Trolls get … plonked
By your own admission, your claim to taking offence at “bro-flake” was just to bullshit those people making legitimate complaints about actual sexist/insensitive behaviour on the board.
That’s just petty. 11 years a member and you’re behaving like a total troll.
(I have no idea what your posting history is like. Maybe this is just normal behaviour for you.)
Having seen your antics in this thread, yes, I now do think that behaviour such as yours may well be turning away female posters.
In which case I genuinely hope that you will eventually get yourself banned or just bugger off.
(Or heck, maybe even have an epiphany and stop being such a tool.)
I don’t post regularly or meaningfully enough to be considered much of a contributor to these forums, but I do enjoy reading thoughtful, meaningful content by people from all walks of life, and buddy, you don’t bring that.
I shall try to do so more often, although I think better posters than me have done an admirable job in this thread at least.
I’ve probably made some bone-headed posts of my own in the past.
(The past includes yesterday.)
“(E)xplain a less offensive interpretation” is obviously just another way of telling them why they shouldn’t be offended.
The world is full of people taking offense for asinine reasons. Whether it’s bitching about “reverse racism” when a black comedian makes a joke about white people, or claim men use the wrong word for parts of female anatomy because they don’t think it’s important because it’s not attached to a man.
Maybe you have more patience than I do, and are willing to sit them down and explain to them why they shouldn’t be offended then still avoid those practices in their presence from then on. Me, I’m more than happy to just tell them to get a grip or a least some perspective. If that makes me an asshole in their eyes, I guess I’m willing to accept that.
No. This is what I mean about reading for comprehension. I was not trying to “bullshit those people making legitimate complaints about actual sexist/insensitive behaviour”. In post number #151, I said this is specifically about post #61.
Broomstick said “If someone says “I found what you said offensive” you don’t say ‘Here’s why you shouldn’t be offended’ you say ‘I’m sorry, I didn’t intend offense, I intended to make a joke’”. I replied to Broomstick when she used the word “bro-flake”, with “I find this offensive”. I assumed from the context it was fairly obvious I wasn’t being serious, and expected her to change or clarify what she said earlier. But instead she said this:
I other words now that I’ve used the magic words, she’s no longer allowed to use that word anywhere on this board for fear that I might seem. Which I guess is commendable that’s she’s willing to put in that effort. But I think if I was actually offended by something as innocuous as “bro-flake”, it’d be me that’s needs to change, not her.
I’m not about to have a debate with another guy about what women find offensive.
If there’s any women who genuinely found something I posted in this thread sexist, misogynist, or in anyway demeaning towards women they can feel free to point it out, and explain why they feel that way, and I’m willing to issue apologies. Otherwise, I’m done with this thread.
Except using just plain text it WASN’T certain whether you were being serious or sarcastic, and there’s no need to “clarify” what I said because what I said is pretty clear: If you didn’t intend offense apologize if you do so accidentally and try not to annoy that person again.
Nope - just not going to do it in a thread where you’re already present. Except now that you’ve said you weren’t being serious and I now know that for sure I don’t have to worry about it any more.
You’re missing the point - you’re still trying to determine if someone else should be offended or not and it’s not up to you to decide what should or should not offend someone else.
Maybe? But this is a semantic issue: phrased as you phrased it, it’s up to me to decide whether the other person’s offense is worth paying any attention to.
In college we had to write and perform a short skit about an event from our lives. I wrote about the fundamentalist preachers who used to shout hellfire at me and my friends when I was a teenager, and I wasn’t real respectful toward the preachers during my performance. Another dude there criticized my performance by saying it was offensive toward Christians, and told me that one of the other students was a devout Christian. The Christian student told me later that she didn’t give a shit about my performance and wasn’t offended.
Stipulating that the first dude’s criticism amounted to telling me he was offended, how should I react? I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say, sure, he was offended, but only because he kind of wanted to be offended, and that I could ignore his claims of offense without being an asshole.
And I think this sort of judgment happens all the time, and it’s fine. In fact, folks’ bogus claims of offense as a shield against dealing with the topic at hand have a useful name: tone policing. Folks on the left are, correctly, fine with ignoring bogus claims of offense.
It’s never sat well with me to say that the person claiming offense has total control over the legitimacy of their claim, and that ignoring their claim makes the ignorer an asshole. Some claims of offense are bogus: even if the person is truly offended, in some cases that means they need to toughen up. (Hey, Catholic League, I’m looking at you!)
Well, yeah, people crying “offense” to manipulate others is wrong, but most of the time that’s not what’s happening. I see more often someone belittling that someone else is offended, usually with something like “you shouldn’t be offended by that!”. Well, maybe or maybe not, but if they are offended (and not engaged in manipulation) it’s insulting to say they aren’t, it’s an attempt to re-write their feelings.
I agree with everything here.
But there may be times–Catholic League provides near-daily examples–in which someone is genuinely offended, and that’s because they’re being ridiculous. I can say, “Yes, you are offended; no, I’m not going to apologize or change; suck it up,” when the Catholic League objects to a movie with maladjusted priests in it. And that doesn’t make me an asshole.
It’s nice that your example of people whose offense deserves to be ignored are on the right. And you’re even more explicit in saying “Folks on the left are, correctly, fine with ignoring bogus claims of offense.” (emphasis added)
FTM, the term “tone policing” is - I believe - a LW term directed from left to right and not the other direction.
In reality, it cuts both ways. I don’t think you and yours will succeed in establishing as a general principle that officially-approved left-wing victims have authority to declare themselves offended and expectations that others honor that, while those not approved as victims by the left do not have that privilege.
The context of your remarks has informed my conclusion that you are being a jerk.
Also, I don’t feel that my gender should preclude me from voicing my disapproval of your contribution to a chauvinistic environment on the board.
That regardless, I find your behavior objectionable. Not on a par with someone like Morgenstern, but still not helping things.
I’m glad you’re done with this thread.
To quote another poster:
people who look for opportunities to be offended on others’ behalf can and should be ignored.
Sure - it’s the old message board dilemma: do I be brief and risk being nit-picked on special cases, or do I write a dissertation and get flamed for being overly verbose?
Sometimes you just can’t win!
Maybe I mentioned cases of rightwing offense that should be ignored because that’s the only sort I can imagine.
Or maybe, when talking to someone on the left and trying to advocate ignoring offenses in certain contexts, I have a different reason for choosing the example I chose, based on how persuasive it might be, and how likely it might be to lead off into a hijack about that particular example.
Do I get to guess? I’m going with Option 1. 
Of course you do.
I do find it funny he’s announcing to the hills that he’s doing exactly what I claimed he was doing.
Over in THIS thread, manson1972 explains why prostitutes are so awesome.
Hint: Because you don’t have to talk to them after fucking them.:rolleyes:
He’s innocent, I swear. Though he should stop being a dick and call me.
This was a buddy from my writer’s group. It’s a fascinating dynamic, a bunch of old (50s, 60s, 70s) white guys and a handful of Milennial women perpetually calling them on their shit. 
To their credit, they listen. It’s the last place I would have ever expected to feel empowered, but we need their experience, and they need our perspective to sell their books, so there it is.
It’s also highly entertaining to think how it must look from the outside… showing up for dinner in an almost-empty restaurant, I say to the host: “I’m meeting some people here.”
Host (doubtful): …''Is it a bunch of old guys?"
Yep, pretty much.
+1. I’ve said it before, women are cannon fodder in the battle against misogyny; the ones who most need the message don’t give a god damn what women have to say. They have to hear it from someone they respect (a man) in order to grok the offense. For any movement to gain traction, it must have outspoken allies.
Also js, you are way more smarty-pants than you realize. I get all giddy whenever you post.
My view on this board has really turned around as I have dealt with some of my own personal issues. I used to see misogyny everywhere on these boards; now I see the occasional dickbag and feel 100% pride reading through a thread like this one.
Not a left wing term, a Logical Fallacy.
"The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.
The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy."
OK, but… I’ve been accused of tone-policing because I called someone’s argument irrational. (both of us liberal women, in the context of a conversation about feminist issues.)
According to her, not only was I tone-policing, but I shouldn’t use that word because ‘‘women have been historically silenced by claims that they are being irrational.’’
She’s right that people have used victims’ anger over injustice as an excuse to ignore the substance of the argument. But her interpretation indicates people use all kinds of definitions for this word. I was in fact attacking the substance of her argument, but by telling her she was being irrational, I was tone-policing.
I’m still angry about this. The logical implications of her argument would have to be that women should never be called irrational, even when they are being irrational. Which, she was. It’s the ultimate Teflon defense, and she used it against another woman (in that case, another survivor of abuse, to diminish my conclusion about my own experience in favor of her own.) Fuck those people.
I have to keep ranting about this.
Because ultimately this is where certain aspects of the social justice movement fall apart for me. Venting your feelers is all well and fine; certainly my ideology is driven in many ways by personal painful experiences that I want to prevent from happening to others. But at a certain point you’ve gotta start asking yourself is this working? Because in many cases, I don’t think it is. I think some people just want to express their rage and aren’t at all concerned with changing or preventing anything. They are worse than slacktivists, because they work at direct odds with people trying to create permanent social change.
(I’m not talking about anyone here; I’m talking about this random person I encountered months ago.) In that case, a vocal feminist man jumped in to say, ‘‘Nobody should ever tell anyone how to deal with their trauma.’’
Realllly?
In Marvel’s X-Men, Magneto dealt with his trauma by launching a lifetime campaign to destroy non-mutants.
Is he off limits because he survived the Holocaust? Well, Xavier felt well and truly fit to say, ‘‘Knock that shit off, you crazy bastard’’ and nobody ever condemned him for it. This suggests that there are limits – ethical guidelines, if you will, that instruct us on when it’s sensible to say, ‘‘Maybe tone it a down a notch.’’
I don’t think this kind of irrationality is a personal flaw; I think it’s a cultural one driven by the endemic narcissism of social media. I fell prey to it myself and one reason I left Facebook is I couldn’t stand the sound of my own voice.
This particular culture in question is one that doesn’t even bother asking: what is the most effective solution? It asks: who has the most pain? This woman felt content to diminish my own because my position was at odds with hers. He who bleeds most, wins. What a stupid game.
Yes, I feel ways about stuff. Deeply. But the day someone can’t call out my bullshit for being irrational is the day I’ve failed at social change. You can’t create change without an effective strategy grounded in a rational framework. None of this matters unless it leads to change. I’m a pragmatist before I’m an idealogue. I’m a ‘‘let’s talk it out.’’ I’m a ‘‘consider this from another perspective.’’ Not only because it’s my nature, but because all evidence points toward that being the most effective strategy for changing the more damaging aspects of our culture.