 99 of 346

 
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