I don’t think the word has maintained the meaning the way “harpy” has but “hysterical” basically means “crazy because of your uterus”. “Hyster” as a prefix means “of the uterus”.
So saying “Amy Shumer was hysterical at the comedy club last night!” is sexist?
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.
Bleep bleep boop
This is not logical.
The staff is not biased* when measured against the spectrum of this board. But the board itself is skewed, relative to the country (and world) as a whole.
*[with the possible exception of anti-misogynist campaigners, who seem to get away with a level of personal attacks not tolerated elsewhere. But I suspect this is because the mods perceive this issue as a weak point in terms of the board culture, and that the board as a whole is broadly sympathetic to these people and their cause, such that sanctioning them would be unpopular.]
“designed to allow” is something of a strawman. The policy is not designed to allow it (or at least that’s not the consciously chosen reason). But it has that practical impact.
You’ll notice that fuzzy lines are a lot more popular with posters who are in the mainstream of this board, and therefore have confidence that the mods have their backs and will interpret their posts charitably (and those of their antagonists harshly - hence the constant complaints that such-and-such unpopular poster specializes in “going up to the line”, and should just be banned already). Those who have reason to think they might be less popular with the mods based on ideological grounds tend to favor sharp lines, due to the exact same dynamic.
I have said many times that for the most part the moderators do a very good job. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement and that’s true for must human endeavors.
I never said that there was deep bias.
Anyways, this is a thread on how disputes are to be dealt with and I gave my feedback on what I think is important. Concerning happiness or satisfaction, I’d say I’m about 90% satisfied with my experience here.
A common refrain on this message board is “language evolves, that’s how it works”.
Nobody is referring to a uterus (or gender) when using the word “hysterical” any longer.
Seems to me that people who get offended by the use of the word itself are looking for something to be upset about.
YMMV.
You are talking about two different sins, as I understand it (I am not Baptist). The sin of carnal relations with another man, and the sin of lust. Only lust is a thought crime, and you are correct to point out that it may well be something the man has no control over. Again, as I understand it that is mainstream Baptist thought regardless of sexual orientation. I’m not sure how Baptists stand on whether it is possible to lust after one’s spouse, but they are generally against gay marriage too.
And I think it’s debatable whether it is moral for any two consenting adults to have sex with each other. I personally think it is wrong for people who are closely related to have sex. As much as I may disagree with the sentiment, I do not think it is not beyond the pale to suggest sex is only moral because it is incident to marriage (or procreation). And I think that specific debate is one of the great debates of our time, where differences in opinion are based on axiomatic differences in moral belief systems. As an aside, do you think that debate should be allowed on these message boards?
To be absolutely clear, as I understand it, the sex act itself is the abomination.
Lust is a separate sin which is still wrong and demands repentance, but is not necessarily “an abomination before God”. And while it may certainly sound unusual to label basic human sexual desire as sinful, as far as I am aware, this is normal for Christian religions. The basic premise of Christianity is that everybody is a sinner, and there is an original sin which applies to everyone so there is always reason to repent. Usually an exception is made within the context of marriage.
But you appear to say that saying “basic human sexual desire is sinful” is cruel, and the outcome of such a view is hurtful and damaging.
I will stipulate that such a view may have the consequence of causing harm. I do not agree that the person saying it is necessarily cruel. Cruelty, like malice, describes a person’s state of mind. You cannot be unintentionally cruel. The Baptist minister in my example cannot be accused of being cruel unless you assume that he is lying. If that example was the opening statement of a debate, I think it is unreasonable to assume the Baptist minister was lying. And so I think it is unreasonable to say he was necessarily being cruel.
The reasonable alternatives are that the minister either justifies the consequences somehow, or is ignorant of them. If you rule out the possibility that the consequences can be justified, you are only left fighting ignorance…
… Maybe I am overthinking this. Collective-you are saying homosexual men would reasonably walk away from a debate where Baptists attempt to justify a view that would lead to harm against homosexual men. Therefore the floor will be left only with people who want to justify views that lead to harm against homosexuals, which leads to people thinking the view is accepted, which leads to actual harm against homosexuals. Actual harm against homosexuals is wrong and therefore allowing Baptists to attempt to justify a view that leads to harm against homosexuals is wrong.
To counter this I will make three assumptions. First is the assumption that we can censor people who argue in bad faith. Second is the assumption that in the absence of bad faith, ignorance can be fought. Third is the assumption that somebody will always argue against ignorance.
I have shown above that, in the absence of bad faith it follows that the Baptist minister is either right (harm against homosexuals can be justified) or ignorant. If you are assuming that harm against homosexuals is wrong, then the Baptist minister must be ignorant.
If the minister is ignorant then somebody will be available to argue against him. If somebody is arguing against the minister the debate will not be one-sided, therefore people will not think the view is accepted, which refutes the above argument.
~Max
Good grief. Knock it off.
The same way that “gay rights” isn’t about the right to be happy. (Not directly anyway.)
If I were moderating a debate between you and a Baptist minister, and you pulled a “he’s clearly lying/he clearly doesn’t respect homosexuals” in your opening statement, I would kick you out of the room.
~Max
That’s because you seem to view “love and respect” and “an abomination under God” as perfectly compatible. Which, of course, is insane.
I did not admit ignorance of the facts of the case. I wrote, “Again, maybe there’s something you know that I don’t. I am not aware of any facts that disprove Dr. Ford’s allegation of sexual assault.” It may be the case that I am unaware of some relevant fact, and I admit the possibility, but I have not admitted that there actually is some relevant fact I am unaware of. It is logically impossible for me to make such an admission in the present tense.
Look. The only arguments that I am aware of which could possibly support your conclusion are based on bigotry. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, since I have not seen your argument specifically I cannot know for sure whether your argument is bigoted or not. But as far as I am concerned, the burden is on you to actually present an argument. In a private message or another thread, please.
~Max
The partisan argument is fallacious and I did in fact consider it to be an irrelevant argument.
~Max
Then your point has flown over my head completely. I went back and re-read our exchange but I’m not gleaning anything except “maybe Shodan thinks rape victims usually lie”.
I don’t think all generalizations are bigotry, only generalizations of protected traits such as sex, race, gender, etc.
~Max
I think steronz and I have the same opinion here. The only arguments we are aware of are either bigoted or irrelevant, therefore we feel justified in making the inductive argument that all arguments supporting that conclusion are either bigoted or irrelevant.
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy, yes. I don’t know about steronz but I have not been supportive of banning sensitive topics based on a hasty generalization.
If that’s your only point in this exchange, you have communicated it poorly.
~Max
I agree, if and only if the “someone”, “them”, and “they” refer to the same single person.
~Max
When it comes to the posters that people routinely complain about here in ATMB, you can easily find threads where all three criteria apply to each of them.
I don’t think all good-faith bigotry is okay, only that debates where one side is bigoted should not be banned. I certainly do not think any race is inferior, or that thinking such is just fine even if the person presenting that argument does so without malice. Trying to tell me why it is wrong to endorse racial superiority is useless, because I already think it is wrong. It’s just fine that we allow people to present those opinions. I think such a debate could be useful insofar as the use of debates here is to fight ignorance.
~Max
“Hysterical” in the sense of ‘that person is hysterically funny’ may be applied to any gender. The “hysteria” itself is, in that sense, being applied to the speaker and not to the comedian; it means that the comedian is so funny that the speaker laughs in an out-of-control fashion.
“Hysterical” in the sense of ‘that person is just getting hysterical over that issue and therefore their opinion ought to be ignored’ is, IME, a gendered insult. Men are rarely accused of getting hysterical in that sense.