How very generous of you. They’ll also see you doggedly attempting to discuss judaism in a thread on feminism (and my observations on your motivations in that regard - to create a slight possibility of bluffing hard that you’d shown me to be anti-semitic, and to conflate the ‘oppression’ of women with the eternal onslaught of anti-semitism. Curiously, I did once live on a commune which became ‘Wymmins Country’ (after the novel by Sheri S. Tepper) - but that’s an analogy for another thread).
I see you still haven’t figured out mature, respectful discussion - and yet you police it in others. The ad hom was your implied insult standing in for an argument, which satisfies my definition. Your argument that it doesn’t satisfy yours would be an argument if it had any argument in it. As it is, it’s just another insult. I expect there’s a word for that, though I don’t know if it’s one I might use here.
Who’s deciding who’s black, by the way? In SA, famously, a bureaucracy did that and issued you with a card. ‘Jewish’ is slightly easier, I suppose, though again this may be a US/UK thing - I’ve done some work with BAME groups, where Jews are considered part of ‘collective’ (though not apparently accorded the initial that changed BME to BAME). But again, the thread is on feminism and you keep insisting on discussing judaism, first as a religion and then slithering in ethnicity, with any sense of the original analogy lost in your purposeful confusion. Pull yourself back on topic. Really, who watches this watchman?
Well it’s a religion, as we’ve agreed, and like the romany it’s an ‘ethnicity’ too - more recent than the romany, of course, but carried over generations in communities. You’re going to have to be much clearer on your concepts if you genuinely desire anything other than shadow boxing here. Do all white people share the same ethnicity?
Are you queer? I might even have bumped into you at a party. Ever been in Dorset? Why you think I should have known, I can’t say. To be fair, you needn’t have know who posted about being a ‘self-identifying [etc]’ repeatedly in one post of this thread. You’re probably just skimming for stuff you can twist into a topic of your own (judaism, for some reason?)
If you recalled that exact quote being presented as a serious refutation from your own side, it would have been sporting to say so.
I haven’t checked the context, but you haven’t ever noticed me repeatedly making that very point, in the last thread and this, as ‘your team’ repeatedly offered ‘equality for women’ as their definition of feminism? One contributor said ‘equality’ between the sexes’, I recall remarking on that singularity at the time.
And yet you never felt compelled to point out that they couldn’t form a coherent argument - of course not, theirs was a feminist argument and adherents should not be encouraged to expect coherence.
I’ve now checked the context. The issue is clearly yours. Try reading it again slowly, looking up any words you aren’t sure of, and not moving on until you’re confident you’ve understood each element. It would also help to set aside your prejudice.
Ah! There’s your problem. Read what is there…and don’t read what isn’t!
Now you just look petulant. Drop the insults and snide insinuations, and discuss the topic, decently. You’re a role model for pity’s sake.
Cool meme, MMMo.
So, you know some feminists, but no egalitarians? Are your feminist friends racist? Homophobic? What’s wrong with all the feminists you know?
As for your ‘doubts’ about me, or LK, on what basis could these doubts be formed? Make a clear statement of your rational workings, or admit you’re just flinging faeces. How could he, or I, assuage your doubts? Is this a test we can pass? No, you have ‘cool story, bro’ to hand for any anecdote. It’s a shoddy debate tactic, which suggests your position is worth even less as an argument.