I think the PC debate is not that hard to understand. There is an entrenched power dynamic that the majority is used to. Part of that dynamic means they get to say what they choose, for the most part. Then someone comes along and gets offended, and reacts to that offense by trying to upend the power dynamic and create a new power dynamic where the majority is restricted in what it can say. Since the situation is cast as two dueling power dynamics, the majority becomes defensive because they don't want to go from in charge to subordinates or slaves.
I think the better approach is to avoid creating the power struggle at all by telling the people that offended you what offended you or made you upset, instead of crusading for whatever they said to be added to some list of unacceptable utterances.
You really can't imagine social equality, can you?
We don't go to Rap music for insightful social commentaries.
#WhitePeople
I found Jay-Zs number where he defined "sister" and "bitch" (in stunning lyrical form) for his presumably white audience to be utterly fantastic.
Dude please don't go further with this. Rap and hip hop have a 30+ year history of insightful social commentaries and you sound more than ignorant when you go off about it. It's off topic and it doesn't make you look good at all.
Offense is a red herring. I'm not offended when a guy tells me I'm a fucking faggot. I'm hurt and angry. I don't say "Excuse me sir, but I am offended, so you have to stop saying that." I say "That isn't your word to use, and go fuck yourself."
I'm fairly certain that right now I'm talking about offense and PC-ness as it relates to art and entertainment.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Offense is a red herring. I'm not offended when a guy tells me I'm a fucking faggot. I'm hurt and angry. I don't say "Excuse me sir, but I am offended, so you have to stop saying that." I say "That isn't your word to use, and go fuck yourself."
I'm fairly certain that right now I'm talking about offense and PC-ness as it relates to art and entertainment.
You constructed offense as a no-discuss button or a silencing button. Unclear as to how they are not intimately intertwined.
Offense is a red herring. I'm not offended when a guy tells me I'm a fucking faggot. I'm hurt and angry. I don't say "Excuse me sir, but I am offended, so you have to stop saying that." I say "That isn't your word to use, and go fuck yourself."
I'm fairly certain that right now I'm talking about offense and PC-ness as it relates to art and entertainment.
You constructed offense as a no-discuss button or a silencing button. Unclear as to how they are not intimately intertwined.
I'm not actually sure what you're saying, now. Would you mind restating your point as it relates to my posts on offense/PCness in art and entertainment?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Maybe it's not about thin skinned-ness (especially when you consider at how offended anti-PC people get when others get offended), maybe it's about people hearing shit like this day after day after day.
Here's the thing
If you say that your art, your work, offends people, is offensive, or that you like offensive humor, then why the fuck do you get in a huff when people get offended by it. If you accept that people will get offended then why are you surprised when it happens. And why is the onus on the people who are already getting fucked by society to shut up when we offend them
I actually don't care when someone gets offended.
Yes, that is what I said. I apply this to myself as well, if that makes you feel better. Though you should remember that I've made every effort to show that I'm specifically talking about offense and PCness as it relates to art and its affiliates here.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
If it was encapsulated in a good story and wasn't overly preachy, I'm sure I might find it intriguing. It would have to be done similarly to how the anti-bullying message was done in "Let the Right one In". Nudity wouldn't hurt, either. Maybe a few scenes of vampires tearing children's heads from their bodies...
Man, if you don't care if anyone gets offended why are we even having this discussion? Because you're... offended that other people get offended? Are you summoning up the invisible specter of censorship and claiming that PC censors things? Are you... offended by censorship?
As others have said, offense is different than opposition. I think that in most cases when people have a negative reaction to people being PC, that reaction is anger at the perceived attempt to censor them or control their behavior, not offense at others being offended.
Maybe it's not about thin skinned-ness (especially when you consider at how offended anti-PC people get when others get offended), maybe it's about people hearing shit like this day after day after day.
Here's the thing
If you say that your art, your work, offends people, is offensive, or that you like offensive humor, then why the fuck do you get in a huff when people get offended by it. If you accept that people will get offended then why are you surprised when it happens. And why is the onus on the people who are already getting fucked by society to shut up when we offend them
I actually don't care when someone gets offended.
Yes, that is what I said. I apply this to myself as well, if that makes you feel better. Though you should remember that I've made every effort to show that I'm specifically talking about offense and PCness as it relates to art and its affiliates here.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
If it was encapsulated in a good story and wasn't overly preachy, I'm sure I might find it intriguing. It would have to be done similarly to how the anti-bullying message was done in "Let the Right one In". Nudity wouldn't hurt, either. Maybe a few scenes of vampires tearing children's heads from their bodies...
Man, if you don't care if anyone gets offended why are we even having this discussion? Because you're... offended that other people get offended? Are you summoning up the invisible specter of censorship and claiming that PC censors things? Are you... offended by censorship?
As others have said, offense is different than opposition. I think that in most cases when people have a negative reaction to people being PC, that reaction is anger at the perceived attempt to censor them or control their behavior, not offense at others being offended.
Maybe it's not about thin skinned-ness (especially when you consider at how offended anti-PC people get when others get offended), maybe it's about people hearing shit like this day after day after day.
Here's the thing
If you say that your art, your work, offends people, is offensive, or that you like offensive humor, then why the fuck do you get in a huff when people get offended by it. If you accept that people will get offended then why are you surprised when it happens. And why is the onus on the people who are already getting fucked by society to shut up when we offend them
I actually don't care when someone gets offended.
Yes, that is what I said. I apply this to myself as well, if that makes you feel better. Though you should remember that I've made every effort to show that I'm specifically talking about offense and PCness as it relates to art and its affiliates here.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
If it was encapsulated in a good story and wasn't overly preachy, I'm sure I might find it intriguing. It would have to be done similarly to how the anti-bullying message was done in "Let the Right one In". Nudity wouldn't hurt, either. Maybe a few scenes of vampires tearing children's heads from their bodies...
Man, if you don't care if anyone gets offended why are we even having this discussion? Because you're... offended that other people get offended? Are you summoning up the invisible specter of censorship and claiming that PC censors things? Are you... offended by censorship?
As others have said, offense is different than opposition. I think that in most cases when people have a negative reaction to people being PC, that reaction is anger at the perceived attempt to censor them or control their behavior, not offense at others being offended.
As a rich white male, I'm pretty confident that I own all the words.
Oh, I see. Very well. i am opposed to sexism, not offended by it.
There, did I win? Have I made it past your shifting goalposts?
Well, if you are opposed, not offended, then I assume you are in favor of a measured, long term tactical approach aimed at effecting change. I think that is fine. Offense seems to lead to knee jerk reactions to specific issues, not a rational approach to tackling larger issues, and that is what I think gives PCness such a bad reputation.
A run-of-the-mill Best Picture movie is a little boring for me, and I like something that pushes my boundaries.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
And considering that we already live in a society that's pretty sexist and racist, perhaps 'offensive humor/material' doesn't push boundaries that much at all!
Ah, but offensive to who, and by whose standards?
The idea is not that to push boundaries you must be offensive. But you should not let what you're doing be curtailed by thin-skinned people. In my example of "Let the Right One In", there were people who were rather offended at the Vampire-on-child violence. But the movie just wouldn't have been as good without it IMO. It fit the feel and it worked thematically.
And that's the general idea. Being offensive for its own sake is a bunch of nonsense. But you should never be afraid of offending people when your vision makes its demands.
Look at FO3 and the loss of the ability to kill children. IMO, that detracts from the gritty lawless feel of the world. Hell, colonization does not have slaves, which is a ridiculous omission, all in the name of PCness.
That would be a good example. Basically, if a situation calls for something, an artist shouldn't feel restrained to add it because someone's going to get offended. But we now have this system set up where we grant un-due power to the most easily-offended among us, and in an age where we can simply change the channel this nonsense should not be.
You see, it is all about who the deserves the power. If women and minorities deserved any power, they would have it already! Clearly only white males are due power. It is the natural order, and anyone who tries to upset that natural order is very bad indeed and should feel deepest shame.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
A run-of-the-mill Best Picture movie is a little boring for me, and I like something that pushes my boundaries.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
And considering that we already live in a society that's pretty sexist and racist, perhaps 'offensive humor/material' doesn't push boundaries that much at all!
Ah, but offensive to who, and by whose standards?
The idea is not that to push boundaries you must be offensive. But you should not let what you're doing be curtailed by thin-skinned people. In my example of "Let the Right One In", there were people who were rather offended at the Vampire-on-child violence. But the movie just wouldn't have been as good without it IMO. It fit the feel and it worked thematically.
And that's the general idea. Being offensive for its own sake is a bunch of nonsense. But you should never be afraid of offending people when your vision makes its demands.
Look at FO3 and the loss of the ability to kill children. IMO, that detracts from the gritty lawless feel of the world. Hell, colonization does not have slaves, which is a ridiculous omission, all in the name of PCness.
That would be a good example. Basically, if a situation calls for something, an artist shouldn't feel restrained to add it because someone's going to get offended. But we now have this system set up where we grant un-due power to the most easily-offended among us, and in an age where we can simply change the channel this nonsense should not be.
You see, it is all about who the deserves the power. If women and minorities deserved any power, they would have it already! Clearly only white males are due power. It is the natural order, and anyone who tries to upset that natural order is very bad indeed and should feel deepest shame.
Only you could see a paragraph on artists and political correctness and come up with a countering paragraph on how I hate women and minorities.
A run-of-the-mill Best Picture movie is a little boring for me, and I like something that pushes my boundaries.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
And considering that we already live in a society that's pretty sexist and racist, perhaps 'offensive humor/material' doesn't push boundaries that much at all!
Ah, but offensive to who, and by whose standards?
The idea is not that to push boundaries you must be offensive. But you should not let what you're doing be curtailed by thin-skinned people. In my example of "Let the Right One In", there were people who were rather offended at the Vampire-on-child violence. But the movie just wouldn't have been as good without it IMO. It fit the feel and it worked thematically.
And that's the general idea. Being offensive for its own sake is a bunch of nonsense. But you should never be afraid of offending people when your vision makes its demands.
Look at FO3 and the loss of the ability to kill children. IMO, that detracts from the gritty lawless feel of the world. Hell, colonization does not have slaves, which is a ridiculous omission, all in the name of PCness.
That would be a good example. Basically, if a situation calls for something, an artist shouldn't feel restrained to add it because someone's going to get offended. But we now have this system set up where we grant un-due power to the most easily-offended among us, and in an age where we can simply change the channel this nonsense should not be.
You see, it is all about who the deserves the power. If women and minorities deserved any power, they would have it already! Clearly only white males are due power. It is the natural order, and anyone who tries to upset that natural order is very bad indeed and should feel deepest shame.
Only you could see a paragraph on artists and political correctness and come up with a countering paragraph on how I hate women and minorities.
You're really not interested in a discussion, are you?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A run-of-the-mill Best Picture movie is a little boring for me, and I like something that pushes my boundaries.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
And considering that we already live in a society that's pretty sexist and racist, perhaps 'offensive humor/material' doesn't push boundaries that much at all!
Ah, but offensive to who, and by whose standards?
The idea is not that to push boundaries you must be offensive. But you should not let what you're doing be curtailed by thin-skinned people. In my example of "Let the Right One In", there were people who were rather offended at the Vampire-on-child violence. But the movie just wouldn't have been as good without it IMO. It fit the feel and it worked thematically.
And that's the general idea. Being offensive for its own sake is a bunch of nonsense. But you should never be afraid of offending people when your vision makes its demands.
Look at FO3 and the loss of the ability to kill children. IMO, that detracts from the gritty lawless feel of the world. Hell, colonization does not have slaves, which is a ridiculous omission, all in the name of PCness.
That would be a good example. Basically, if a situation calls for something, an artist shouldn't feel restrained to add it because someone's going to get offended. But we now have this system set up where we grant un-due power to the most easily-offended among us, and in an age where we can simply change the channel this nonsense should not be.
You see, it is all about who the deserves the power. If women and minorities deserved any power, they would have it already! Clearly only white males are due power. It is the natural order, and anyone who tries to upset that natural order is very bad indeed and should feel deepest shame.
Only you could see a paragraph on artists and political correctness and come up with a countering paragraph on how I hate women and minorities.
You're really not interested in a discussion, are you?
I'm not sure how you can read my quote, then her response, and still come to that conclusion. Cambiata didn't argue a single thing I was saying. She created an argument out of thin air, assigned it to me, then mocked me for supporting it.
In shorthand, massive strawman.
I wrote like 10 posts on my thoughts on how I feel PCness and offense relates to art and entertainment, and that was her response. I'm beginning to suspect a lack of good faith here.
Frankiedarling on
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
You mentioned "un-due power" and yes, that is indeed the only part of your argument that interests me. It implies you believe that there are people who deserve to have power, and people who do not, and god forbid anyone who is powerless try to take power for themselves.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Where in the word "oppose" does "measured, long term tactical approach" come in?
I think we are back at the earlier point about the imprecision of language, but this is my fault in this case. My claim is that when people get offended by something, they tend to have an immediate negative reaction to the precise thing that offended them. By contrast, the antiPC crowd sees someone have that knee jerk reaction to the specific thing and objects on the basis that the offended party's specific complaint, if addressed, would impact bigger picture issues like artistic freedom or freedom of expression.
So to me the distinction between an offended person and an antiPC person is that the offended person is trying to dictate behavior in a very tiny space (i.e., wiping out one word) while the antiPC person is resisting on the grounds of bigger issues like the idea of having other people control their behavior. I think that both sides should always be looking at the bigger picture, and neither should engage in battles over specific incidents without considering the overall effect of the broader issues.
You mentioned "un-due power" and yes, that is indeed the only part of your argument that interests me. It implies you believe that there are people who deserve to have power, and people who do not, and god forbid anyone who is powerless try to take power for themselves.
What it means is what I said it means, way back when I first laid out my feelings on Political Correctness: that I think it's troublesome to allow the most easily-offended people to dictate content. It's not about general power balances, it's about a very specific thing that happens to be the thing I've been talking about for the past page or so. Odd coincidence.
EDIT: If you really, really want an argument on powerbalance, I guess we can have one. But the way to go about doing so is not to grab two random words out of 10 posts, construct a strawman from it and mock me for supporting said strawman. If you really thought it needed addressing, why not try: "Hey Frankie, what do you mean here where you say 'un-due power'? I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of your post, could you clarify?"
A run-of-the-mill Best Picture movie is a little boring for me, and I like something that pushes my boundaries.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
And considering that we already live in a society that's pretty sexist and racist, perhaps 'offensive humor/material' doesn't push boundaries that much at all!
Ah, but offensive to who, and by whose standards?
The idea is not that to push boundaries you must be offensive. But you should not let what you're doing be curtailed by thin-skinned people. In my example of "Let the Right One In", there were people who were rather offended at the Vampire-on-child violence. But the movie just wouldn't have been as good without it IMO. It fit the feel and it worked thematically.
And that's the general idea. Being offensive for its own sake is a bunch of nonsense. But you should never be afraid of offending people when your vision makes its demands.
Look at FO3 and the loss of the ability to kill children. IMO, that detracts from the gritty lawless feel of the world. Hell, colonization does not have slaves, which is a ridiculous omission, all in the name of PCness.
That would be a good example. Basically, if a situation calls for something, an artist shouldn't feel restrained to add it because someone's going to get offended. But we now have this system set up where we grant un-due power to the most easily-offended among us, and in an age where we can simply change the channel this nonsense should not be.
You see, it is all about who the deserves the power. If women and minorities deserved any power, they would have it already! Clearly only white males are due power. It is the natural order, and anyone who tries to upset that natural order is very bad indeed and should feel deepest shame.
Only you could see a paragraph on artists and political correctness and come up with a countering paragraph on how I hate women and minorities.
You're really not interested in a discussion, are you?
I'm not sure how you can read my quote, then her response, and still come to that conclusion. Cambiata didn't argue a single thing I was saying. She created an argument out of thin air, assigned it to me, then mocked me for supporting it.
In shorthand, massive strawman.
I wrote like 10 posts on my thoughts on how I feel PCness and offense relates to art and entertainment, and that was her response. I'm beginning to suspect a lack of good faith here.
After your ridiculous contortions around the "girlfriend mode" where you emphatically dismissed some ten pages worth of explanations to you, I'm not sure why anyone would give you good faith, dude. After you told me three times that the concept of enthusiastic consent was "literally retarded" and then wigged out and started crying to everyone that I was calling you a rapist and that I had said something about verbal confirmation that I had definitely not said I'm not sure you've earned any kind of good faith. Especially when you refer to people correcting you as "dog-piling" without even the smallest consideration of why anyone might disagree with you.
Even here you're missing Cambiata's point that you're using language that describes power as though one group deserves more than another and that's the problem with your entire argument. Instead of addressing it, you're avoiding it and complaining as though something dreadfully unfair has been done to you. Are you really interested in discussing this or are you just kind of wasting everyone here's time? At least SKFM is willing to have an insufferably boring discourse on his opinion that minorities need to fight for change on his terms for 30 pages.
A run-of-the-mill Best Picture movie is a little boring for me, and I like something that pushes my boundaries.
You really think a movie about the effect of sexism or racism wouldn't push your boundaries?
Considering how strongly you have been reacting in these threads to what you term as "PCness", it seems like a movie in that vein would be exactly the thing to push your boundaries.
And considering that we already live in a society that's pretty sexist and racist, perhaps 'offensive humor/material' doesn't push boundaries that much at all!
Ah, but offensive to who, and by whose standards?
The idea is not that to push boundaries you must be offensive. But you should not let what you're doing be curtailed by thin-skinned people. In my example of "Let the Right One In", there were people who were rather offended at the Vampire-on-child violence. But the movie just wouldn't have been as good without it IMO. It fit the feel and it worked thematically.
And that's the general idea. Being offensive for its own sake is a bunch of nonsense. But you should never be afraid of offending people when your vision makes its demands.
Look at FO3 and the loss of the ability to kill children. IMO, that detracts from the gritty lawless feel of the world. Hell, colonization does not have slaves, which is a ridiculous omission, all in the name of PCness.
That would be a good example. Basically, if a situation calls for something, an artist shouldn't feel restrained to add it because someone's going to get offended. But we now have this system set up where we grant un-due power to the most easily-offended among us, and in an age where we can simply change the channel this nonsense should not be.
You see, it is all about who the deserves the power. If women and minorities deserved any power, they would have it already! Clearly only white males are due power. It is the natural order, and anyone who tries to upset that natural order is very bad indeed and should feel deepest shame.
Only you could see a paragraph on artists and political correctness and come up with a countering paragraph on how I hate women and minorities.
You're really not interested in a discussion, are you?
I'm not sure how you can read my quote, then her response, and still come to that conclusion. Cambiata didn't argue a single thing I was saying. She created an argument out of thin air, assigned it to me, then mocked me for supporting it.
In shorthand, massive strawman.
I wrote like 10 posts on my thoughts on how I feel PCness and offense relates to art and entertainment, and that was her response. I'm beginning to suspect a lack of good faith here.
After your ridiculous contortions around the "girlfriend mode" where you emphatically dismissed some ten pages worth of explanations to you, I'm not sure why anyone would give you good faith, dude. After you told me three times that the concept of enthusiastic consent was "literally retarded" and then wigged out and started crying to everyone that I was calling you a rapist and that I had said something about verbal confirmation that I had definitely not said I'm not sure you've earned any kind of good faith. Especially when you refer to people correcting you as "dog-piling" without even the smallest consideration of why anyone might disagree with you.
Even here you're missing Cambiata's point that you're using language that describes power as though one group deserves more than another and that's the problem with your entire argument. Instead of addressing it, you're avoiding it and complaining as though something dreadfully unfair has been done to you. Are you really interested in discussing this or are you just kind of wasting everyone here's time? At least SKFM is willing to have an insufferably boring discourse on his opinion that minorities need to fight for change on his terms for 30 pages.
In point form.
A: I'm sorry you didn't agree with me on Girlfriend mode. However, a disagreement is not exactly an indication of bad faith.
B : Your definition of Enthusiastic Consent is literally retarded. It makes sense to crazy people. You framed it as "agree or be a rape apologist", then declared that men should have to prove they're not rapists. THEN you told someone that you didn't want them to be a part of your society because they disagreed with your utterly backwards take on "innocent until proven guilty".
I have since realized that there are moderate and reasonable interpretations of enthusiastic consent (as argued by Feral). I may not feel they should be implemented in my daily life (pending some clarification), but it certainly was not framed as "do this or be a rape apologist". That was a point in its favor, I'll tell you that. I take the knowledge that an idea is not retarded as a good thing.
C : Dog-piling is a thing. It's actually fairly bad form. It doesn't allow for quality of debate.
D : How can you tell what consideration I give as to why people disagree with me? Are you now a mind reader?
E : Cambiata's point was a strawman. She took a specific instance of a thing and claimed I was arguing this thing for EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE (AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST WOMEN AND MINORITIES, GRRR!). Even so, I actually took the time to articulate why I felt her response was not reasonable.
F : No, I am not wasting everyone's time. Unless of course, you classify "wasting everyone's time" as disagreeing with them on portions of feminist theory. In which case, yes. I am wasting everyone's time.
if an argument in good faith is designed to educate and change the minds of yourself or others about opposing positions then I can't see how anyone here is arguing in good faith
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
if an argument in good faith is designed to educate and change the minds of yourself or others about opposing positions then I can't see how anyone here is arguing in good faith
Hey, I think I have been arguing in good faith per your definition. Look at how much text I wrote 60 pages ago trying to explain my position and who I thought it was right.
if an argument in good faith is designed to educate and change the minds of yourself or others about opposing positions then I can't see how anyone here is arguing in good faith
The following is a vague but usable application for Good Faith in these circumstances:
Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice.
if an argument in good faith is designed to educate and change the minds of yourself or others about opposing positions then I can't see how anyone here is arguing in good faith
The following is a vague but usable application for Good Faith in these circumstances:
Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice.
without malice huh
welp
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A: I'm sorry you didn't agree with me on Girlfriend mode. However, a disagreement is not exactly an indication of bad faith.
B : Your definition of Enthusiastic Consent is literally retarded. It makes sense to crazy people. You framed it as "agree or be a rape apologist", then declared that men should have to prove they're not rapists. THEN you told someone that you didn't want them to be a part of your society because they disagreed with your utterly backwards take on "innocent until proven guilty".
I have since realized that there are moderate and reasonable interpretations of enthusiastic consent (as argued by Feral). I may not feel they should be implemented in my daily life (pending some clarification), but it certainly was not framed as "do this or be a rape apologist". That was a point in its favor, I'll tell you that. I take the knowledge that an idea is not retarded as a good thing.
C : Dog-piling is a thing. It's actually fairly bad form. It doesn't allow for quality of debate.
D : How can you tell what consideration I give as to why people disagree with me? Are you now a mind reader?
E : Cambiata's point was a strawman. She took a specific instance of a thing and claimed I was arguing this thing for EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE (AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST WOMEN AND MINORITIES, GRRR!). Even so, I actually took the time to articulate why I felt her response was not reasonable.
F : No, I am not wasting everyone's time. Unless of course, you classify "wasting everyone's time" as disagreeing with them on portions of feminist theory. In which case, yes. I am wasting everyone's time.
There is no letter G.
In point form
A : Ignoring your argumentative opponents and restating something that had been addressed and refuted several times over is in fact bad faith.
B : I never once stated a definition of Enthusiastic consent, only that the lack thereof constitutes rape. I will point out again that you've again said the idea of getting consent is "literally retarded," not something a person arguing in good faith would say. When other people pointed out that you were wrong you turned around and said "yeah well jakeman was arguing a crazy definition" when you didn't even know what my definition was because I never posted one.
C : You stated something and several people addressed what you said. It's not a dog-pile, though framing it as that would fit with the sort of paranoiac mindset that assumes I accused you of rape. I am accusing you of using paranoiac hyperbole in place of argument. Like that time when you used feral's argument in place of your own argument. Or that time you wildly misattributed Cambiata's argument as an all-caps crazy argument. Or that time in which you told me only crazy people would take the stance you imagined I did.
D : From what you've written, nothing a person has said to you has registered as a valid point because you've restated the exact same points over and over, especially w/r/t the girlfriend mode. You continually handwave arguments that do not meet your shifting criteria.
E : Cambiata said nothing of the sort. That you felt the need to change your stance midway through (because you did, and then strongly pushed that you were only talking about art because you realized at some point that it's harder to defend if it's a thing that is not art) and then proceed to dismiss arguments since they were not on your (newly) declared grounds demonstrates bad faith.
A: I'm sorry you didn't agree with me on Girlfriend mode. However, a disagreement is not exactly an indication of bad faith.
B : Your definition of Enthusiastic Consent is literally retarded. It makes sense to crazy people. You framed it as "agree or be a rape apologist", then declared that men should have to prove they're not rapists. THEN you told someone that you didn't want them to be a part of your society because they disagreed with your utterly backwards take on "innocent until proven guilty".
I have since realized that there are moderate and reasonable interpretations of enthusiastic consent (as argued by Feral). I may not feel they should be implemented in my daily life (pending some clarification), but it certainly was not framed as "do this or be a rape apologist". That was a point in its favor, I'll tell you that. I take the knowledge that an idea is not retarded as a good thing.
C : Dog-piling is a thing. It's actually fairly bad form. It doesn't allow for quality of debate.
D : How can you tell what consideration I give as to why people disagree with me? Are you now a mind reader?
E : Cambiata's point was a strawman. She took a specific instance of a thing and claimed I was arguing this thing for EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE (AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST WOMEN AND MINORITIES, GRRR!). Even so, I actually took the time to articulate why I felt her response was not reasonable.
F : No, I am not wasting everyone's time. Unless of course, you classify "wasting everyone's time" as disagreeing with them on portions of feminist theory. In which case, yes. I am wasting everyone's time.
There is no letter G.
In point form
A : Ignoring your argumentative opponents and restating something that had been addressed and refuted several times over is in fact bad faith.
B : I never once stated a definition of Enthusiastic consent, only that the lack thereof constitutes rape. I will point out again that you've again said the idea of getting consent is "literally retarded," not something a person arguing in good faith would say. When other people pointed out that you were wrong you turned around and said "yeah well jakeman was arguing a crazy definition" when you didn't even know what my definition was because I never posted one.
C : You stated something and several people addressed what you said. It's not a dog-pile, though framing it as that would fit with the sort of paranoiac mindset that assumes I accused you of rape. I am accusing you of using paranoiac hyperbole in place of argument. Like that time when you used feral's argument in place of your own argument. Or that time you wildly misattributed Cambiata's argument as an all-caps crazy argument. Or that time in which you told me only crazy people would take the stance you imagined I did.
D : From what you've written, nothing a person has said to you has registered as a valid point because you've restated the exact same points over and over, especially w/r/t the girlfriend mode. You continually handwave arguments that do not meet your shifting criteria.
E : Cambiata said nothing of the sort. That you felt the need to change your stance midway through (because you did, and then strongly pushed that you were only talking about art because you realized at some point that it's harder to defend if it's a thing that is not art) and then proceed to dismiss arguments since they were not on your (newly) declared grounds demonstrates bad faith.
As others have said, offense is different than opposition.
Ah bullshit semantics. Way to let your profession shine through.
Feel free to pretend I instead oppose people using a word that applies only to women to describe easy mode.
This... Is inaccurate. Opposition is not equivalent to offense. It's not correct to assert that they are, and it's unfair to say that someone who is opposed to something is offended by it, and vice versa.
It is, indeed, a small, semantic thing, but words are IMPORTANT. I can be opposed to something without being offended by it, quite easily, and I can be offended by something while not being opposed to it to any significant degree. (Hello Jersey Shore, how are you?)
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
As others have said, offense is different than opposition.
Ah bullshit semantics. Way to let your profession shine through.
Feel free to pretend I instead oppose people using a word that applies only to women to describe easy mode.
This... Is inaccurate. Opposition is not equivalent to offense. It's not correct to assert that they are, and it's unfair to say that someone who is opposed to something is offended by it, and vice versa.
It is, indeed, a small, semantic thing, but words are IMPORTANT. I can be opposed to something without being offended by it, quite easily, and I can be offended by something while not being opposed to it to any significant degree. (Hello Jersey Shore, how are you?)
I would say based on the posts here, that most people are opposed to the use of sexist language as demonstrated by Hemingway, more so than they are offended. At least that's my read on what other people have said, but of course I'm not a mind reader, ha ha.
For myself I can definitely say I oppose the language he used, without being "offended" by it in a personal way. It was more of an eyeroller than anything else, an "Oh man did you really just say that, you silly jackass?" moment.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
As others have said, offense is different than opposition.
Ah bullshit semantics. Way to let your profession shine through.
Feel free to pretend I instead oppose people using a word that applies only to women to describe easy mode.
This... Is inaccurate. Opposition is not equivalent to offense. It's not correct to assert that they are, and it's unfair to say that someone who is opposed to something is offended by it, and vice versa.
It is, indeed, a small, semantic thing, but words are IMPORTANT. I can be opposed to something without being offended by it, quite easily, and I can be offended by something while not being opposed to it to any significant degree. (Hello Jersey Shore, how are you?)
The problem is SKFM is automatically assuming only offense, a word with similar but slightly different meaning, and using that as the basis for his argument since if he assumed opposed he'd have nothing.
Now that the thread is starting to approach endgame, I'm wondering how you, @AManFromEarth, feel about the it. Did it turn into what you had hoped for it to be? Do you feel that the most important questions have been brought up? Is there anything you feel missing?
On this:
"Let's try to not turn this into a catch-all superthread or degrade into what the billion other threads of this nature have been turning into lately.
So let's avoid mudslinging and take it on faith that we're all in here to actually have an adult discussion on the subject, yeah? Thread shitting will be treated appropriately *cracks OP whip*"
Are you bitter that there has been quite a lot of mudslinging/hasty assumptions and a considerable lack of interest in what the other side has to say at some times, or do you feel that it was at a reasonable level or less than you expected? Do you think the discussion branched out too much or was too narrow?
Do you have any thoughts about what could be done to improve the conditions for this kind of discussion about feminisim and -related topics? Should certain guidelines be set? One thing I thought of is that it might be good to include certain definitions of important terms at the outset to make sure that everyone's on the same page.
Words carry with them the context in how they are and have been used. Context changes depending on who is using a word. When a black person uses the N word it doesn't mean "I think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy", when a white person uses the N word it does.
Similarly with gendered words, or words that refer to sexual orientations
As others have said, offense is different than opposition.
Ah bullshit semantics. Way to let your profession shine through.
Feel free to pretend I instead oppose people using a word that applies only to women to describe easy mode.
This... Is inaccurate. Opposition is not equivalent to offense. It's not correct to assert that they are, and it's unfair to say that someone who is opposed to something is offended by it, and vice versa.
It is, indeed, a small, semantic thing, but words are IMPORTANT. I can be opposed to something without being offended by it, quite easily, and I can be offended by something while not being opposed to it to any significant degree. (Hello Jersey Shore, how are you?)
I would say that in nearly every case that people accuse someone of being "easily offended", they are simply trying to minimize the fact that the person opposes a certain thing.
So for instance, my requesting that someone not use anti-gay slurs is not due to a low threshold for being offended, it's due to a conscious decision to attempt to reduce the number of gay slurs being said by people I know in order to reap benefits.
The idea that there exists only a slider from raunchy party guy who doesn't care to uptight effete jerk who watches your every word is a way of eliminating the sense that you have a responsibility to work toward better things in small stages.
Not sure if I'm late to the party here, but I have a good reason why you can't say "this isn't sexist because it wasn't intended to be".
I have a white friend from an island way far away whose name is Negro. He's really slow, and has some neurological issues that sometimes makes him say stupid things. I can totally now say "wow, you just had a Negro moment there" if someone says something dumb, and if they call me racist I can just explain why it's totally not. Woo! And anyone I talk to can ALSO now relate my story when referring to my friend, and that's totally cool too!
...Because that doesn't and CANT work, or else racists would only need one valid (or maybe not even valid, unless they actually know my friend, and this is the internet) anecdote to be able to say shit about my friend Negro, and every time someone told the anecdote we'd all be like "oh, okay... you're totally not racist in that case."
The girlfriend mode thing is sexist because you can't just have a context where it is called that and it makes it okay. If you want to look at the micro side of things and all of your friends know this girlfriend story and nobody ever hears it out of context and want to call that not sexist, I guess you can do that. But as soon as someone hears it devoid of context (like say if you told a reporter who repeated it?), it's magically sexist again, and people reading it might a) parrot it without the context, because yeah girlfriends are like that, right? or b) get offended by it, because I'm sure you can see it's sexist if you have it devoid of context.
If we lived life by the rule of "you can say stuff that is sexist when it's devoid of context but in-context it's totally cool", then you give people license to say all sorts of scary stuff, so long as they can tell a convincing story about how it's based on some inside joke and totally not intended to be used that way.
Does...does that make sense?
And all of this is LITERALLY because you couldn't be bothered to call this something that does not reference an existing stereotype. Calling it (name of Bob's Girlfriend) mode, or easy mode, or any of a million things... Or my friend could have a NT moment, cause those are his initials.
"There's a backstory to this that makes it not sexist" doesn't work because a) you cannot make sure this backstory gets to everyone that hears what you are saying, b) who the hell knows if your backstory is true, and most importantly c) you could have just said it in a way that doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes to begin with, and all anyone is asking is that you do so in the future.
Words carry with them the context in how they are and have been used. Context changes depending on who is using a word. When a black person uses the N word it does mean "I think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy", when a white person uses the N word it does.
Similarly with gendered words, or words that refer to sexual orientations
So regardless of context, when a white person (or is it all non-black people?) uses the n-word, they are revealing their internal view that slavery was "fine and dandy"?
Really?
So would you also argue that if a dude uses any words like "bitch", "slut", "whore", or any of their ilk, regardless of context, they are revealing that they are a misogynist?
Not sure if I'm late to the party here, but I have a good reason why you can't say "this isn't sexist because it wasn't intended to be".
I have a white friend from an island way far away whose name is Negro. He's really slow, and has some neurological issues that sometimes makes him say stupid things. I can totally now say "wow, you just had a Negro moment there" if someone says something dumb, and if they call me racist I can just explain why it's totally not. Woo! And anyone I talk to can ALSO now relate my story when referring to my friend, and that's totally cool too!
...Because that doesn't and CANT work, or else racists would only need one valid (or maybe not even valid, unless they actually know my friend, and this is the internet) anecdote to be able to say shit about my friend Negro, and every time someone told the anecdote we'd all be like "oh, okay... you're totally not racist in that case."
The girlfriend mode thing is sexist because you can't just have a context where it is called that and it makes it okay. If you want to look at the micro side of things and all of your friends know this girlfriend story and nobody ever hears it out of context and want to call that not sexist, I guess you can do that. But as soon as someone hears it devoid of context (like say if you told a reporter who repeated it?), it's magically sexist again, and people reading it might a) parrot it without the context, because yeah girlfriends are like that, right? or b) get offended by it, because I'm sure you can see it's sexist if you have it devoid of context.
If we lived life by the rule of "you can say stuff that is sexist when it's devoid of context but in-context it's totally cool", then you give people license to say all sorts of scary stuff, so long as they can tell a convincing story about how it's based on some inside joke and totally not intended to be used that way.
Does...does that make sense?
And all of this is LITERALLY because you couldn't be bothered to call this something that does not reference an existing stereotype. Calling it (name of Bob's Girlfriend) mode, or easy mode, or any of a million things... Or my friend could have a NT moment, cause those are his initials.
"There's a backstory to this that makes it not sexist" doesn't work because a) you cannot make sure this backstory gets to everyone that hears what you are saying, b) who the hell knows if your backstory is true, and most importantly c) you could have just said it in a way that doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes to begin with, and all anyone is asking is that you do so in the future.
This does not make sense to me.
It seems to be based around the idea that it can't be ok because it gives an out for racists and sexists. To which I say, that's unfortunate, but you can't simply ban all people from using any sort of context and personal meaning. The idea here is to reduce actual sexism, not individual words or phrases that you don't get. It just seems a bit silly to say, "Well I understand perfectly what you meant, but if I didn't I would think you might be sexist. Therefore, what you said was sexist."
I already settled my feelings on this a few pages ago, in that I agreed the wording left an opening for people to read into it if that was their focus. But when you combine what he said with his intended context, the thing was no longer sexist. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the most reasonable compromise in this situation.
I understand if you feel that we need to divorce context and meaning from what people say, but I do not agree.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Now that the thread is starting to approach endgame, I'm wondering how you, @AManFromEarth, feel about the it. Did it turn into what you had hoped for it to be? Do you feel that the most important questions have been brought up? Is there anything you feel missing?
On this:
"Let's try to not turn this into a catch-all superthread or degrade into what the billion other threads of this nature have been turning into lately.
So let's avoid mudslinging and take it on faith that we're all in here to actually have an adult discussion on the subject, yeah? Thread shitting will be treated appropriately *cracks OP whip*"
Are you bitter that there has been quite a lot of mudslinging/hasty assumptions and a considerable lack of interest in what the other side has to say at some times, or do you feel that it was at a reasonable level or less than you expected? Do you think the discussion branched out too much or was too narrow?
Do you have any thoughts about what could be done to improve the conditions for this kind of discussion about feminisim and -related topics? Should certain guidelines be set? One thing I thought of is that it might be good to include certain definitions of important terms at the outset to make sure that everyone's on the same page.
I'm not AMFE, but I'd like to respond, since this thread was started based on a conversation we were having in another thread, and AMFE actually started it as a favor to me, since I was scared of how SKFM's feminism thread would turn out.
I learned a lot about what feminism and related words mean in this topic. I am still blown away by the whole idea that feminists use "mysoginy" to mean "sexism against women" but that helped me understand feminists much better. I also came to understand that 3rd wave feminism is poorly named because it isn't really about women's issues anymore.
I even think the tangent on the nature of gender norms was relevant to the original question, in that it helped clarify what exactly the problem being faced was. Similiarly, the tangent on strategy helped to show me why feminists use what I see as "losing" strategies a lot of the time.
There were other tangents I think were less helpful though, like the whole discussion of how quick the police are to arrest men when domestic violence is alleged. But my biggest dissapointment is that we have ended up mired in a 40 page tangent based on the idea that offensive words without an offensive intent are a problem. The whole mysoginy = sexism against women thing was eye opening for me specifically because it showed me feminists were not saying what I thought they were. It makes me sad that now that the situation is reversed, the feminists in this thread are literally refusing to extend the same courtesy, and are insisting that it is the words that matter, not what they mean in context.
Words carry with them the context in how they are and have been used. Context changes depending on who is using a word. When a black person uses the N word it doesn't mean "I think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy", when a white person uses the N word it does.
Similarly with gendered words, or words that refer to sexual orientations
That doesn't analogize well with other uses of the word "ownership," unless you're saying that the word is licensed, and in that case, the closest description I can find for that is that the word is racist because it automatically decides fair use based on skin color. Even then, it's like how you have no right to call just any tissue brand a Kleenex and does not carry with it prejudices about a person's belief system - they are just using the word inappropriately and inaccurately based only on its technical definition. There are legal damages involved but nothing extradenotative is implied about the offender's character.
So because the concept of social word ownership is unlike any other structure of ownership, I continue to proclaim it a weird concept.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Words carry with them the context in how they are and have been used. Context changes depending on who is using a word. When a black person uses the N word it does mean "I think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy", when a white person uses the N word it does.
Similarly with gendered words, or words that refer to sexual orientations
So regardless of context, when a white person (or is it all non-black people?) uses the n-word, they are revealing their internal view that slavery was "fine and dandy"?
Really?
So would you also argue that if a dude uses any words like "bitch", "slut", "whore", or any of their ilk, regardless of context, they are revealing that they are a misogynist?
I did not know the n-word until my late teens, there isn't an analogue to it in my native language (Spanish), and the concept of a word having so much power was quite literally foreign to me (people of my skin color are called "wheat pickers" in PR and that never bothered me, for example). I don't think it quite hit me how powerful a single word can be to people until it had to be banned from this site to avoid controversy.
From that pseudo-outsider's perspective, I see the terms like "bitch, fag, dike, etc" having so much weight because they are minorities, and people who want to put them down in a quick, effective manner made-up/borrowed words and used them on those groups the same way *dunno if other racial terms are still allowed?* are used on racial minorities.
The words have their use, and it falls on the minorities who "took" the word to give it a new meaning or make it lose its power (I've learned to use the term "fag" to mean "adorably affectionate" because I watch too much Logo). The people in power are being asked by those groups to simply stop using the word while it carries such negative messages, with exceptions being given for art (give me Boondocks or give me death) or situations where there's no malice and it is known that the people involved will not be hurt by the use of the word.
If progressive movements were to be more successful/expedient when it comes to voting for equality, your grandchildren would potentially be able to use any of those words in a non-hurtful manner, though they'd probably have different meanings by then.
Posts
You really can't imagine social equality, can you?
I'm fairly certain that right now I'm talking about offense and PC-ness as it relates to art and entertainment.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm not actually sure what you're saying, now. Would you mind restating your point as it relates to my posts on offense/PCness in art and entertainment?
As others have said, offense is different than opposition. I think that in most cases when people have a negative reaction to people being PC, that reaction is anger at the perceived attempt to censor them or control their behavior, not offense at others being offended.
As a rich white male, I'm pretty confident that I own all the words.
Oh, I see. Very well. i am opposed to sexism, not offended by it.
There, did I win? Have I made it past your shifting goalposts?
Well, if you are opposed, not offended, then I assume you are in favor of a measured, long term tactical approach aimed at effecting change. I think that is fine. Offense seems to lead to knee jerk reactions to specific issues, not a rational approach to tackling larger issues, and that is what I think gives PCness such a bad reputation.
You see, it is all about who the deserves the power. If women and minorities deserved any power, they would have it already! Clearly only white males are due power. It is the natural order, and anyone who tries to upset that natural order is very bad indeed and should feel deepest shame.
Only you could see a paragraph on artists and political correctness and come up with a countering paragraph on how I hate women and minorities.
You're really not interested in a discussion, are you?
I would like to see your deed to those two titles sir©
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm not sure how you can read my quote, then her response, and still come to that conclusion. Cambiata didn't argue a single thing I was saying. She created an argument out of thin air, assigned it to me, then mocked me for supporting it.
In shorthand, massive strawman.
I wrote like 10 posts on my thoughts on how I feel PCness and offense relates to art and entertainment, and that was her response. I'm beginning to suspect a lack of good faith here.
I think we are back at the earlier point about the imprecision of language, but this is my fault in this case. My claim is that when people get offended by something, they tend to have an immediate negative reaction to the precise thing that offended them. By contrast, the antiPC crowd sees someone have that knee jerk reaction to the specific thing and objects on the basis that the offended party's specific complaint, if addressed, would impact bigger picture issues like artistic freedom or freedom of expression.
So to me the distinction between an offended person and an antiPC person is that the offended person is trying to dictate behavior in a very tiny space (i.e., wiping out one word) while the antiPC person is resisting on the grounds of bigger issues like the idea of having other people control their behavior. I think that both sides should always be looking at the bigger picture, and neither should engage in battles over specific incidents without considering the overall effect of the broader issues.
What it means is what I said it means, way back when I first laid out my feelings on Political Correctness: that I think it's troublesome to allow the most easily-offended people to dictate content. It's not about general power balances, it's about a very specific thing that happens to be the thing I've been talking about for the past page or so. Odd coincidence.
EDIT: If you really, really want an argument on powerbalance, I guess we can have one. But the way to go about doing so is not to grab two random words out of 10 posts, construct a strawman from it and mock me for supporting said strawman. If you really thought it needed addressing, why not try: "Hey Frankie, what do you mean here where you say 'un-due power'? I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of your post, could you clarify?"
Ah bullshit semantics. Way to let your profession shine through.
Feel free to pretend I instead oppose people using a word that applies only to women to describe easy mode.
After your ridiculous contortions around the "girlfriend mode" where you emphatically dismissed some ten pages worth of explanations to you, I'm not sure why anyone would give you good faith, dude. After you told me three times that the concept of enthusiastic consent was "literally retarded" and then wigged out and started crying to everyone that I was calling you a rapist and that I had said something about verbal confirmation that I had definitely not said I'm not sure you've earned any kind of good faith. Especially when you refer to people correcting you as "dog-piling" without even the smallest consideration of why anyone might disagree with you.
Even here you're missing Cambiata's point that you're using language that describes power as though one group deserves more than another and that's the problem with your entire argument. Instead of addressing it, you're avoiding it and complaining as though something dreadfully unfair has been done to you. Are you really interested in discussing this or are you just kind of wasting everyone here's time? At least SKFM is willing to have an insufferably boring discourse on his opinion that minorities need to fight for change on his terms for 30 pages.
In point form.
A: I'm sorry you didn't agree with me on Girlfriend mode. However, a disagreement is not exactly an indication of bad faith.
B : Your definition of Enthusiastic Consent is literally retarded. It makes sense to crazy people. You framed it as "agree or be a rape apologist", then declared that men should have to prove they're not rapists. THEN you told someone that you didn't want them to be a part of your society because they disagreed with your utterly backwards take on "innocent until proven guilty".
I have since realized that there are moderate and reasonable interpretations of enthusiastic consent (as argued by Feral). I may not feel they should be implemented in my daily life (pending some clarification), but it certainly was not framed as "do this or be a rape apologist". That was a point in its favor, I'll tell you that. I take the knowledge that an idea is not retarded as a good thing.
C : Dog-piling is a thing. It's actually fairly bad form. It doesn't allow for quality of debate.
D : How can you tell what consideration I give as to why people disagree with me? Are you now a mind reader?
E : Cambiata's point was a strawman. She took a specific instance of a thing and claimed I was arguing this thing for EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE (AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST WOMEN AND MINORITIES, GRRR!). Even so, I actually took the time to articulate why I felt her response was not reasonable.
F : No, I am not wasting everyone's time. Unless of course, you classify "wasting everyone's time" as disagreeing with them on portions of feminist theory. In which case, yes. I am wasting everyone's time.
There is no letter G.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Hey, I think I have been arguing in good faith per your definition. Look at how much text I wrote 60 pages ago trying to explain my position and who I thought it was right.
The following is a vague but usable application for Good Faith in these circumstances:
without malice huh
welp
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In point form
A : Ignoring your argumentative opponents and restating something that had been addressed and refuted several times over is in fact bad faith.
B : I never once stated a definition of Enthusiastic consent, only that the lack thereof constitutes rape. I will point out again that you've again said the idea of getting consent is "literally retarded," not something a person arguing in good faith would say. When other people pointed out that you were wrong you turned around and said "yeah well jakeman was arguing a crazy definition" when you didn't even know what my definition was because I never posted one.
C : You stated something and several people addressed what you said. It's not a dog-pile, though framing it as that would fit with the sort of paranoiac mindset that assumes I accused you of rape. I am accusing you of using paranoiac hyperbole in place of argument. Like that time when you used feral's argument in place of your own argument. Or that time you wildly misattributed Cambiata's argument as an all-caps crazy argument. Or that time in which you told me only crazy people would take the stance you imagined I did.
D : From what you've written, nothing a person has said to you has registered as a valid point because you've restated the exact same points over and over, especially w/r/t the girlfriend mode. You continually handwave arguments that do not meet your shifting criteria.
E : Cambiata said nothing of the sort. That you felt the need to change your stance midway through (because you did, and then strongly pushed that you were only talking about art because you realized at some point that it's harder to defend if it's a thing that is not art) and then proceed to dismiss arguments since they were not on your (newly) declared grounds demonstrates bad faith.
F :
So that this good thread is not closed for derailment, I'm going to reply to you in PM.
This... Is inaccurate. Opposition is not equivalent to offense. It's not correct to assert that they are, and it's unfair to say that someone who is opposed to something is offended by it, and vice versa.
It is, indeed, a small, semantic thing, but words are IMPORTANT. I can be opposed to something without being offended by it, quite easily, and I can be offended by something while not being opposed to it to any significant degree. (Hello Jersey Shore, how are you?)
I would say based on the posts here, that most people are opposed to the use of sexist language as demonstrated by Hemingway, more so than they are offended. At least that's my read on what other people have said, but of course I'm not a mind reader, ha ha.
For myself I can definitely say I oppose the language he used, without being "offended" by it in a personal way. It was more of an eyeroller than anything else, an "Oh man did you really just say that, you silly jackass?" moment.
On this:
"Let's try to not turn this into a catch-all superthread or degrade into what the billion other threads of this nature have been turning into lately.
So let's avoid mudslinging and take it on faith that we're all in here to actually have an adult discussion on the subject, yeah? Thread shitting will be treated appropriately *cracks OP whip*"
Are you bitter that there has been quite a lot of mudslinging/hasty assumptions and a considerable lack of interest in what the other side has to say at some times, or do you feel that it was at a reasonable level or less than you expected? Do you think the discussion branched out too much or was too narrow?
Do you have any thoughts about what could be done to improve the conditions for this kind of discussion about feminisim and -related topics? Should certain guidelines be set? One thing I thought of is that it might be good to include certain definitions of important terms at the outset to make sure that everyone's on the same page.
Words carry with them the context in how they are and have been used. Context changes depending on who is using a word. When a black person uses the N word it doesn't mean "I think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy", when a white person uses the N word it does.
Similarly with gendered words, or words that refer to sexual orientations
I would say that in nearly every case that people accuse someone of being "easily offended", they are simply trying to minimize the fact that the person opposes a certain thing.
So for instance, my requesting that someone not use anti-gay slurs is not due to a low threshold for being offended, it's due to a conscious decision to attempt to reduce the number of gay slurs being said by people I know in order to reap benefits.
The idea that there exists only a slider from raunchy party guy who doesn't care to uptight effete jerk who watches your every word is a way of eliminating the sense that you have a responsibility to work toward better things in small stages.
Not sure if I'm late to the party here, but I have a good reason why you can't say "this isn't sexist because it wasn't intended to be".
I have a white friend from an island way far away whose name is Negro. He's really slow, and has some neurological issues that sometimes makes him say stupid things. I can totally now say "wow, you just had a Negro moment there" if someone says something dumb, and if they call me racist I can just explain why it's totally not. Woo! And anyone I talk to can ALSO now relate my story when referring to my friend, and that's totally cool too!
...Because that doesn't and CANT work, or else racists would only need one valid (or maybe not even valid, unless they actually know my friend, and this is the internet) anecdote to be able to say shit about my friend Negro, and every time someone told the anecdote we'd all be like "oh, okay... you're totally not racist in that case."
The girlfriend mode thing is sexist because you can't just have a context where it is called that and it makes it okay. If you want to look at the micro side of things and all of your friends know this girlfriend story and nobody ever hears it out of context and want to call that not sexist, I guess you can do that. But as soon as someone hears it devoid of context (like say if you told a reporter who repeated it?), it's magically sexist again, and people reading it might a) parrot it without the context, because yeah girlfriends are like that, right? or b) get offended by it, because I'm sure you can see it's sexist if you have it devoid of context.
If we lived life by the rule of "you can say stuff that is sexist when it's devoid of context but in-context it's totally cool", then you give people license to say all sorts of scary stuff, so long as they can tell a convincing story about how it's based on some inside joke and totally not intended to be used that way.
Does...does that make sense?
And all of this is LITERALLY because you couldn't be bothered to call this something that does not reference an existing stereotype. Calling it (name of Bob's Girlfriend) mode, or easy mode, or any of a million things... Or my friend could have a NT moment, cause those are his initials.
"There's a backstory to this that makes it not sexist" doesn't work because a) you cannot make sure this backstory gets to everyone that hears what you are saying, b) who the hell knows if your backstory is true, and most importantly c) you could have just said it in a way that doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes to begin with, and all anyone is asking is that you do so in the future.
So regardless of context, when a white person (or is it all non-black people?) uses the n-word, they are revealing their internal view that slavery was "fine and dandy"?
Really?
So would you also argue that if a dude uses any words like "bitch", "slut", "whore", or any of their ilk, regardless of context, they are revealing that they are a misogynist?
This does not make sense to me.
It seems to be based around the idea that it can't be ok because it gives an out for racists and sexists. To which I say, that's unfortunate, but you can't simply ban all people from using any sort of context and personal meaning. The idea here is to reduce actual sexism, not individual words or phrases that you don't get. It just seems a bit silly to say, "Well I understand perfectly what you meant, but if I didn't I would think you might be sexist. Therefore, what you said was sexist."
I already settled my feelings on this a few pages ago, in that I agreed the wording left an opening for people to read into it if that was their focus. But when you combine what he said with his intended context, the thing was no longer sexist. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the most reasonable compromise in this situation.
I understand if you feel that we need to divorce context and meaning from what people say, but I do not agree.
I'm not AMFE, but I'd like to respond, since this thread was started based on a conversation we were having in another thread, and AMFE actually started it as a favor to me, since I was scared of how SKFM's feminism thread would turn out.
I learned a lot about what feminism and related words mean in this topic. I am still blown away by the whole idea that feminists use "mysoginy" to mean "sexism against women" but that helped me understand feminists much better. I also came to understand that 3rd wave feminism is poorly named because it isn't really about women's issues anymore.
I even think the tangent on the nature of gender norms was relevant to the original question, in that it helped clarify what exactly the problem being faced was. Similiarly, the tangent on strategy helped to show me why feminists use what I see as "losing" strategies a lot of the time.
There were other tangents I think were less helpful though, like the whole discussion of how quick the police are to arrest men when domestic violence is alleged. But my biggest dissapointment is that we have ended up mired in a 40 page tangent based on the idea that offensive words without an offensive intent are a problem. The whole mysoginy = sexism against women thing was eye opening for me specifically because it showed me feminists were not saying what I thought they were. It makes me sad that now that the situation is reversed, the feminists in this thread are literally refusing to extend the same courtesy, and are insisting that it is the words that matter, not what they mean in context.
That doesn't analogize well with other uses of the word "ownership," unless you're saying that the word is licensed, and in that case, the closest description I can find for that is that the word is racist because it automatically decides fair use based on skin color. Even then, it's like how you have no right to call just any tissue brand a Kleenex and does not carry with it prejudices about a person's belief system - they are just using the word inappropriately and inaccurately based only on its technical definition. There are legal damages involved but nothing extradenotative is implied about the offender's character.
So because the concept of social word ownership is unlike any other structure of ownership, I continue to proclaim it a weird concept.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I did not know the n-word until my late teens, there isn't an analogue to it in my native language (Spanish), and the concept of a word having so much power was quite literally foreign to me (people of my skin color are called "wheat pickers" in PR and that never bothered me, for example). I don't think it quite hit me how powerful a single word can be to people until it had to be banned from this site to avoid controversy.
From that pseudo-outsider's perspective, I see the terms like "bitch, fag, dike, etc" having so much weight because they are minorities, and people who want to put them down in a quick, effective manner made-up/borrowed words and used them on those groups the same way *dunno if other racial terms are still allowed?* are used on racial minorities.
The words have their use, and it falls on the minorities who "took" the word to give it a new meaning or make it lose its power (I've learned to use the term "fag" to mean "adorably affectionate" because I watch too much Logo). The people in power are being asked by those groups to simply stop using the word while it carries such negative messages, with exceptions being given for art (give me Boondocks or give me death) or situations where there's no malice and it is known that the people involved will not be hurt by the use of the word.
If progressive movements were to be more successful/expedient when it comes to voting for equality, your grandchildren would potentially be able to use any of those words in a non-hurtful manner, though they'd probably have different meanings by then.
Twitter