АLL F-!!1 TOPIC TITLE
-
It's not about this thread.
I am guessing that it's not about any praticular thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well at least now I know a little more.
You could have just asked, you know.
I understand you're upset, but that doesn't justify arguing against your misconceptions about another person's views, as opposed to their actual views.
Filed under: unless you enjoy knocking down straw men
-
You could have just asked, you know.
That would be weird, akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"It's not like it's a simple question like "what pronoun do you prefer?"
-
You could have just asked, you know.
What I will ask, though is, did you major in philosophy or dabble in any related field?
-
That would be weird, akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
You could phrase it as a hypothetical situation: "How would you react if X?" or, better, "What do you think [a community like ours] should do about people who behave in a Y manner?"
did you major in philosophy or dabble in any related field?
I have a Master's in economics, don't know if that counts (logic was part of the syllabus), but I am a hobbyist student of philosophy, yes.
-
Yeah that was a bit harsh, I agree.
It's ok, just remind me to call you a miserable retard sometime and we're even. ;-)
-
From what I can tell, the actual stamping out is more done by those who feel attacked by the open criticism of their ways: NO YOU MUST NOT SAY WE ARE BAD WE ARE NOT BAD SHUT UP STOP TALKING.
From what I reckon, actually, it's the social justice warriors that wish they could censor everything and anything, most of the time. The only time I want them to shut up is when they try babbling with me personally, as I'm my own censor and have a full right to be.
-
-
Another success story!
have insulted
-> successYes I can see how that matches your opinions.
-
@boomzilla said:
most everyone else tends to [...] but tend[s] to suffer from people being successful in government
and staunchly refused to explain what you mean by it.The reason I've been asking all this time is that I don't want to be tilting at straw men. So what did you mean?
I've given several explanations, but I'll have another go at it.
A lot of it comes down to the Knowledge Problem. People start doing things and think they are doing good things for others, and while there may be some good things, there are also many bad things, and the bad things seem to stay around more than the good things. Often this is due to concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, not to mention the seen vs the unseen.
-
Often this is due to concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, not to mention the seen vs the unseen.
Doesn't that describe business better than government? Privatisation of profits and socialisation of costs and all that?
The more fundamental problem is that this explanation begs the question. A couple of questions, in fact:
there are also many bad things
and the bad things seem to stay around more than the good things
-
That's not duh. That's materialism. Taken as a fundamental principle, anyone who puts away things (having less) is less successful. And that's bunk.
This isn't about having lots of toys. It's about having food and cheap energy to cook your food and heat your house and clean water to drink. I'll grant you that some people are particularly masochistic. But it's better to live in a society where that's an oddball choice and not a day to day reality.
All of that is culture. It's taught. Pink dolls are for girls. Cars are for boys.
Except when it isn't. Like little boys making weapons out of anything and everything. You can be a pedantic dickweed about exceptional people, but the averages are what they are. You start to sound like the loons who hounded Lawrence Summers out of Harvard for noticing them.
-
Doesn't that describe business better than government? Privatisation of profits and socialisation of costs and all that?
Not at all. The problem is that we cannot comprehend the system, which is why we end up with notions like "privatization of profits and socialization of costs." And yet, the pencil gets made.
The more fundamental problem is that this explanation begs the question. A couple of questions, in fact:
Yes, looking at history or current news is left as an exercise for the reader.
-
The problem is that we cannot comprehend the system, which is why we end up with notions like "privatization of profits and socialization of costs." And yet, the pencil gets made.
On the contrary, that part we can comprehend very well. There's more than one way to make a pencil.
-
There are many situations and many treatments. There is no need for an exclusive choice, there is no "Which is it?". "Being treated like a man" refers, among other things, to being listened to as a respected person, and it refers to not receiving death or rape threats from voicing an opinion. Now I'm sure you personally don't send rape threats to women you don't like, but you also don't shout at the guy who does do that, as far as I know. Start doing that.
Umm, as far as I know, death threats are pretty much unisex. Rape maybe less so, but there's nothing stopping you either.
Also, we can pretty much agree that making rape or death threats makes you an asshole no matter which gender they're directed at. So, what's the point again?
"Being listened to as a respected person" is a bigger concern, but in my experience, saying reasonable things is a more important factor.
That's not duh. That's materialism. Taken as a fundamental principle, anyone who puts away things (having less) is less successful. And that's bunk.
You can take "stuff" at a more metaphorical level and have it refer to "sense of justice", "clear conscience", etc. Even without it, though, having stuff is better than not having stuff - simply because you can't put away stuff if you have none in the first place.
And materialism is fine. After all, human beings are fairly simple machines - we do things that are pleasant, or are perspectively pleasant.
All of that is culture. It's taught. Pink dolls are for girls. Cars are for boys. Bullshit is for humans.
Mostly culture. There is a bit of biology involved (cars are for boys, because boys are higher on testosterone than girls, and baby dolls are for girls, because maternity instinct etc). Obviously that's no excuse for denying anyone anything, but even if you take away the whole cultural bias, the gender proportion isn't going to be exactly 1:1 in all professions.
It's easy to dismiss Buddy right now, because you have no relationthip with them at all.
No, it's because they come here and just start spewing accusations with no backing. Why exactly are we misandrist? If anything, the community here has - for the most part - a pretty high respect for women. Though, being an all-boys club, it doesn't come up too often.
From what I reckon, actually, it's the social justice warriors that wish they could censor everything and anything, most of the time.
Sadly, there's a bit of truth to that. And it diminishes the more important issues than "somebody writes stuff on the internets that isn't nice, respectful and politically correct".
-
Also, we can pretty much agree that making rape or death threats makes you a
n assholecriminalFTFY. I nam amazed at how colleges tell us about their rape epidemic and then don't get law enforcement involved.
-
No, it's because they come here and just start spewing accusations with no backing.
Yeah that's what I mean.
-
FTFY. I nam amazed at how colleges tell us about their rape epidemic and then don't get law enforcement involved.
Considering many people go to college to get high on weed and score some chicks... well, let's just say "high probability of unpunished rape" might be more of an advertisement than deterrent.
-
rape epidemic
Is that like the current "obesity epidemic" we have in the UK (and it's probably been described as such in the US,) where the word epidemic is being horribly abused by shroud-waving grief-mongers who have their own pet[3] project they bang on about to solve the problem when all they're after is more tax-payer money for themselves.
This is not to denigrate the fact that the colleges may have a problem with rape, just how they're describing it - as if it's something contagious when it's nothing of the kind.
[3] Pun not intended to conflict with that second link.
-
This is not to denigrate the fact that the colleges may have a problem with rape, just how they're describing it - as if it's something contagious when it's nothing of the kind.
There are actually a few things going on. First, they sometimes talk about rape and sometimes sexual assault, which in some cases has meant things like unwanted sexual advances or remarks. It also seems to be a trend for coeds to get wasted, have sex and then at some point in the future (some times up to a year) report the encounter as rape.
A ridiculous internal judicial farce is then typically conducted, where the accusations are generally treated as fact and the accused often cannot get representation or even confront his accuser. This isn't a court of law, so having people without a clue running the thing and lack of typical rights afforded criminal suspects isn't a legal problem, but it's still morally problematic. And that's before we even get to the point that if the guy is guilty, he should be going to jail, not looking for another school.
And the numbers don't add up. We're told one in four or five college women are raped or assaulted and that only 12% of occurrences are reported. But if you do the math, it comes out as more like 1% - 3%. Of course any are too many, but 3% and 20% are significantly different.
-
A ridiculous internal judicial farce is then typically conducted, where the accusations are generally treated as fact and the accused often cannot get representation or even confront his accuser.
Oh, we have that sort of bollocks over here. Middle of May:
Oxford Union speakers urged to withdraw after rape allegations against president
The women’s officer of Oxford’s student union, OUSU, and another student have started a campaign for the Oxford Union president to resign from his post after he was accused of rape and attempted rape.
Oxford Union speakers urged to withdraw after rape allegations against president
The women’s officer of Oxford’s student union, OUSU, and another student have started a campaign for the Oxford Union president to resign from his post after he was accused of rape and attempted rape.
Note - accused. Not arrested. Not charged. Accused.
And long story short, a few speakers at a public meeting he was hosting/charing decided to withdraw. Because allegations. He wasn't even - as far as I can quickly tell - even arrested under suspicion. Merely released without charge, on bail.
Anyway. Fast forward six weeks..
Oxford Union president is cleared of rape charges
Expert condemns campaign to boycott Oxford Union over rape allegations as "premature" and "ill conceived"
Oxford Union president is cleared of rape charges
Expert condemns campaign to boycott Oxford Union over rape allegations as "premature"
and "ill conceived
And all the misandrists calling for his head, and probable castration, went silent...
Oh, don't be silly, of course they didn't. But that would only drag up points made posts passim ad nauseam. and I CBA.
-
As for pronouns: Anyone who seeks to bend the language to suit their own desires not only fails to understand how language works in the first place, but is attempting to place themselves in a position of control over our very speech.
I disagree. People who bend language know exactly how language works; that's why they are doing it. It's true that 1984 was supposed to be a warning, but Progressives have no problem using it as an instruction manual.
-
All of that is culture. It's taught. Pink dolls are for girls. Cars are for boys. Bullshit is for humans.
If you're going to say that, then you also need to examine the reasons why culture is the way it is. It's possible that one morning a bunch of rich white guys got together and decided that girls should have dolls and boys should have toy cars, but I wouldn't bet on it.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Why exactly are we misandrist? If anything, the community here has - for the most part - a pretty high respect for women.
Misandrist is someone who bashes men.
When you see "TEH MENZ something something" on teh twitter, it's most probably written by a misandrist.
-
All of that is culture. It's taught. Pink dolls are for girls. Cars are for boys. Bullshit is for humans.
It's taught. It becomes a part of a personality. Then @dhromed sees it as something damn unfair and anti-equality and wants to have it changed worldwide overnight, no matter how much havoc it would wreak.
When instead he might want to start with his own daughters. Plus, prepare to show them not only that engineering, computering and other "typically boys'" stuff is cool (as are dolls if they want them), but also help them deal with peer/environment pressure telling they are damn nerds and crazy — in schools, on TV, in their neighbourhood. And also tell his friends who also have daughters that this approach to parenting is damn awesome.
This would make a very small insight into how much effort has to be invested and how many generations need to pass before stereotypes are shifted a small but genuine bit.
Cultures, stereotypes and traditions exist, and survive, for reasons. Ignore the reasons and they crush you like a black top spreader.
-
Pink dolls are for girls. Cars are for boys.
ObTroll:
http://imgur.com/AT2AkTitle: To avoid perpetuating gender stereotypes, I gave my daughter a mix of dolls and toy cars to play with. This is what happened.
-
@arantor, I've been thinking about this and I realized I owe you an apology.
I'm sorry I ever mentioned pronouns. I don't really know what the deal is with them, and I should not have made any kind of judgments regarding their usage.
I'm sorry that I led you to believe that I might have been offended by anything you said when I was not in fact offended. (I would like to clarify that I was not intentionally trying to mislead you. Rather, I got too caught up in what I was trying to prove and didn't bother to think about what the words I was saying actually meant)
I'm sorry that I didn't assume good faith on your part. I was wrong.I would also like to extend a blanket apology out to everyone here (MRAs excluded) for this entire experience.
I failed to keep my arguments here simple and logically consistent :(
-
I would also like to extend a blanket apology out to everyone here (MRAs excluded) for this entire experience.
How do we know which of us you consider to be MRAs?
-
a blanket apology out to everyone here (MRAs excluded)
If I may ask: why excluding MRAs?
-
I'm sorry, I meant people who identify as MRAs.
-
If I may ask: why excluding MRAs?
Because they're evil misogynists. Didn't you get the memo?
-
In that case
I would also like to extend a blanket apology out to everyone here
(MRAs excluded)for this entire experience.FTFY
From my reading at least, I admit I did skip a part of the discussion since it went to global economics which I don't have enough knowledge of or interest in to get involved, so maybe I missed a on-topic post somewhere.
-
Because they're evil misogynists. Didn't you get the memo?
I'm sorry, I must have typed @antiquarian by mistake. I meant to ask @Buddy.
-
Why all the MRA hate? We don't all have the privilege of healthy arteries, you know. Are you saying we only you shitbaronesses deserve medical treatment that can help prevent stenosis, occlusions AND aneurysms? Why do you hate us? Why!?
Aghgh step back, I'm being triggered!
-
Well, I started an anti-mra thread, I feel like it would be wrong for me to apologize now.
-
wants to have it changed worldwide overnight
I never even slightly hinted at that. I've even noted the opposite:
Right or wrong, it's rape
@anotherusername said:would require both widespread re-education from the ground up And at least two generations allowing for the old ideas to be forgotten.
Glacial pace isn't great, but it's how it is, and not saying anything is a pace of zero.
-
Well, I started an anti-mra thread, I feel like it would be wrong for me to apologize now.
It is never wrong to allow for the possibility of having been wrong. An anti-MRA thread on this forum was probably a wasted effort, because I doubt we could find one, but if we could it may have helped to let them talk a bit before arguing against them - if only to make sure you are arguing against views they actually hold. I feel that even if we had MRAs in attendance, an attack against them may have been unjustified, because they offered no provocation.
That said, I wouldn't worry much if I were you. Round these parts, the best we can do is start threads. They will be hijacked sooner than later. All part of the special nature of WTDWTF.
-
Well, I started an anti-mra thread, I feel like it would be wrong for me to apologize now.
Except it doesn't seem like you really talked about MRAs. It's all very confusing to me, but at least you stand by your convictions. I can respect that.
-
I have been trying to keep my argument here as simple and logically consistent as possible. What I believe I have been saying is that while market economies are the most efficient systems currently known, there can still arise inefficiencies in the market that may need to be handled some other way.
And that the absence of women in technology is evidence of one such inefficiency, and as such, it is in everyone's best interests to find the source of that inefficiency, and cut it out.If that's a sign of inefficiency in the system, there are other professions you should really go after first. Look at a ranking of professions where there is gender-inequality, and technical fields aren't even in the top 10. Go after miners, or lumberjacks. Once you get them sorted, then come talk to us.
You want to talk about inefficiency, you go look at almost every article ever published on thedailywtf.com and then come back to be about how women not being in IT is an example of inefficiency - because by my reckoning it's not even a rounding error in the amount of inefficiency in the system.
Couldn't have said it better.
-
That would have been foolish. A perfectly good opportunity for a free-market flamewar would have been wasted. It's not like those opportunities grow on trees around here, y'know.
Well, they're virtual trees, but ...
-
I see this argument a lot in the SJW sphere, and it's utterly fallacious. The "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" attitude. Nothing is ever that binary. Not condemning does not equal condoning. The truly frightening thing about fourth wave feminism is the extent to which they advocate thought policing.
True. @Buddy seems to be advocating for a 1984esque world.
A post is not a thought. A post is an object that exists in our shared reality. You are not responsible for the creation of posts that you did not create. You are responsible for the continued existence of a post exactly as much as you are able to influence its continued existence.
According to this logic, everyone who could have killed Hitler before he became fuhrer is equally responsible for the holocaust. That is an absurd position, and rather offensive as well.
Not to mention, you are now demanding that we delve into every possible meaning of every post to determine if there is something potentially offensive, and remove any post that could be offensive. Guess what?
SomeMany of the posts here can be viewed as attempts to give offense. As long as no-one goes over the line, we aren't going to begin policing based on whether some potential new blood can take the heat or not.
In fact, I did not intentionally offend you, and if any offence was taken, I'm afraid that's rather your problem than mine.
This. More often than not, in order for someone to be offended, that person must choose to be offended. As I've already pointed out, many posts here can be viewed as attempts to give offense, but offense is usually not taken because the target chooses to not take offense.
-
Guess what? Some Many of the posts here can be viewed as attempts to give offense. As long as no-one goes over the line, we aren't going to begin policing based on whether some potential new blood can take the heat or not.
I've posted some rather misogynistic posts here myself - but I don't believe any of what I posted - it was merely attempts to goad a response. I think that's what many posts around here are for
-
It's taught. Pink dolls are for girls. Cars are for boys.
I let my daughters have any toys they ask for. If they want cars, they get them. If they want dolls, they get them. Right now, they usually want ... dolls, My Little Pony, and building blocks. And not the pink building blocks, 'cause those are boring. They want the blue and green and red and yellow ones.
-
Cool. Free choice is the thing.
I was suggesting how a rule like "pink is for girls" is unfair to boys who may like some awesome pink stuff but his parents or his friends may dissuade him because "that's for girls". And vice versa. Expand idea as needed etc.
-
The pink and blue color scheme is definitely culture based (and fairly recent). But people who complain about colors like that are annoying, because who fucking cares?
-
-
True. @Buddy seems to be advocating for a 1984esque world.
A post is not a thought. A post is an object that exists in our shared reality. You are not responsible for the creation of posts that you did not create. You are responsible for the continued existence of a post exactly as much as you are able to influence its continued existence.
According to this logic, everyone who could have killed Hitler before he became fuhrer is equally responsible for the holocaust. That is an absurd position, and rather offensive as well.
Not to mention, you are now demanding that we delve into every possible meaning of every post to determine if there is something potentially offensive, and remove any post that could be offensive. Guess what? <s>Some</s> Many of the posts here can be viewed as attempts to give offense. As long as no-one goes over the line, we aren't going to begin policing based on whether some potential new blood can take the heat or not.
In fact, I did not intentionally offend you, and if any offence was taken, I'm afraid that's rather your problem than mine.
This. More often than not, in order for someone to be offended, that person must choose to be offended. As I've already pointed out, many posts here can be viewed as attempts to give offense, but offense is usually not taken because the target chooses to not take offense.
Did it really take 391 posts on this topic to go Godwin? Or did I miss something earlier?
-
Did it really take 391 posts on this topic to go Godwin? Or did I miss something earlier?
Looks that way. Although Stalin made an appearance in post 216:
as your example of a "successful" politician, then you're not going to get any useful data from your comparison.
-
Looks that way. Although Stalin made an appearance in post 216:
I'm naming this the Boomzilla corollary, since I can't seem to find any better name out on the internets.
-
"They" is a valid gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun.
"It" is also a valid neuter singular third-person pronoun. It's bad enough that in English "you" is ambiguous as to number (Are "you" an individual or a group?); I refuse to extend that ambiguity to "they," even if Oxford Dictionaries says it's acceptable.Filed under: Get off my lawn, you (individually and collectively)!
