# Really Guys? AKA Sexism on the Board **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 6, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633 "2017-07-06T18:17:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Nawth\_Chucka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c57346/32.png) [@Nawth\_Chucka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nawth_Chucka)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2017, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/141 "2017-07-07T23:21:04Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Your post before and this one are good examples of a conspicuous style of leftist discourse–mostly in academia though leaking out into social networks more and more–that I think is completely wrong-headed and counterproductive, which is why I have responded as I have. > > For example, here you say that telling the truth, that bigots aren’t all intentional bigots, is “carrying water for the bigots.” No. The alternative, engaging in the false belief that bigots are unreachable non-humans who lack any decency, is neither accurate nor more effective at ending bigotry. So I won’t do it. > > Neither your accusation that I’m tone policing nor your characterization of me as scolding is accurate. Indeed, saying that disagreement amounts to tone policing is another part of the new lefty discourse that I think is a huge mistake. Tone policing is a thing. Not every disagreement, including disagreements about rhetorical tactics, is tone policing–especially not when the disagreement stems from a fundamental disagreement about empirical facts. > > It is also quite flawed to suggest that in any argument over bigotry one is obligated to address the bigots. I shouldn’t have to earn cookies from you or demonstrate my political correctness on the underlying issue in order to criticize your premises. And my lack of criticism of the bigoted statements, in the context when lots of other people are criticizing them, has precisely zero effect on them. > > False. > > Also false. > > Odd for you to say, since you believe the right approach is not to give a shit about them and that they cannot be shamed or redeemed. I guess you think a good ally just performs disagreement with bigotry, even though it doesn’t change anything. I disagree. Someone help me out here - which fallacies are these? College debate was so long ago and 19 year-olds rarely use these rhetorical devices in adulthood. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/142 "2017-07-08T14:25:41Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And why should I necessarily decide that I will avoid every single thing that offends someone somewhere? How many times have people who voted Trump been demeaned on this board? Are you trying hard to avoid any comment that might offend them, yourself? > > Besides, the poster I was responding to specifically made the point that regardless of what you think of it, this attitude is something that is many people default’s stance, based on their culture, education, etc…Those are things that aren’t trivial to change. Despite what you said, it does require efforts and attention to change one’s ways. And you have to think you should change your ways to begin with, which means a significant amount of soul searching, when, to begin with, you’re not convinced at all that the issue isn’t trivial, and that the offended have a good reason to be offended (for instance, how much time do you invest trying to figure out if you are terribly wrong and offensive when you criticize whichever group you happen not to like?) . So, no, definitely not trivial. > > And many people, probably including yourself, and certainly including me, if they have to invest efforts in something, and in particular in changing themselves, won’t prioritize your particular pet peeves, but something which is important for them. I don’t know, let’s say change their attitude towards their spouse, try harder to improve their work prospects, live a healthier life… And even if they turn their attention to things outside themselves, it’s not particularly likely to be one of the thing you promote. Maybe they’ll try to pray more intently for peace in the middle east or something? > > Plenty of things are wrong. And it is a pet issue. For instance I mentioned in my earlier example the exploitation of workers in the developing world. Is it less important than possibly sexist jokes? Shouldn’t you think of all the ways you’re participating in this exploitation? Trying hard to change your way of life accordingly? To devote a lot of time trying to do something about it? You could probably devote all your energy on this single issue and still fall short of achieving an ideal. And that’s only one issue you could spend your energy on. I could list hundreds of “wrong” things that could equally require your whole attention. Amongst all the issues you could be particularly bothered about, for some reason, it’s bigotry that annoys you most as your posting history shows. It’s exactly that : your pet issue. It’s not objectively more important than any other. > > Yes, and faithful Christian are all offended when you use the name of the Lord in vain. And Muslims when you make a drawing of Mahomet. Patriots are offended when your criticize your country, and so on…Someone being offended doesn’t necessarily mean that you should refrain from the offending behavior. > > You mean like the exploitation of workers in the developing world? The disappearance of wild species every year? The unsustainable consumption of energy? Political corruption? The absence of efforts to properly fight tropical diseases? What? You are still spending far more effort making excuses than it would take you to just st I never said that you have to try and avoid offending everyone. But, if you don’t intend to offend, then you do have to actually fucking listen when they tell you that things offend them. The entire argument in this thread is that none of these people intended to offend women. So then, when they tell them they are offended, they should listen, so they won’t accidentally offend them again. That is different from when someone is insulting someone else. And it is different when the person has already said that it doesn’t matter if you offend people. The Trump supporters you are talking about are the ones who call people snowflakes for being offended. They argue that social justice is a bad thing. They defend a guy whose only real platform was “I can be an asshole to the people you hate.” So they lose any right to complain when people take them up on that and treat them the same way. And I’m speaking from experience here. I grew up in an all-white town. But I have spent very little effort on not being a bigot. All I did was listen to people when they told me what I was saying was offensive due to bigotry. I didn’t make excuses for why I get to be a bigot, I listened. You are bringing up issues to try and make it hard, so then you have an excuse for why you don’t try. When, in reality, the steps are extremely simple. If you unintentionally offend someone, apologize, then listen to what they have to say, and then, in the future, don’t do those things again. Sure, if you want to offend them, go ahead. But then they have no reason to not offend you. And I will once again point out that bigotry is wrong. It’s not a pet issue. It is wrong. Claiming otherwise will not change this. And bringing up other wrong things that none of us do will not make it not wrong for you to choose to be a bigot. You have ignorance as an excuse for only so long. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/143 "2017-07-08T15:05:47Z")
> [@Nawth\_Chucka](#): > > Someone help me out here - which fallacies are these? College debate was so long ago and 19 year-olds rarely use these rhetorical devices in adulthood. In those comments, **Richard Parker** is engaging in the Fallacy of Accurate Analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/144 "2017-07-08T16:43:52Z")
You must struggle with coping issues if this particular joke bothered you so much. You are not a balanced, well-functioning adult in real life. You impose your petty offenses on those around you and can only hold meaningful relationships with people who conform to your Catholic sensibilities. You will not find a rewarding long-term relationship with a man because you have isolated yourself to a world of such rigid boundaries no man will ever suffice. I seriously hope you can accept that a joke does not a monster make, and that if you learn to laugh once in a while you become much more appealing to the opposite sex because they don’t want to date their Sunday School teacher. Good luck, OP. ---
**Author:** ![Nawth\_Chucka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c57346/32.png) [@Nawth\_Chucka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nawth_Chucka)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/145 "2017-07-08T16:57:01Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > You must struggle with coping issues if this particular joke bothered you so much. You are not a balanced, well-functioning adult in real life. You impose your petty offenses on those around you and can only hold meaningful relationships with people who conform to your Catholic sensibilities. You will not find a rewarding long-term relationship with a man because you have isolated yourself to a world of such rigid boundaries no man will ever suffice. I seriously hope you can accept that a joke does not a monster make, and that if you learn to laugh once in a while you become much more appealing to the opposite sex because they don’t want to date their Sunday School teacher. > > Good luck, OP. More sexist, mansplaining satire, how droll. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/146 "2017-07-08T17:21:35Z")
> [@Nawth\_Chucka](#): > > More sexist, mansplaining satire, how droll. Not to mention [a couple days late](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20327579&postcount=15). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/147 "2017-07-08T18:09:45Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > You must struggle with coping issues if this particular joke bothered you so much. You are not a balanced, well-functioning adult in real life. You impose your petty offenses on those around you and can only hold meaningful relationships with people who conform to your Catholic sensibilities. You will not find a rewarding long-term relationship with a man because you have isolated yourself to a world of such rigid boundaries no man will ever suffice. I seriously hope you can accept that a joke does not a monster make, and that if you learn to laugh once in a while you become much more appealing to the opposite sex because they don’t want to date their Sunday School teacher. > > Good luck, OP. To summarize, only uptight women without men are bothered by being casually objectified because they have no sense of humor? I have no fucks to give for your opinion on this or any topic. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/148 "2017-07-08T18:38:40Z")
> [@Nawth\_Chucka](#): > > Someone help me out here - which fallacies are these? College debate was so long ago and 19 year-olds rarely use these rhetorical devices in adulthood. In your case, I’d call it an appeal to the stone: you refute him _thus_. The responses to **Richard Parker** in this thread are an embarrassment. I’d be willing to bet he’s done more to actually thoughtfully advance the cause of social justice this week than the combined efforts of his detractors in this thread have this year. I don’t expect anyone to give a shit what I think about it, and like **Richard** said no one should have to demonstrate their bona fides to observe a flaw when they see it, but I am seriously disheartened to see this kind of stuff coming from “my” side, towards “my” side. The “allies” who are attacking people with **Richard Parker’s** point of view on patriarchy, misogyny and racism (to the extent they understand it) should seriously consider whether they’d be willing to stop helping. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/149 "2017-07-08T18:40:41Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > You must struggle with coping issues if this particular joke bothered you so much… Do you think your “insightful” analysis tells us more about the OP, or more about you? ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/150 "2017-07-08T19:51:32Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I don’t expect anyone to give a shit what I think about it, and like **Richard** said no one should have to demonstrate their bona fides to observe a flaw when they see it, but I am seriously disheartened to see this kind of stuff coming from “my” side, towards “my” side. The “allies” who are attacking people with **Richard Parker’s** point of view on patriarchy, misogyny and racism (to the extent they understand it) should seriously consider whether they’d be willing to stop helping. I tried to follow, but lost it where he said **Merneith** believes bigots to be non-human. ---
**Author:** ![emcee2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emcee2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emcee2k)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/151 "2017-07-08T20:24:23Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And I hope you’re not just mocking the concept. Of course I am. Specifically, I’m mocking the idea in post #61 that any time someone is or claims to be offended, they’re in the right, and everyone should modify their speech and behavior to suit them. Different situations are different. Sometimes it’s completely reasonable to be offended, other times it’s appropriate for others to suggest that maybe they _shouldn’t_ be offended. That’s instead of turning the sentence “I find that offensive” into some sort of incantation that can be recited to prevent someone from ever using a word or phrase again. What I didn’t expect when I posted that was for anyone to be completely perplexed as to why I might find a gendered insult offensive even if it wasn’t directed at me. You wouldn’t say to a black person, “Well, I wasn’t calling _you_ a nigger”. And yes, the word “bro-flake” (or “bro-magnum”), is very different from the word nigger for a lot of reasons. But that’s exactly my point. Different situations are different. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/152 "2017-07-08T20:41:38Z")
[QUOTE=Tee] I tried to follow, but lost it where he said Merneith believes bigots to be non-human. [/QUOTE] The original premise was that every person – every person, as a definitional truth – who makes a sexist joke necessarily is doing so because they are going out of their way to reinforce patriarchy. I think it’s important to acknowledge how extreme that is, because that’s what I read the response as a reaction to. Because I am pretty sure I fall on a much more radical point on the spectrum than **Richard Parker** on this particular point. I don’t agree with him entirely. But it’s just outside of the bounds of reasonable discourse if objecting to that extreme original premise is “carrying water” for bigots. His point wasn’t “that’s not accurate, and so don’t object to bigotry.” It wasn’t “that’s not accurate, and so those guys were right and you’re wrong.” It wasn’t even “that’s not accurate, and so it’s less of a big deal than you’re making out of it.” It was simply “that’s not accurate, so it isn’t helpful to believe that it is.” And it isn’t accurate. Human experience makes it obvious that sometimes, you do something bad by accident, or recklessly. The fact that 18 year olds exist, and that we were all them at one point, is sufficient to make it clear that the original premise is inaccurate. There are people who do fucked up things for some reason other than being monsters who are intending the harm they cause. Those exist. It’s magical thinking to think otherwise: thinking that requires us to hold bigotry outside of the realm of human behavior, and put it in the realm of things that no human could ever do. (In fact, if we are all as brushed up on the foundational theories of social justice as we’re all pretending to be in this thread, we should be acknowledging that we are always perpetuating this stuff to one degree or another, whether we call ourselves allies or not, and whether we intend it or not. Everyone’s been socialized to be racist, everyone’s been socialized to be sexist, because we all live on this planet. One of the first things you do if you want to do the work is accept that your own prejudices exist. So… where’s that leave us if we’ve decided we believe everyone with a prejudice is a piece of shit who isn’t worth even acknowledging?) ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/153 "2017-07-08T22:16:13Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > I’m really, really not. > > Edit: ninja’d by…well, everyone, apparently. Not everyone. I didn’t even know you existed. Hope this helps. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/154 "2017-07-08T22:52:28Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > The original premise was that every person – every person, as a definitional truth – who makes a sexist joke necessarily is doing so because they are going out of their way to reinforce patriarchy. …the original premise was this: > [@Merneith](#): > > Yeah, I don’t really believe that. Granted that many of these losers are dumber than Donald’s hair, but they understand that uppity women need to be smacked down. They probably can’t spell misogyny but they know all about how to deploy it. This is the fucking pit. People come here to rant, hyperbole is to be expected. If people are going to exhibit blatantly obvious sexist behaviour then why the fuck are we giving them the benefit of the doubt? This is where Richard Parker has gone wrong. [QUOTE=Richard Parker] Your post before and this one are good examples of a conspicuous style of leftist discourse–mostly in academia though leaking out into social networks more and more–that I think is completely wrong-headed and counterproductive, which is why I have responded as I have. [/QUOTE] Merneith is not expressing leftist discourse, learnt through academia and then propagated through social media. Merneith is simply pissed off: and deservedly pissed off, and is using the pit as intended to rant. Richard Parker is lecturing Merneith for being angry. Thats tone policing (no matter how much Richard disagrees with that characterization) with a measure of mansplaining added in. I respect Richard Parker. But he is coming off as a condescending ass here. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/155 "2017-07-08T22:57:24Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Because I am pretty sure I fall on a much more radical point on the spectrum than **Richard Parker** on this particular point. I don’t agree with him entirely. But it’s just outside of the bounds of reasonable discourse if objecting to that extreme original premise is “carrying water” for bigots. The explanation was helpful, thank you. I missed that being accused carrying water for bigots was his main objection. I’m not a lefty nor a SJW, and I’m only months into being a Democrat, so take that into account. > [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > So… where’s that leave us if we’ve decided we believe everyone with a prejudice is a piece of shit who isn’t worth even acknowledging? I’m not sure. Upon review it’s good we have **Stringbean’s** post up there to reference. I read it and thought him either a sexist tool or talented satirist, but probably a tool, and moved on without questioning his humanity. I doubt I’m the only one who can do that. He’ll be fine. ---
**Author:** ![Covfefe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Covfefe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covfefe)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/156 "2017-07-08T23:16:50Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Merneith is not expressing leftist discourse, learnt through academia and then propagated through social media. Merneith is simply pissed off: and deservedly pissed off, and is using the pit as intended to rant. Richard Parker is lecturing Merneith for being angry. Thats tone policing (no matter how much Richard disagrees with that characterization) with a measure of mansplaining added in. I respect Richard Parker. But he is coming off as a condescending ass here. What Merneith wrote about sexist bigots is totally comparable to when folks say rape is always about power and only about power, and if you aren’t 100% in agreement - even if you agree 99% but think there are other reasons or exceptions to the rule - you are making rationalizing excuses and ought to stop. Maybe those critical theorists should communicate in underground pits where hyperbole is the norm and limit the dogma overriding scientific inquiry they bring into mainstream academia. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/157 "2017-07-08T23:27:43Z")
> [@yezlles](#): > > What Merneith wrote about sexist bigots is totally comparable to when folks say rape is always about power and only about power, and if you aren’t 100% in agreement - even if you agree 99% but think there are other reasons or exceptions to the rule - you are making rationalizing excuses and ought to stop. > > Maybe those critical theorists should communicate in underground pits where hyperbole is the norm and limit the dogma overriding scientific inquiry they bring into mainstream academia. …we are in fucking pit. Hyperbole is the fucking norm here. But no, lets all single out Merneith for individual treatment, because her hyperbole is different, because you hate “feminist theory”, and you are going to project your feelings about “feminist theory” onto Merneith’s posts. The pit is for ranting, but Merneith is not allowed to rant because something about rape and power and 100% agreement and you forgot to throw SJW in there just for good measure. Fuck that shit. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2017, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/158 "2017-07-09T00:09:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Do we have all that many of those? Honestly, I could name one. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2017, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/159 "2017-07-09T00:29:38Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …the original premise was this: > > [QUOTE=Merneith] > Yeah, I don’t really believe that. Granted that many of these losers are dumber than Donald’s hair, but they understand that uppity women need to be smacked down. They probably can’t spell misogyny but they know all about how to deploy it. [/quote] Sure, you’re right. **Merneith** was responding to something, there, though. It was the statement that men who make sexist jokes don’t “_necessarily_” know that they’re doing that. > [@](#): > > This is the fucking pit. People come here to rant, hyperbole is to be expected. If people are going to exhibit blatantly obvious sexist behaviour then why the fuck are we giving them the benefit of the doubt? I think it’s important that nobody defended these particular instances of sexist behavior or argued for the benefit of the doubt here. It was a disagreement over **JackieLikesVariety’s** statement that sometimes, sexist jokes are the result of ignorance, not bad faith. About whether that literally ever happens. I’m aware that this has some similarity to a “not all men” argument. In those arguments, I’m on the other side. The difference here is that usually “not all” is bullshit, because nobody said “all.” This time somebody said “all.” So, like, for instance: [QUOTE=Tee] I’m not sure. Upon review it’s good we have Stringbean’s post up there to reference. I read it and thought him either a sexist tool or talented satirist, but probably a tool, and moved on without questioning his humanity. I doubt I’m the only one who can do that. He’ll be fine. [/QUOTE] Yeah. Nothing that I’ve said up above, or anything that **Richard Parker** said (in my interpretation) calls for **Stringbean** to get the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think it’s fair to frame this as though that’s what he was claiming, because what he said was completely compatible with calling **Stringbean** in particular a deplorable, bad-faith waste of time. It’s just a question of whether sometimes, other people say offensive things without being a **Stringbean** -esque trainwreck. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2017, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633/160 "2017-07-09T01:11:56Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Yeah. Nothing that I’ve said up above, or anything that **Richard Parker** said (in my interpretation) calls for **Stringbean** to get the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think it’s fair to frame this as though that’s what he was claiming, because what he said was completely compatible with calling **Stringbean** in particular a deplorable, bad-faith waste of time. **It’s just a question of whether sometimes, other people say offensive things without being a Stringbean-esque trainwreck.** This thread illustrates that side of the argument as well. People apologized, apologies were accepted, life moved on. In my OP I distinguished between the posters and the content. I certainly accept that a person can inadvertently offend without being a complete write off. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-guys-aka-sexism-on-the-board/790633.md?page=9)