User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 276

  1. #121
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    White man. The lost cause.
    Nah, some of the most anti-feminist cultures at the moment are in Asia and Africa, as a matter of fact. And of course poverty is linked to disempowerment of women, interestingly enough.

    It was primarily the English who went around colonizing, which is surely based in philsophy and culture rather than being caucasian. We still have lingering remnants of that culture here in the United States.

  2. #122
    Senior Member Gish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    STUF
    Posts
    891

    Default

    White women are the real lost cause. They can't even read maps.
    Whoops.

  3. #123
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    Indeed, but fortunately I made no such claim. You might consider re-reading the relevant post.
    You're a broken record with that line. I read your post. The fact that 3 people have already commented on the fact that you've said "History means nothing in comparison to my own two eyes" should possibly lead you to believe that either you worded your post poorly, or you didn't relay the message you wanted. People are reading "History doesn't mean shit" from you.. Telling me to re-read your miscommunication won't make it anymore coherent.

    I found it ironic that a woman defending the validity of Feminism became emotional in her defence of Feminism, an ideology which has fought against the notion that women are hysterical and incapable of rational exchanges. It's odd that you'd interpret this as some sort of sexism on my part. Indeed, I believe women are as incapable as men of carrying on equanimous conversation.
    I was more mentioning that you jumped to the conclusion that she was emotional at all. I never got a hint of emotion from her exchange, just debate. That's the part I find sexist. Overly polite and detached forms of talking does not equate to logic or rationality. It's a form of talking, nothing more. Nor do brash words lead to illogical emotions. Again, it's a form of communication. Your leap to assuming that she's emotional is based on the fact that she's a woman, not because she's talking with cuss words. That's what made it sexist. Proof of that can further be seen through your lack of reacting to Orangey's cussing, her way of communicating is much more detached, and she's been mistaken as a male for it on the forum before.

    FWIW though, even if she WAS being emotional.. Emotional passion in an argument does not necessarily mean incapable of rational exchange. Many rational things have been done with passion.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  4. #124
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    "I reject law because anyone who uses the term must use it to mean "generic law" and people get legally beheaded in Saudi Arabia or legally caned in Singapore."

  5. #125
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I don't agree that history is inseparable from sociology and psychology. Inter-disciplinary research is one thing; this is quite another.
    Well, seeing as how historical research is a staple method of sociology and social psychology, my original point stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I think it's fairly obvious what is meant by "contemporary society". I dismiss the inquiry into the meaning of such (very clear) terms as a conceit of analytic philosophy, in which I'm not keen to participate.
    Well, if by "contemporary society" we mean society as it has been over the last, say, thirty years, then I'd think that any inquiry into its function or development would by definition be historical research. And the phrase "understanding contemporary society" could mean a few different things. For instance, it could simply mean understanding how it functions. Or it could mean understanding how and why it came to be the way that it currently is. The point is that the meaning of these phrases directly influences our present conversation, so it is relevant to discuss them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I didn't expect you to understand the meaning of the term. I expected you to ask for a definition. You did this, but not before telling me that "generic Feminism" doesn't exist-which is quite silly, since, at that point, you had no idea what it meant!
    Why would I know the meaning of a word that didn't exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    Then I'm unsure in what way I was misunderstood. I'm not trying to be a "smartass".
    I was not clear about what you meant by feminism nor what aspects of feminism you found to be "false," which is why I asked for clarification (by which I meant that I wanted you to explain specifically what aspects of your understanding of feminism that you found objectionable.) I was not confused about what it means for something to be false. I would think that was obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I had someone complain about that shortly after I joined.

    Over two years ago.
    Good?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    The following is of critical importance:



    This allows for the possibility that someone who declares that they are a Feminist rejects all propositions populating that "miscellaneous propositions" category. I'm arguing that that is very, very rare. For most, "I am a Feminist" means "I am a generic Feminist", and so, for most, "Feminism" means "generic Feminism". I would be happy to identify as a Feminist myself, since I am enthusiastically in favour of the equality I mention. I refrain from doing so because I would constantly have to qualify that I am "a Feminist, if "Feminist" only means "a person who is in favour of the equality of women with men"", lest my interlocutor suppose that I'm happy to assert the existence of a "rape culture", etc., i.e believes that I am a "generic Feminist".

    That strikes me as tedious.
    So essentially you're saying that you're afraid to say you're a feminist for fear of being associated with straw feminists. How does that mean that "generic feminism" is false? The various constellations of propositions that could potentially fill the {miscellaneous propositions} container might not all be false. There could be a variation with which you agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    The "miscellaneous propositions category" contains millions of propositions, of which some fail to exist. It's unreasonable to expect me to have an exhaustive knowledge of these propositions. In an effort to be clear, "usually" should be omitted from this:

    and "typically" from here:

    Nevertheless, the definition could do with some refinement-the "+" should really be an ampersand, for example. I think it's a good starting point, though.
    If you remove the "usually" and "typically," then how can you feel comfortable declaring the "falsehood" of generic feminism?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  6. #126
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    omg, I laughed and laughed and laughed at the folgers one. IRL. http://www.adweek.com/video/sexist-ads-folgers-133389

    I need to watch that again.
    -end of thread-

  7. #127
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StarryKnights View Post
    Now...you didn't seem as bothered by Orangey's swearing as you did Marms. So much so that you ended your conversation with Marm...yet responded to Orangey quite politely...even offering up information he did not solicit. Why? Honest question. I truly want to understand what the difference is in your mind.

    I didn't think that Orangey was swearing at me per se.

  8. #128
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    You're a broken record with that line. I read your post. The fact that 3 people have already commented on the fact that you've said "History means nothing in comparison to my own two eyes" should possibly lead you to believe that either you worded your post poorly, or you didn't relay the message you wanted. People are reading "History doesn't mean shit" from you.. Telling me to re-read your miscommunication won't make it anymore coherent.
    I did not say "History means nothing in comparison to my own eyes"; please refrain from misquoting me. I don't agree that your not understanding is a result of a miscommunication on my part. There was not even the slightest hint that history doesn't pertain to current society in any of my posts-how could it not, given that it provides causal explanations for how our society has arisen? I only stated that "I'd sooner consult psychological and sociological literature, not to mention my eyes (than history)" in order "to understand contemporary society". The difference here is subtle, but is a difference regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Overly polite and detached forms of talking does not equate to logic or rationality. It's a form of talking, nothing more. Nor do brash words lead to illogical emotions. Again, it's a form of communication.
    The way a person is communicating is an excellent guide to how they're feeling. If they're calmly discussing a matter with you, avoiding petty insults, keeping their voice quiet and even, etc. you are justified in believing that they're being quite reasonable, and not feeling much emotion. If, on the other hand, they're regularly insulting you-something, incidentally, which I've come to expect from my interlocutors in this thread- whilst shouting in your face that you're incorrect, etc., it's fair to suspect that they're feeling emotional. Communicating in the latter way I've described might even reinforce those emotions which have caused that particular mode of communication.

    Now, to consider the relevant poster's conduct:

    In response to a query about whether I'm "insecure":


    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I do. Especially since you made the comment that I'd better stop that.
    This, after I'd not said twenty words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    HAHAHA. I'm not going to change my ideology for some stranger on the Internet. You're not even making a valid argument.

    Thanks for your time though, bro. By the way, if you tell me what to do, I'll tell you what to do: go read some history books, particularly ones about the state of society rather than about war or conquest.
    Not exactly a paragon of equanimity. I must be fascinated with war and conquest because I'm a male non-Feminist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Also, I'm not going to "politely" ask you for anything after you told me "I'd better stop that." Who the fuck do you think you are? People like you are all the same, you want to talk down to people but then have them defer to you or be respectful to you. Dream on.

    Unsurprising also that you don't believe in feminism.
    More angry insults. Apparently, the poster is quite upset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Let me explain something all of you uptight upper-middle class NT academics: my manner of speaking IS HOW I TALK. It has nothing to do with being emotional, it is how I speak. I do not believe in altering my speech to conform to a bland grad school standard to suit you, or anyone else. But especially people like yourself, who seem to think there's something inherently superior about choosing words which are "politically correct."

    Think of it as a sketch from a movie or television show from 1970's England, with a punk pushing an uptight old man off of a bridge, and you might begin to get the picture.
    This is simply a diatribe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Oh boy I'd be so devastated if you stopped talking. Not only that, but I'm not sure on what planet condescending is polite.

    You still haven't explained your position with a valid argument. This is all striking me as pretty pseudo-intellectual and pretentious to be honest with you.

    Using big words don't make you smrt.
    More juvenile reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that words are just words and that no dialect is superior to another, that language is a fluid thing that changes with society and that it's nothing more than a tool for communication, though it can be used artistically. His insistence that I speak his preferred dialect or be entirely disregareded hints at how bourgeious he really is, once again not surprising in an anti-feminist. My insistence that I speak with my own word choice is seen by him as "strange," apparently because he lives in an Ivory Tower.
    Yet another diatribe. The extent to which the poster here has misunderstood me is almost comical, by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Those things you said aren't a very strong argument for why you don't accept feminism. Because as many as 20% of college women are raped? WHAT? Great argument bro, I await with baited breath your next intellectual revelation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Rejecting the entirety of feminism over extremist groups is ignorant, and marching into a thread and telling me REPEATEDLY what I ought to do is completely uncouth.

    I'm sure you're in denial of this, since you're so convinced you're well-educated and polite.

    Have a nice fucking day!~
    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Oh look who hates altruism. Just caught that.

    Classic. Fantastic. I think I'm going to hold you up as a symbol of everything that makes me puke.
    The poster continues to berate me-here, about my signature-even after our exchange is over. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the poster is not being emotional here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    No mention of 1st wave feminism, 2nd wave feminism, 3rd wave feminism...just something he keeps calling generic feminism.



    Good luck arguing about something you don't even understand.
    And again.

    If this isn't emotional, nothing is.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Your leap to assuming that she's emotional is based on the fact that she's a woman, not because she's talking with cuss words. That's what made it sexist.
    The gender of my interlocutor is irrelevant to my inferences about their mental states. My belief that she was acting emotionally is based on what she said, not who she is. Sexism has been incomprehensible and odious to me from a young age. That's not about to change now, and your conclusion here is without basis in fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Proof of that can further be seen through your lack of reacting to Orangey's cussing, her way of communicating is much more detached, and she's been mistaken as a male for it on the forum before.
    As said to another person, I don't think Orangey was swearing at me per se. He also seems more detached, though, admittedly, not much more.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    FWIW though, even if she WAS being emotional.. Emotional passion in an argument does not necessarily mean incapable of rational exchange. Many rational things have been done with passion.
    Just as being shot in the head doesn't necessarily mean death.

  9. #129
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Well, seeing as how historical research is a staple method of sociology and social psychology, my original point stands.
    It may be a "staple method", but that doesn't make the disciplines "inseparable". Perhaps we're talking past one another on this point, and since it is tangential to this thread's subject matter, I will say nothing more on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Well, if by "contemporary society" we mean society as it has been over the last, say, thirty years, then I'd think that any inquiry into its function or development would by definition be historical research. And the phrase "understanding contemporary society" could mean a few different things. For instance, it could simply mean understanding how it functions. Or it could mean understanding how and why it came to be the way that it currently is. The point is that the meaning of these phrases directly influences our present conversation, so it is relevant to discuss them.
    I'm not looking for a causal explanation of contemporary society, as is already clear; I am interested in its present state. "Contemporary society" means "the society of now". No further discussion of this term will be had, lest we wibble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Why would I know the meaning of a word that didn't exist?
    I didn't suggest that you ought to. To repeat myself yet again: I expected you to ask for the definition, which you did:

    but not before telling me that "generic Feminism" doesn't exist-which is quite silly, since, at that point, you had no idea what it meant!
    I cannot be any more lucid on this point, and so will not repeat myself again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I was not clear about what you meant by feminism nor what aspects of feminism you found to be "false," which is why I asked for clarification (by which I meant that I wanted you to explain specifically what aspects of your understanding of feminism that you found objectionable.) I was not confused about what it means for something to be false. I would think that was obvious.
    I didn't imply that you were.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    So essentially you're saying that you're afraid to say you're a feminist for fear of being associated with straw feminists. How does that mean that "generic feminism" is false? The various constellations of propositions that could potentially fill the {miscellaneous propositions} container might not all be false. There could be a variation with which you agree.


    If you remove the "usually" and "typically," then how can you feel comfortable declaring the "falsehood" of generic feminism?
    These two remarks indicate an abject failure to comprehend what I have said, which, in virtue of my statements' complexity and your performance so far, is probably unsurprising.

    Frankly, though I've been exceptionally (and uncharacteristically) patient and generous so far, I'm now tired of explaining the same points multiple times to people who seemingly lack the necessary intelligence to comprehend them, not to mention the ability to exercise even a semblance of control over their cognitive vices. Debate is only enjoyable when the person with whom you are debating is a peer, rather than an inferior.

    Thus, since you are unable to ask questions or make comments which tell me that you have understood, our discussion is over. Feel free to have the last word.

    Apologies if this all sounds a bit blunt, by the way, but there is no other way to to communicate what I want to say.

  10. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    [FONT="Palatino Linotype"]
    Debate is only enjoyable when the person with whom you are debating is a peer, rather than an inferior.
    How were you able to discern that they did not enjoy the exchange with you?

    You seem to be claiming that the term "feminist" only applied to those who endorsed every radical opinions ever put forth by past proponents. That is clearly false.

Similar Threads

  1. Enneagram: degree of frequency of the differents variants.
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-29-2017, 05:51 PM
  2. Testing your degree of Trumpness
    By Typh0n in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-24-2017, 08:38 AM
  3. Works of fiction and feminism
    By Viridian in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-21-2011, 10:29 PM
  4. To those who identify with some aspect(s) of feminism....
    By Qre:us in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 06:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO