Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
This is the same type of reasoning used by people who are apologists for rape.
"She's crying rape because she doesn't want to admit she's promiscuous."/"They're crying aspie because they don't want to admit they're losers."
These aren't analogous except insofar as the use the same sentence structure.
What people are trying to say is that people blame their lack of social graces on being an aspie, so they feel they don't have to do anything about them, aspie or not. Now, not everyone does this. Me for example. I'm a social incompetent, but I'm pretty sure I'm no aspie. I'm just a social moron who happens to be very loud. (Now, I blame my volume on my hearing deficiency, but that's another story.)
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
This is the same type of reasoning used by people who are apologists for rape.
"She's crying rape because she doesn't want to admit she's promiscuous."/"They're crying aspie because they don't want to admit they're losers."
While you're reaching up there, could you bring me something that makes me less sense?
Assuming you're being serious, I think he was just saying that Cat's response was as
misogynistic:sexism::lack_of_grace:aspie, i.e., being biased against the afflicted people yourself, and thus not seeing the actuality.
People don't claim to be sexists to cop out of misogyny, and "actuality" isn't a real word. I'm sure you think you've cleverly put the boot on the other foot or something but you should put the boot back on the correct foot or you're just going to trip yourself up and look silly.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
He's saying the Cat sounds like a bigot defending their bigotry.
The bigotry being against those who may or may not suffer from Asperger's.
Where's the bigotry? The claim that they lack social graces seems to be based upon their apparent lack of social graces, that's an observation, not a prejudice. The claim that many of them claim aspergers as an excuse is also an observation, not a prejudice. She's not saying "everyone who might or might not have aspergers is sub-human/is a thief/is murderous/can't be trusted". That would be bigotry.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
This is the same type of reasoning used by people who are apologists for rape.
"She's crying rape because she doesn't want to admit she's promiscuous."/"They're crying aspie because they don't want to admit they're losers."
I question whether or not you know what the word "reasoning" means because your usage here is blatantly incorrect.
What always annoys me about these threads is that everyone talks like they are so enlightened and completely above sexism and gender roles. Everyone pretends that they see men and women as 'people' with no difference.
I mean come on, if you were brought up in the same world as me there is no way you can have so escaped your gender assignment. The fact that I am a man is a huge part of my identity, for better or worse. I can't undo that. Maybe far in the future we will, but that day is a long way away.
t VC: how's that for a stupid comment?
Pretty impressive. You seem to be projecting quite a lot. So far no one has claimed what you claim they have and I'm not sure how you'd verify what exactly they're pretending. I know that I, for one, will never claim that there's no difference between men and women, and am in fact quite a fan of many of the differences between men and women. :winky: And I suspect I'm pretty much the opposite of alone in this view.
Your second comment doesn't really bear any relevance to anything anyone has said either, and your need to bring it up anyway suggests that you're seeking a cop-out of self-improvement. I was raised to be a good little misogynist, just like most American children, that doesn't mean I couldn't, didn't or shouldn't make an effort to correct that. Why are you exempt?
VC: what? I wasn't actually participating in the thread. I don't care. Just trying to clarify what the other guy said.
Oh, and because you obviously can't follow a link, dictionary.com does, in fact, have a listing for actuality.
Good.
Mind not being an ass and explain that?
See that little bit at the end, that's bolded? You missed that. And, without it, you are kind of justified in that dismissive 'good'. With it? Not so much.
A better response to my quote, the one that doesn't end with you looking like an ass, could have been "Yes, but you clarified poorly." And possibly, you could have owned up to not knowing with a "yes, but you used actuality incorrectly." If, you know, I had. Which I didn't.
As that would be helpful.
Let me see if I understand better now.
Is saying, "The Cat isn't biased against people with Asperger's, if anything, she's biased against people who don't want to learn how to function in a group and decide that being diseased is a good excuse. There is another name for these people: idiots" a good summation of your position?
Is saying, "The Cat isn't biased against people with Asperger's, if anything, she's biased against people who don't want to learn how to function in a group and decide that being diseased is a good excuse. There is another name for these people: idiots" a good summation of your position?
I'm not arguing about The Cat, I'm arguing whether the statements in question constitute bigotry, and I don't see how they constitute bigotry, as explained and conveniently overlooked, nor how they really constitute a bias either. "I have seen a lot of people do X, and people should not do X" is all there is there. If people want to argue about claims beyond that they should go ahead and state those claims and argue against those instead of attributing them to people they want to argue with.
I missed out on the beginning of this thread. Is it derailing/off-topic to comment on the OP at this point?
To WH: I don't think "Burger Queen" refers to homosexuality. I think people see the Whopper as an inalienable part of "Burger King." And the King, male, has a penis. Queens don't. So if you take away the Burger King's Whopper, it's analogous to taking away a King's penis. And a Queen is the closest thing to a King without a penis: a penisless person in a similar position of power.
I may be dead wrong, but that's what I think the comment meant. Calling BK "gay" because it has no whopper makes less sense to me than the Whopper-dick thing.
Where there may be the criticism that I'm taking it too seriously, I think it'd be justified to criticize your idea for putting far too much thought into it, or giving the two rednecks way too much credit. I'm pretty sure the slight was meant in the manner that, clearly, a queen is not as good/powerful/able/valuable as a king, whether the guy that said it was being sexist or homophobic. And I wanted to make this thread less about the commercial and more about the subtle prejudices in our society, where the commercial just shocked me enough to make the thread.
What always annoys me about these threads is that everyone talks like they are so enlightened and completely above sexism and gender roles. Everyone pretends that they see men and women as 'people' with no difference.
I mean come on, if you were brought up in the same world as me there is no way you can have so escaped your gender assignment. The fact that I am a man is a huge part of my identity, for better or worse. I can't undo that. Maybe far in the future we will, but that day is a long way away.
t VC: how's that for a stupid comment?
Pretty impressive. You seem to be projecting quite a lot. So far no one has claimed what you claim they have and I'm not sure how you'd verify what exactly they're pretending. I know that I, for one, will never claim that there's no difference between men and women, and am in fact quite a fan of many of the differences between men and women. :winky: And I suspect I'm pretty much the opposite of alone in this view.
Your second comment doesn't really bear any relevance to anything anyone has said either, and your need to bring it up anyway suggests that you're seeking a cop-out of self-improvement. I was raised to be a good little misogynist, just like most American children, that doesn't mean I couldn't, didn't or shouldn't make an effort to correct that. Why are you exempt?
To be fair, I have been claiming quite vehemently that there are no differences between men and women beyond the physiological and biochemical (of course, the actual effects of biochemistry on psychology aren't fully understood yet, so when it comes to behavioral differences, it's harder to draw the line between biochemistry and social programming). And, I can't believe I'm defending DodgeBlan (:P), but I don't see him claiming that he doesn't make an effort to correct for whatever prejudices may have been instilled in him. He didn't say "I'm a product of my environment and that's just fine by me." He said "I'm a product of my environment, and I acknowledge that fact."
What always annoys me about these threads is that everyone talks like they are so enlightened and completely above sexism and gender roles. Everyone pretends that they see men and women as 'people' with no difference.
I mean come on, if you were brought up in the same world as me there is no way you can have so escaped your gender assignment. The fact that I am a man is a huge part of my identity, for better or worse. I can't undo that. Maybe far in the future we will, but that day is a long way away.
t VC: how's that for a stupid comment?
Pretty impressive. You seem to be projecting quite a lot. So far no one has claimed what you claim they have and I'm not sure how you'd verify what exactly they're pretending. I know that I, for one, will never claim that there's no difference between men and women, and am in fact quite a fan of many of the differences between men and women. :winky: And I suspect I'm pretty much the opposite of alone in this view.
Your second comment doesn't really bear any relevance to anything anyone has said either, and your need to bring it up anyway suggests that you're seeking a cop-out of self-improvement. I was raised to be a good little misogynist, just like most American children, that doesn't mean I couldn't, didn't or shouldn't make an effort to correct that. Why are you exempt?
To be fair, I have been claiming quite vehemently that there are no differences between men and women beyond the physiological and biochemical (of course, the actual effects of biochemistry on psychology aren't fully understood yet, so when it comes to behavioral differences, it's harder to draw the line between biochemistry and social programming). And, I can't believe I'm defending DodgeBlan (:P), but I don't see him claiming that he doesn't make an effort to correct for whatever prejudices may have been instilled in him. He didn't say "I'm a product of my environment and that's just fine by me." He said "I'm a product of my environment, and I acknowledge that fact."
Fishy-part highlighted. In pink. And your claim is pretty distinct from the claim he's raging against in terms of their underlying implications.
Well, ok :P I interpreted that part as meaning he can't change the fact that he was raised in a certain environment, but I guess your interpretation could work too. Just trying to give people as much benefit of the doubt as I can :P
Fishy-part highlighted. In pink. And your claim is pretty distinct from the claim he's raging against in terms of their underlying implications.
Maybe I should have said "I can't undo that completely". And you know lots of people in these threads do claim the same as Irene does. Alot of people seem to talk like they have completely undone the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, and that I cannot accept. I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that we haven't.
I don't know where social and biological differences intersect, and to a point it doesn't matter. Our minds were created in this society, and they will forever be a product of it. When you see Hillary Clinton, she is "Woman in Power".
I once asked if people look for the same thing in a partner as they do in their mates. Most people said yes, and I also find this hard to accept.
OK I'm rambling, so I'll sum up:
I don't think anyone can say that their gender isn't a huge part of their identity. And as long as your gender is part of your identity, you will still be sexist.
The person whose judgement of another is not based on gender roles at all is mythological.
Which would be great if what he said was anything other than "you guys are all jerks and your horses smoke too much weed, and you can't expect me to act any different from how I already act!".
Is saying, "The Cat isn't biased against people with Asperger's, if anything, she's biased against people who don't want to learn how to function in a group and decide that being diseased is a good excuse. There is another name for these people: idiots" a good summation of your position?
I'm not arguing about The Cat, I'm arguing whether the statements in question constitute bigotry, and I don't see how they constitute bigotry, as explained and conveniently overlooked, nor how they really constitute a bias either. "I have seen a lot of people do X, and people should not do X" is all there is there. If people want to argue about claims beyond that they should go ahead and state those claims and argue against those instead of attributing them to people they want to argue with.
Then it seems we are completely missing each other. You directly responded to me, instead of Scalfin, who started this whole misogynistic tangent. And topped it off with a nice helping of condescension and literary superiority.
The only person who has said anything related to the bolded is The Cat. Therefore, I have to assume you're, at the least, discussing whether what she said constitutes bigotry. So I don't know where you're getting that you're not arguing about Cat.
I don't think anyone can say that their gender isn't a huge part of their identity. And as long as your gender is part of your identity, you will still be sexist.
The person whose judgement of another is not based on gender roles at all is mythological.
Acknowledging common gender identity/differences isn't sexist.
Automatically assuming the superiority/inferiority of people and making judgments due to gender about them is.
I.E. the difference between "women generally have less upper body strength than men," and "women are weakings."
I missed out on the beginning of this thread. Is it derailing/off-topic to comment on the OP at this point?
To WH: I don't think "Burger Queen" refers to homosexuality. I think people see the Whopper as an inalienable part of "Burger King." And the King, male, has a penis. Queens don't. So if you take away the Burger King's Whopper, it's analogous to taking away a King's penis. And a Queen is the closest thing to a King without a penis: a penisless person in a similar position of power.
I may be dead wrong, but that's what I think the comment meant. Calling BK "gay" because it has no whopper makes less sense to me than the Whopper-dick thing.
Where there may be the criticism that I'm taking it too seriously, I think it'd be justified to criticize your idea for putting far too much thought into it, or giving the two rednecks way too much credit. I'm pretty sure the slight was meant in the manner that, clearly, a queen is not as good/powerful/able/valuable as a king, whether the guy that said it was being sexist or homophobic. And I wanted to make this thread less about the commercial and more about the subtle prejudices in our society, where the commercial just shocked me enough to make the thread.
Sexist, perhaps. All I'm saying is that people see the word "queen" or "girly" used as an epithet and automatically assume homophobia, but I think it is usually used as an emasculating insult. I may very well be wrong, though. There's a difference between trying to emasculate someone and calling someone a homosexual in an attempt to disparage them, but neither is good.
But they very rarely do. The kings ability to kill, aswell as move in all directions makes it a far stronger piece than a pawn. Ofcourse pawns are far more disposable than a king and so are more useful for strategy, but none the less.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Maybe I should have said "I can't undo that completely". And you know lots of people in these threads do claim the same as Irene does. Alot of people seem to talk like they have completely undone the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, and that I cannot accept. I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that we haven't.
I don't know where social and biological differences intersect, and to a point it doesn't matter. Our minds were created in this society, and they will forever be a product of it. When you see Hillary Clinton, she is "Woman in Power".
I once asked if people look for the same thing in a partner as they do in their mates. Most people said yes, and I also find this hard to accept.
OK I'm rambling, so I'll sum up:
I don't think anyone can say that their gender isn't a huge part of their identity. And as long as your gender is part of your identity, you will still be sexist.
The person whose judgement of another is not based on gender roles at all is mythological.
You say you can't accept all this, and that's a perfectly valid statement. I, for one, accept that you can't accept it.
If you want to actually say why, though, that would be nice. Because I don't share your view, and if you can't support it I'll dismiss it out of hand. What is your reasoning or evidence behind this?
Aroused Bull on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
Ah but the only time the king moves is when it's in danger or has no other choice but to attack.
Without pawns the king is defenseless.
I don't know what this has to do with the OP but whatever.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2008
After reading the last two pages of this crap, I was unable to find a post that did not make me want to stab someone, skin him, whittle his bones into sharp implements, and use them to stab other people.
Game Over, apparently you were not Bad Enough Dudes to save the thread.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
While you're reaching up there, could you bring me something that makes me less sense?
This one.
Where's the bigotry? The claim that they lack social graces seems to be based upon their apparent lack of social graces, that's an observation, not a prejudice. The claim that many of them claim aspergers as an excuse is also an observation, not a prejudice. She's not saying "everyone who might or might not have aspergers is sub-human/is a thief/is murderous/can't be trusted". That would be bigotry.
I question whether or not you know what the word "reasoning" means because your usage here is blatantly incorrect.
Good.
Pretty impressive. You seem to be projecting quite a lot. So far no one has claimed what you claim they have and I'm not sure how you'd verify what exactly they're pretending. I know that I, for one, will never claim that there's no difference between men and women, and am in fact quite a fan of many of the differences between men and women. :winky: And I suspect I'm pretty much the opposite of alone in this view.
Your second comment doesn't really bear any relevance to anything anyone has said either, and your need to bring it up anyway suggests that you're seeking a cop-out of self-improvement. I was raised to be a good little misogynist, just like most American children, that doesn't mean I couldn't, didn't or shouldn't make an effort to correct that. Why are you exempt?
Mind not being an ass and explain that?
See that little bit at the end, that's bolded? You missed that. And, without it, you are kind of justified in that dismissive 'good'. With it? Not so much.
A better response to my quote, the one that doesn't end with you looking like an ass, could have been "Yes, but you clarified poorly." And possibly, you could have owned up to not knowing with a "yes, but you used actuality incorrectly." If, you know, I had. Which I didn't.
As that would be helpful.
Let me see if I understand better now.
Is saying, "The Cat isn't biased against people with Asperger's, if anything, she's biased against people who don't want to learn how to function in a group and decide that being diseased is a good excuse. There is another name for these people: idiots" a good summation of your position?
I thought it was good that you weren't participating. Though it's bad that it seems you're lying.
I'm not arguing about The Cat, I'm arguing whether the statements in question constitute bigotry, and I don't see how they constitute bigotry, as explained and conveniently overlooked, nor how they really constitute a bias either. "I have seen a lot of people do X, and people should not do X" is all there is there. If people want to argue about claims beyond that they should go ahead and state those claims and argue against those instead of attributing them to people they want to argue with.
Where there may be the criticism that I'm taking it too seriously, I think it'd be justified to criticize your idea for putting far too much thought into it, or giving the two rednecks way too much credit. I'm pretty sure the slight was meant in the manner that, clearly, a queen is not as good/powerful/able/valuable as a king, whether the guy that said it was being sexist or homophobic. And I wanted to make this thread less about the commercial and more about the subtle prejudices in our society, where the commercial just shocked me enough to make the thread.
To be fair, I have been claiming quite vehemently that there are no differences between men and women beyond the physiological and biochemical (of course, the actual effects of biochemistry on psychology aren't fully understood yet, so when it comes to behavioral differences, it's harder to draw the line between biochemistry and social programming). And, I can't believe I'm defending DodgeBlan (:P), but I don't see him claiming that he doesn't make an effort to correct for whatever prejudices may have been instilled in him. He didn't say "I'm a product of my environment and that's just fine by me." He said "I'm a product of my environment, and I acknowledge that fact."
A) You guys are idiots.
C) You guys are idiots.
D) It's off-topic.
Pick one.
Fishy-part highlighted. In pink. And your claim is pretty distinct from the claim he's raging against in terms of their underlying implications.
Maybe I should have said "I can't undo that completely". And you know lots of people in these threads do claim the same as Irene does. Alot of people seem to talk like they have completely undone the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, and that I cannot accept. I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that we haven't.
I don't know where social and biological differences intersect, and to a point it doesn't matter. Our minds were created in this society, and they will forever be a product of it. When you see Hillary Clinton, she is "Woman in Power".
I once asked if people look for the same thing in a partner as they do in their mates. Most people said yes, and I also find this hard to accept.
OK I'm rambling, so I'll sum up:
I don't think anyone can say that their gender isn't a huge part of their identity. And as long as your gender is part of your identity, you will still be sexist.
The person whose judgement of another is not based on gender roles at all is mythological.
https://medium.com/@alascii
edit: Oh i get it now.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Then it seems we are completely missing each other. You directly responded to me, instead of Scalfin, who started this whole misogynistic tangent. And topped it off with a nice helping of condescension and literary superiority.
The only person who has said anything related to the bolded is The Cat. Therefore, I have to assume you're, at the least, discussing whether what she said constitutes bigotry. So I don't know where you're getting that you're not arguing about Cat.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Acknowledging common gender identity/differences isn't sexist.
Automatically assuming the superiority/inferiority of people and making judgments due to gender about them is.
I.E. the difference between "women generally have less upper body strength than men," and "women are weakings."
Sexist, perhaps. All I'm saying is that people see the word "queen" or "girly" used as an epithet and automatically assume homophobia, but I think it is usually used as an emasculating insult. I may very well be wrong, though. There's a difference between trying to emasculate someone and calling someone a homosexual in an attempt to disparage them, but neither is good.
Well pawns are weaker.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
A pawn can become a Queen.
But they very rarely do. The kings ability to kill, aswell as move in all directions makes it a far stronger piece than a pawn. Ofcourse pawns are far more disposable than a king and so are more useful for strategy, but none the less.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
You say you can't accept all this, and that's a perfectly valid statement. I, for one, accept that you can't accept it.
If you want to actually say why, though, that would be nice. Because I don't share your view, and if you can't support it I'll dismiss it out of hand. What is your reasoning or evidence behind this?
Without pawns the king is defenseless.
I don't know what this has to do with the OP but whatever.
Game Over, apparently you were not Bad Enough Dudes to save the thread.