If you want me to agree with you on whether a particular member is a troll, lay out a strong and specific case (in the Pit) and link it to me. Maybe cc a moderator, too.
Isn’t that what the Pit is for?
~Max
I can see that there is a hack in this. If different actors are responsible for saying each element then you will not agree to a problem.
If they are coordinated would that concern you?
No, it is reasonable to take into consideration a person’s motivations when deciding whether to engage with them.
~Max
Yes it would, that is very astute of you.
“[…] if and only if the “someone”, “them”, and “they” refer to the same single person, or group of coordinated people”.
~Max
To fit this in with what I just said, it is reasonable for a community as a whole to take a person’s motivations into consideration when deciding whether to engage that person.
The moderators perform that role when they decide to ban a member.
~Max
There is no single so-called line after which a person becomes a jerk. The concept of jerk-ishness is nebulous, on purpose. There are lines you can cross, but there are also vague thresholds.
Arguing in bad faith is a vague threshold, because it is a determination of intent, and nobody can read minds, therefore it is subjective. But arguing in bad faith is being a jerk.
So, there.
~Max
You are the first person I have heard claim the word “hysterical” is still sexist. The word has evolved beyond its root, in my experience. I never thought “hysteria” carried a gendered connotation, but now that you say it does, I guess that means it does. And until a couple weeks ago, I only ever heard the word “harpy” refer to the mythic bird-human creature. Is “harp” (verb, to dwell on something) also sexist?
Different cultures, I suppose.
~Max
“Coordinated” can mean a number of things. When people who are otherwise strangers hear some kinds of whistles they know what is being asked for, identify as those being asked for that thing, and then try to deliver it.
Under those condiitons they are also required to deny any coordination that may have existed. As a condition of the “coordination”. IOW this “coordination” only exists as a
remotely implied but very effective secret.
If you don’t have convincing evidence of coordination I’m not going to assume that Mr. A should be faulted for claiming he was unaware of the times you refuted the same argument somewhere else.
~Max
Good thing that we don’t follow such dumb rules for debate here, then, isn’t it?
This isn’t college, chum, and you don’t get to hide behind stupid rules lawyering when such obvious, evil, incoherent absurdities as “love the sinner, hate the sin” are paraded around.
If I were a moderator here under current rules and your early reply to an OP, post #2, was “he’s clearly lying” then I would warn you.
The problem isn’t initially holding an incoherent position, it’s accusing people of arguing in bad faith from the get-go.
~Max
In my opinion, you are free to claim or argue that a particular statement has the effect of causing evil. You are not free to accuse a poster who makes that statement of being an evil person with evil intent, at least not based solely on the fact that they espouse what you consider to be evil views.
~Max
There’s got to be a Somebody’s Law that covers this one. If not, I’m going to claim it.
Broomstick just used “hysterical” in the second sense about a man, over in a different thread. Good thing that at least I said “rarely”, not “never.”
I don’t, but given a different and decidedly more Baptist moral framework, I could. But the reason I would kick Mr. Dibble out of a debate is because he assumed that the Baptist was lying, when it very well could be that the Baptist disagrees or is ignorant.
During the course of debate it could become clear that the Baptist is lying. That is a possibility, yes. But such an accusation cannot be justified in the opening statement, based on what I had written alone.
And so we have Mr. Dibble accusing the opposing side of bad-faith before the debate even started, which is ironically bad-faith on Mr. Dibble’s part. The paradox of tolerance was mentioned by Der Trihs earlier, but the intolerant practices mentioned in Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies is “to begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive”. But this is exactly what Mr. Dibble is doing: he has begun a debate by denouncing his opponent, by claiming that they are deceptive, and concluding that the debate should not be allowed to take place at all.
~Max
I’m ok with not allowing “Are gays an abomination under God?” debates. And no, I don’t feel like discussing why.
Hey, wait, aren’t you the guy who got caught defending the use of the word “harpy”?
People do in fact used “hysterical” as a slur against women. On the rag, emotional, hormonal,…there’s reams of slurs designed to imply or say outright that women are overly emotional and their opinions are meaningless because of it. “Hysterical” still gets hurled at women.
And acting like using, “Amy Schumer was hysterical last night,” somehow erases the sexism of the straight use of the word is as disingenuous as your claim that “people” “are looking to get upset about something.” If you’re the guy who was complaining about “harpy”, looks like you want to attack women AND stop them from complaining.
I really think “hysterical” is much more neutered in modern useage, certainly compared to “harpy”. I mean, how do you describe a man who’s having an unreasonable freak out? But this isn’t really the place to dig into it.
I’m the first person? Yeah, I kind of doubt that.
The word “hysterical” gets discussed fairly frequently when there’s discussion of sexism. Hysteria is to women what drapetomania was to slaves. These are diagnoses coined by the powerful to cast the people they oppressed as crazy, unnatural (slave owners used to argue that slavery was “natural”, even Biblically-ordained) to dismiss their opinions and feelings about what those powerful people were doing to them against their will. Once slavery was outlawed, mysteriously, the diagnosis of drapetomania (the desire to be free) and dysaesthesia (in part, an insensitivity of the skin of slaves that made vigorous and frequent whippings an actual necessity) instantly vanished, it seemed.
Bolding mine, because THIS is exactly the kind of BS that dominates this board. This is the kind of smarm that gets trotted out constantly.
It looks frankly like you don’t care and then you dismiss whatever contradicts your happy opinion of what women face.
It seems to me that you could look it up and not imply that it’s all just foolishness.
This is precisely the type of way women complain about getting treated here.
Presenting: a slightly sarcastic paraphrasing of this and many other discussions about sexism on the Dope. “Harpy is sexist.”
*No, it’s not. *
“Here’s the history of it, and oh, I’m a woman so I’ve actually bothered to look it up and kind of note when when men hurl it at women, especially those in public life”
Finis.
In your experience. In your experience? Why doesn’t your experience include looking it up, asking women, and *listening to women when they tell you you are wrong? *
Frankly, a guy’s opinion about sexism against women rather seems like consulting vegetarians about steak…
If you’re gonna respond to me, please put it in another thread.
I don’t frequently hear discussions of sexism. In my experience “hysteria” reminds me of the tulip craze, salem witch trials, generally people running around like chickens with their heads cut off. I did learn in school that the Greek root word means uterus, and separately that throughout history of medicine and psychology did some real harm slapping “hysteria” on women, but that’s been some obscure history knowledge that has literally never been brought up until today.
Looks can be deceiving. I was being sincere. I did a quick search for “is harpy sexist?” when it came up the other day and the results were and are:
[ul][li]The top answer seems to say not really - Quora[/li][li]An irrelevant article on sexism from a magazine called Harpy[/li][li]A Cracked article listing 5 weird sexist sci-fi tropes, mentions a space harpy (the beast)[/li][li]Another irrelevant article about sexism from Harpy magazine[/li][li]A picture of a book called “Invisible Women” on Harpy magazine’s Instagram[/ul][/li]I mean, yes, if I had scrolled on the Quora page or down further in the search results I would have found that “harpy” is used as an insult and not just the mythical beast. But my initial impression was more like, “oh really?” “hmm I guess” “whatever, note to self, never call someone a harpy”. Not like I’ve ever thought to call someone a harpy before, any more than I think to call someone a sphinx.
Apparently Hillary Clinton was called a harpy once (source: Quora). I’m not surprised that I never heard about that outrage.
I also learned that some people think “banshee” is a sexist term. For me it has always meant the aircraft from Halo (a video game) or the ghosts from Warcraft III (a video game), but I’ll keep that in mind too.
I looked up “is hysterical sexist?” too. Apparently it is, at least for internet people. I also asked my (female) coworkers. Negative. I had dinner with my sister. She doesn’t think hysterical is sexist.
I’ll keep it in mind and try not to use that word on the Straight Dope or when otherwise talking with out-of-towners. Clearly people 'round here don’t see it the same way, though.
~Max