hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1 of 14 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 270

Thread: Some are more equal than others?

  1. #1
    Super Moderator DonorGlobal Moderator whispous's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Mails Tegg > пошел ты на хуй
    Posts
    4,742

    Some are more equal than others?

    No doubt exists that among ethnicities and genders there is still a large amount of prejudice, and the inequality has definitely not been solved.

    However among people fighting for their rights, there is the occasional person who goes beyond and behaves in a way that appears as if they feel they have more rights than they should.


    Personally I see a worrying amount of over-entitlement, particularly from militant feminists, and no-one dares contradict them, because they would instantly be labelled sexist. It also appears that even daring to bring that kind of observation up is in itself, sexist.

  2. #2
    Smegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 2, 2012
    Posts
    1,052
    Kinda like black people can't be racist .......

    Meh. Self serving narcissistic dickhead bigots exist in all races. Unfortunately, they seem to make it to the top of the local pile and become surrounded by other self serving narcissistic dickhead bigots playing their own meta game. It could very well be that we all harbour a self serving narcissistic dickhead bigot ready to make a break for others freedoms ...
    Shitting up eve for .... well, longer than most of you scumbags.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator DonorGlobal Moderator whispous's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Mails Tegg > пошел ты на хуй
    Posts
    4,742
    Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from

  4. #4
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by whispous View Post
    Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from
    It's true, but I've had to chalk this up to a limitation in human capability to grasp situational complexity.

    You have some genuine racism remaining, and because that's there, it's nearly impossible for people looking for that racism to give a white male the benefit of the doubt in a questionable circumstance. The assumption is always racism/sexism.

    Minorities in discussions of sexism often mention how white people can't understand their experience of living in a life of constant low level implied racism, I think there is a (not necessarily equal) unseen side in which nonwhites don't understand living a life of constant implied/assumed guilt.

    I've given up trying to explain these concepts or defend them to most people. I think its too nuanced for the average person, and instead society needs to just resolve one and then the assumption of racism will go away when people realize there isn't racism left to assume. I feel we're within a generation of that time.

  5. #5
    theBlind's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whispous View Post
    Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from
    It's true, but I've had to chalk this up to a limitation in human capability to grasp situational complexity.

    You have some genuine racism remaining, and because that's there, it's nearly impossible for people looking for that racism to give a white male the benefit of the doubt in a questionable circumstance. The assumption is always racism/sexism.

    Minorities in discussions of sexism often mention how white people can't understand their experience of living in a life of constant low level implied racism, I think there is a (not necessarily equal) unseen side in which nonwhites don't understand living a life of constant implied/assumed guilt.

    I've given up trying to explain these concepts or defend them to most people. I think its too nuanced for the average person, and instead society needs to just resolve one and then the assumption of racism will go away when people realize there isn't racism left to assume. I feel we're within a generation of that time.
    I'd guess a big part of this is Fundamental attribution error, basically you ascribe someones actions to their basic disposition instead of their current specific situation - Basic example: Guy cuts you on the road -> You think: "he's an asshole", meanwhile he's late to fetch his kids or whatever.

    Now since this is a pretty basic behavior, good luck trying to get others first to notice it in themselves and try to counteract it once they notice it. Especially in emotion laden contexts like sexism / racism.

    Regarding constant life of implied guilt - try being a white german and offer criticism of eg israeli actions in palestina. It's a political taboo here and any politician who does offer such criticism won't be in office much longer.
    Tanks: theBlind[URBAD] (in my heart there will always be a place for [FAIL])
    Planetside2: [UBAD]theAngelic

  6. #6
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    If I were a rich white german male from an aristocratic family, I would probably hire someone to speak for me just in case. Opening my mouth at all could be a minefield.

  7. #7
    Keorythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,369
    Racist, sexist, homophobe, gun nut, islamaphobe, anti-semetic, etc.

    It's just a method of shutting down a conversation. Puts the person instantly on the offensive when you declare them something that is unpopular or has negative undertones. Then instead of having a debate, the speaker has to defend themselves personally rather than the topic at hand. If they choose not to, then they risk coming off as having irrational ideas despite being perfectly rational because who would want to associate themselves with XXX group/person/ideal? It also works in reverse as you can attribute positive connotations to your argument and thus making the other side look bad. E.g. - "this is common sense XXXX legislation". "My opposition view of the subject incorporates sane principles."

    Wiki example:

    Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.
    Halo effect - The halo effect or halo error is a cognitive bias in which our judgments of a person’s character can be influenced by our overall impression of him or her. It can be found in a range of situations from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interactions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

  8. #8

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    7,192
    Quote Originally Posted by whispous View Post
    Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from
    I agree but i also learned early in life to just not give a fuck about that. I have a simple antidote against it all. A simple question: 'Why?".

    Sounds retardedly simplistic but meight its like kryptonite to self-entitlement, feminists, ethnic minorites etc.
    The amount of discussions i had with all groups (polisci major so comes with the student years) were allways enlightening but just a very small group can answer the why question.

    In Holland:
    The only racial rioting in the last 40 years: Between Marocans and Indonesians (molluca exiles from the colonial days).
    Turks hate Marocans with a vengeance, Surinams hate Indians with a swag, Dutch see Belgians as inferior etc etc
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  9. #9

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Keorythe View Post
    Racist, sexist, homophobe, gun nut, islamaphobe, anti-semetic, etc.

    It's just a method of shutting down a conversation. Puts the person instantly on the offensive when you declare them something that is unpopular or has negative undertones. Then instead of having a debate, the speaker has to defend themselves personally rather than the topic at hand. If they choose not to, then they risk coming off as having irrational ideas despite being perfectly rational because who would want to associate themselves with XXX group/person/ideal? It also works in reverse as you can attribute positive connotations to your argument and thus making the other side look bad. E.g. - "this is common sense XXXX legislation". "My opposition view of the subject incorporates sane principles."

    Wiki example:

    Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.
    Halo effect - The halo effect or halo error is a cognitive bias in which our judgments of a personís character can be influenced by our overall impression of him or her. It can be found in a range of situations from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interactions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
    Unless you are, say, Wayne LaPierre from the NRA, and you throw out a lot of, say, already debunked (strawmen) arguments, and then shout 'ad hominem' really loud so as to quickly kill the discussion, when they are debunked yet again. Basically exactly like Whispous said with the militant feminists and sexism: if you don't agree it me your arguments must be based on a logical fallacy. Well, it doesn't work like that.

    It is basically a variant of Karl Rove's strategy for all political discussion in the US: blame the other guy first for all the things you are doing wrong. And it was quite successful for a time because it killed all serious political discussion, polarised everything and everyone, and nothing gets done anymore. But the people wised up to the tactic, and now the favourables of all people who use it are in the toilet.

    It also has a connection with the Hitler/Goebbels 'Big Lie' theory: if you're going to tell a lie (or make an outrageous statement): make it a really big or outrageous one, then repeat it over and over and over again. People will never believe a small lie they can comprehend it or reason about it. But if a guy on a stage says something truly outrageous, no matter how outlandish, and keeps repeating it as if it is truly an insight. People will think that he surely wouldn't be stupid enough to keep repeating such an outrageous lie if there wasn't some truth in it. And they start to question themselves? Again, it does work, but only for a while.

    Any way, the whole ad hominem fallacy is often misunderstood and abused. If someone like Wayne LaPierre shows up and starts to talk a lot of crazy nonsense, then it is not an ad hominem to say that Wayne LaPierre must be crazy for bringing up a lot of crazy nonsense. The size of the lie or outrageous statement is not a guard against that either. If someone tells a lie or an outrageous untruth, it is not an ad hominem to point out that he is a liar, or, in fact, to point out how and why he is one.

    An ad hominem is simply going after the messenger and not the message. If you go after both the message and the messenger, it is not an ad hominem. It is only when you leave the message out of your counter-argument entirely that it is an ad hominem. People who claim to be the subject of ad hominems, when in fact they aren't, are actually using a strawman fallacy to win the discussion. They prefer to discuss the ad hominem over the arguments, perhaps because they can't see a way to win with the latter.

    Example: If it is a property of 'militant feminists' to call all counter-arguments 'sexist'. Then it is not an ad hominem to call someone who calls all your counter-arguments 'sexist' a 'militant feminist'. In fact, if the 'militant sexist' doesn't address those counter arguments beyond calling them 'sexist', then the 'militant feminist' is guilty of both an ad hominem (an attack on the messenger and not the message), and a strawman fallacy (arguing a position you'd like to have been made instead of the one actually made). In general, if in a discussion one side starts to call ad hominems on everything, and starts using strawman arguments on a regular basis, it is usually a sign that they lost the argument.

    And it is the same with Wayne LaPierre. If he brings up, yet again, another outrageous and debunked diversion, it is not an ad hominem to say that he constantly brings up outrageous and debunked diversions instead of addressing the real issues. The size and outrageousness of the diversion are no counter against that. Nor is it a defence to say that everyone is constantly committing ad hominem against him. If someone persistently brings crazy statements to the argument, and you point this out, it is not an ad hominem to at one point say that he surely must be crazy to keep doing so.

    And no, saying that you hold a position, or that you support a piece of legislation because it appeals to your common sense is not a way to cut down a discussion. It is merely the expression of your opinion on that position. If you, as the opposition, do not believe some argument appeals to common sense, then there is nothing stopping you from saying so. It doesn't kill a discussion. That is the discussion.

  10. #10
    Ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Aperture Harmonics
    Posts
    1,013
    Quote Originally Posted by whispous View Post
    No doubt exists that among ethnicities and genders there is still a large amount of prejudice, and the inequality has definitely not been solved.

    However among people fighting for their rights, there is the occasional person who goes beyond and behaves in a way that appears as if they feel they have more rights than they should.
    whose rights, and what rights?

    Personally I see a worrying amount of over-entitlement, particularly from militant feminists, and no-one dares contradict them, because they would instantly be labelled sexist. It also appears that even daring to bring that kind of observation up is in itself, sexist.
    Contradict them on what? What arguments were used?

    Also, do you think that you cannot possibly be sexist? Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by whispous View Post
    Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from
    If having to watch what you say is the worst of your problems, you're doing pretty well mate.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    Some retards are more equal than others?

    Is this kinda like how the Jews in Norway always seem to be yelling about anti-semitism and the holocaust when ever the subject of human rights and not mutilating little baby penises comes up, when I can't even remember ever meeting anyone who gives two shits.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  12. #12
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,672
    Quote Originally Posted by whispous View Post
    No doubt exists that among ethnicities and genders there is still a large amount of prejudice, and the inequality has definitely not been solved.

    However among people fighting for their rights, there is the occasional person who goes beyond and behaves in a way that appears as if they feel they have more rights than they should.


    Personally I see a worrying amount of over-entitlement, particularly from militant feminists, and no-one dares contradict them, because they would instantly be labelled sexist. It also appears that even daring to bring that kind of observation up is in itself, sexist.

    Classic Whispous:

    http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=341


    Arguing on the internet about how "radical feminism" goes too far is literally the most ridiculous strawman possible. What radical feminists? Apart from a tiny backeddy community on the internet approximately about the size and relevancy of the community that advocates legalising man-animal marriages "radical feminism" doesn't really exist anymore.

    I guarantee there is less than one "radical feminist" for every 10,000 angry white intenet nerd outraged at "radical feminism".


    "Hey guys the existance of this incredibly tiny irrelevant political group justifies me not giving a shit about all these moral issues and going on and on about how oppressed I am even though I've never actually met anyone from the subset of people that is supposedly oppressing me".
    Last edited by Lallante; January 28 2013 at 05:45:22 PM.

  13. #13
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    10,554
    To be fair Lal they do exist though. Last summer a woman reamed me out for holding a door for her at the dunkin donuts near where I work. The woman was like 4 or 5 steps behind me, so I figured I would hold the door open for her, if I'm not mistaken they call that manners. So I open the door and hold it for her, she says you dont have to do that. I said it was no problem and she freaks the fuck out going on this tirade about how no it isnt a problem she can touch and open adoor all her self and that I'm some kind of misogynistic asshole sexual predator because apparently holding a door open means im trying to fuck her, Keeping in mind this is a rather frumpy looking middle aged chick and I'm 25 and a pretty good lookin dude. Anyway so I'm still standing outside D&D still holding the door for this bitch who is tearing apart my soul, and a young woman with a small child walks up, I'd imagine she could hear this verbal assault from clear across the parking lot; so she gets to the door and says thank you for holding the door for us sweetie, and she just looks at the woman who was freaking out on me. To this day I wish I could've seen the look she gave her, because the woman immediately shut the fuck up and went inside.

    So while I guess one incident in the thousands up thousands of times I've held doors open for people isn't bad at all, it was defintely a shock to me to have such a common act of decency turn into some kinda afront to her womanhood. Now unfortunantly I find myself questioning wether or not I should hold a door for someone.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator DonorGlobal Moderator whispous's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Mails Tegg > пошел ты на хуй
    Posts
    4,742
    Lal, to say that there are no overzealous over reaching sexist women hiding under the banner of feminism is just as wrong as the assertion that there is no-one out there who holds genuinely racist views about white people. You're just agreeing with the "women can't be sexist" and "non-white people can't be racist" lies. I think you severely underestimate how many of these people actually exist.

  15. #15
    Tarminic's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,998
    I don't think he said there were none, just that they were such a tiny minority as you're more likely to be mugged in Portland than you are to deal with one in real life.

    I've only ever encountered one, though I had the misfortune of having to live with her for 6 months. But she was a horribly unhappy person whose untreated mental issues alienated everyone around her.

    Status of Babby: 100% Formed

  16. #16

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    7,192
    hahahhahahha Lall you have clearly never met any female anthropology students.

    I once followed a course in that while in uni (12 ects). It was just amazing how angry they all were. I didnt know what trolling was back then but fuck me i trolled the shit out of those girls. Best part was when we had to write a column and i wrote it about the ISI (pakistani intel and the connection to the Taliban) way back in 2000. srsly none of them knew what a column was, they were just bitter raging about some history shit on how women were oppressed. If it was 2010 i would have just made my piece a 5 minute best of madmen

    e: just realised you would call a column a editorial or op-ed.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  17. #17
    Ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Aperture Harmonics
    Posts
    1,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarminic View Post
    I don't think he said there were none, just that they were such a tiny minority as you're more likely to be mugged in Portland than you are to deal with one in real life.
    Yeah, this. There are definitely people out there with prejudicial views towards men and masculinity. That said, they're not in positions of power nor are their views represented in society at large. Modern feminists (third wave) typically don't like them either (too much focus on middle class white women, trans*-exclusionary, etc), so they're not exactly representative of the entire movement.

  18. #18
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    To be fair Lal they do exist though. Last summer a woman reamed me out for holding a door for her at the dunkin donuts near where I work. The woman was like 4 or 5 steps behind me, so I figured I would hold the door open for her, if I'm not mistaken they call that manners. So I open the door and hold it for her, she says you dont have to do that. I said it was no problem and she freaks the fuck out going on this tirade about how no it isnt a problem she can touch and open adoor all her self and that I'm some kind of misogynistic asshole sexual predator because apparently holding a door open means im trying to fuck her, Keeping in mind this is a rather frumpy looking middle aged chick and I'm 25 and a pretty good lookin dude. Anyway so I'm still standing outside D&D still holding the door for this bitch who is tearing apart my soul, and a young woman with a small child walks up, I'd imagine she could hear this verbal assault from clear across the parking lot; so she gets to the door and says thank you for holding the door for us sweetie, and she just looks at the woman who was freaking out on me. To this day I wish I could've seen the look she gave her, because the woman immediately shut the fuck up and went inside.
    That anecdote has literally nothing to do with radical feminism. The woman was a stupid bitch, like there are millions of stupid bitches and equally stupid assholes in the world. Its nothing to do with philosophy - people like that will find an excuse to get pissed off at you.
    So while I guess one incident in the thousands up thousands of times I've held doors open for people isn't bad at all, it was defintely a shock to me to have such a common act of decency turn into some kinda afront to her womanhood. Now unfortunantly I find myself questioning wether or not I should hold a door for someone.
    You should. Its trivially obvious that its polite to hold open the door for anyone immediately following you, and hold it open for longer for anyone who is less able to open the door than yourself. This isn't a feminism issue, UNLESS you make a massive show of leaping in front a perfectly able woman to hold the door open for her, in which case you are being weird / showing off, albeit mildly.

    Its also funny in these threads how everyone seems to have (what they think is) a relevant anecdote that fits their argument perfectly :P

  19. #19
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    hahahhahahha Lall you have clearly never met any female anthropology students.

    I once followed a course in that while in uni (12 ects). It was just amazing how angry they all were. I didnt know what trolling was back then but fuck me i trolled the shit out of those girls. Best part was when we had to write a column and i wrote it about the ISI (pakistani intel and the connection to the Taliban) way back in 2000. srsly none of them knew what a column was, they were just bitter raging about some history shit on how women were oppressed. If it was 2010 i would have just made my piece a 5 minute best of madmen

    e: just realised you would call a column a editorial or op-ed.
    Again, what does this have to do with feminism?

    Are you saying that anyone who takes an interest in the documented historical oppression of women is a radical feminist?

    When you research and write a paper about slavery you don't get a little annoyed/outraged about how they were treated? Does that make you a black-power advocate?


    ITT lots of people who know fuck all about feminism and even less about radical feminism. Apparantly a radical feminist is any woman who is angry and references gender.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 30, 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,018
    I know quite a few women who could be considered feminists under some of the definitions throw about here. Most of them just want a fair shake in a world that is still heavily stacked towards men. They want the same career opportunities as male counter-parts; they want to be paid the same as men who are doing the same job. They don't want to be sexually harassed just because they're easy on the eye. They may not have the same sense as humor as you, and they may get offended at the sexual joke you and your mates would normally share. None of this makes them militant, or anything to fear. It just means like you and I they're human beings who deserve to be treated with respect. You should always be thinking before you opening your mouth and speaking... who is my audience and will they be offended by what I say. If they're going to offended do I really care... you get to make a choice and then they get to make some value judgements about what type of person you are.

    Are there woman out there whose beliefs go far beyond these basic demands... yes; but they're such a minor part of feminism and they're nothing to fear. There are plenty of male misogynists out there who vocalise radical views of their own.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •