Point of order: I believe you’ll find that your question was actually addressed not so much to an egalitarian as to a trolling dickass piece of shit with a demonstrated disinclination to engage honestly or sincerely on any level. HTH!
Oh golly, there he goes again:
Wasn’t it supposed to be Talleyrand who said of the Bourbon dynasty when they returned to power that “they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing”? That’s what I always think of whenever Linus comes back with another iteration of his same old shit talking points.
I’ll just note that even by LinusK standards, his point 3 is outstandingly illogical. For one thing, there’s nothing about SlutWalks as a protest event that in any way evinces any lack of “regard for the truth”. They’re saying “You shouldn’t rape people, irrespective of how they dress”. There’s nothing untruthful about that.
For another thing, the whole point of SlutWalks is that even if women are “showing off” their young attractiveness, it’s not okay to rape them. No matter what she’s wearing or not wearing, she’s not “asking to be raped” or “encouraging attackers”.
People should stop acting as though open display of female beauty or sexuality somehow legitimizes or normalizes rape. ISTM that emphasizing that point is, in fact, a good cause.
Nope, that’s not the fundamental principle of feminism.
On glass elevators: men in female-dominated professions.
Is the compensation and status really that much lower than for middle or high school teachers? (I don’t know the stats.) Could some fear of predator paranoia also play a factor? (Whether or not that exists.)
Valid point.
Are you a fantasy writer? Or do you confine your fantasies to online descriptions of your career?
How would we all know what a fabulously talented writer he is if he didn’t tell us? I mean, otherwise we would just have to base our opinions on his actual writing, or something bizarre like that.
[Moderating]
Altering the text inside a quote box without indicating that you’ve altered the text is a violation of the board rules. Please avoid doing this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
I’d take your moderation more seriously if you applied it even-handedly.
I take your criticisms of my moderation about as seriously as seriously as I take your criticisms of feminism.
There’s pretty much no less controversial modding then the altering-quotes without attribution one. That always is modded (when noticed, at least).
And about as seriously as you take reports of egregious rule breaking. Come along, do your job properly, there’s a good mod.
Trollololol!
Noticed? I drew attention to it. I forgot to include the […] that indicated my removal of irrelevant material. Did it alter the meaning of what I did include? No. Did I suggest the quoted poster said something she hadn’t? No. You’re really grasping at straws now, eh? ‘Don’t listen to the anti-feminist! He carelessly jaywalked!’
Meanwhile, specific Pit rules relating to language are being ignored, despite being reported. ‘No problem! Our cop’s on our side!’
You guys (and gals!) should take a moment, once in a while, to consider how things look to those who haven’t drunk the kool-aid.
[Moderating]
Telling people to fuck off isn’t against the rules. “Fuck off and die,” is, and gets modded. “Fuck off,” is not against the rules, and will not be modded. You are welcome to find an instance of me being inconsistent in this ruling. You will not be successful.
Any further discussion of rules should happen in ATMB, and not in the Pit.
[/Moderating]
Neither. Are you a mental health in-patient, or one of those people who survives in the real world despite your delusions? When you invent insults from whole cloth, do try to think outside your own smugness. Telling me I can’t write (which only started after I said I was a writer) only works in your head]. Like feminism.
Hey, I can play LinusK-debate too:
"What do I have against the gay rights movement?
1.) The first is that at least some gay-rights supporters pretend it’s about equality, when it’s not.
2.) A strain of hatred-of-heteronormality (especially misogyny) runs through the gay-rights movement, at least as far back as the “homophile” movement in the 1940s.
3.) Gay-rights supporters have little regard for the truth. They prefer stories that make them feel good, reinforce their sense of victimhood, or both. Gay Pride parades are a prime example. They give young, attractive gay people a chance to show off, while pretending it’s for a good cause - as if marching naked stops homophobia.
4.) The gay-rights movement asserts that homosexuals are oppressed, when they’re not.
5.) The gay-rights movement ignores the institutional biases against gender-conforming heterosexuals. And, in at least some cases, actively works to defend or expand them."
Naturally, if all that shit were true, it wouldn’t be in the least surprising that someone would oppose the gay-rights movement: after all, who wouldn’t be opposed to a bunch of power-hungry, lying, conniving, exhibitionist, self-centered, oppressive haters?
The trouble with that argument is that only in the minds of homophobic bigots are the assertions made in points 1-5 significantly representative of any actual gay-rights supporters. Similarly, LinusK’s claims about feminism don’t significantly represent actual feminism.
What he’s complaining about is a “fantasy feminism” that he and a bunch of other misogynists have cobbled together from a few instances of radical-feminist extremism and a substrate of traditionally sexist societal attitudes that most feminists don’t actually support. He’s made up his mind that that’s what feminism is, and no rational argument or facts will ever modify his opinion.
Which is why it makes no sense to go on arguing with him in Great Debates, where posters are supposed to discuss rationally defensible arguments rationally. LinusK has demonstrated that he’s impervious to rational argument on the subject of feminism.
What’s the big deal? You didn’t get a formal warning – just a mod note – “don’t alter the text in quote boxes” without calling attention to it. You didn’t do that – you made a very, very minor mistake, and a moderator said not to break this rule again, without any formal action at all. No big deal. Proper moderating.
You “drew attention to it” after you were called out for doing it. That’s not exactly the same, is it?