Ok. **Merneith **doesn’t, which was my point.
I obviously disagree with your read of the post, and it’s description of “whining” and claim that I’m defending the wrong people and therefore somehow complicit.
But that aside, my point is a simple one: assuming by default that all bigots are knowing and intentional bigots is both wrong and actively harmful to the cause of reducing bigotry. If you agree, I’m glad. As should be obvious, this does not mean that no bigot has bad intentions. Lots do.
I’m going to end my participation in this branch of the thread by saying, I’m not closely following your logic. Since this is the pit, I’ll postulate some sort of marijuana use influencing somebody.
I do agree that " assuming by default that all bigots are knowing and intentional bigots is both wrong and actively harmful to the cause of reducing bigotry."
This. I think there are enough people like RitterSport who didn’t stop to think that jokes like this might be offensive. It’s one of the products of living in a sexist society. Immediately describing people like that as “going out of their way to reinforce the societal attitude that women are objects whose only worth is the enjoyment men get from them” is going to raise all their defensive barriers.
Taking the approach of Sunny Daze and calmly explaining why it’s offensive is perfect. The person can then say “you know what, you’re right. I hadn’t thought about it that way,” which is the ideal outcome (thumbs up, RS). They might consider it and decide “I personally don’t understand the offensiveness, but I recognize that others see it differently so I will refrain from that behavior.” That’s at least progress.
Or they can double down on their jerkitude. And the nice thing is that if you start out assuming the best, you don’t have to worry about being wrong for long because they will quickly show you the error in your assumption.
That is some seriously condescending shit.
Honestly, I’m not surprised. We have many hardcore conservatives who post here. I just assumed that a not insignificant number of them would be really sexist. Then you add in the necessarily non zero number of liberal sexists, and, well…
Does the Pope golf?
This has been illuminating. Not that i thought that sexism was a thing of the past on this board, but to see such pride in acting like a jerk is eye opening.
:dubious:
We have a handful of hardcore conservatives posting here IMHO, who stand out because, well, they stand out ;). As boards go this one consists overwhelmingly of U.S.-defined middle-of-the-road liberals, with relatively few full-on left radicals of anarchist or communist persuasion. I might conceed a moderate-sized minority of libertarianish-types, but even most of them seem to be social moderates/liberals. I think there are probably more former-moderate Republicans here than hardcore conservatives.
Of course your definition of hardcore conservative may vary. For example I don’t consider non-social conservatives to be very hardcore.
Unfortunately, we’ve lost quite a few wonderful people because of the sexism.
I can see why. It gets tiring, and I would very well imagine that would be so much more so for the women.
Does “many” mean “numbered in the double digits?”
I’m right there w/ you, Sunny Daze. I’ve been fighting against it here my entire tenure and while the milder sexism has waned, the hardcore he-man womanhaters have seemed to double down. They truly believe women are beneath them and they disgust me.
Bro-Magnon?
Never seen that one before, so I’ll claim sheer brilliance and henceforth release it into the public domain, free of copyright tut-tuts.
ETA: damn google - shoulda looked at it first. ok let’s say I’ve never come across bro-magnon before, then. Still obscure as fuck, though, those google entries.
Yay, a new name for the Asshole List.
The sexism wears on me and I tend to avoid threads where I figure it will crop up. But you know what, misogynist creeps? This little woman isn’t going anywhere and if I see it I’ll call you on it. Plus there are a lot of really great men here who get it. You’re appreciated!
I find that offensive.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to cause offense. I’ll do my best not to use it in your presence again.
Hey, kayaker. I know you read my posts, (as I apparently set you up for a lot of jokes) so I’d like to offer advice. Sure, I get it. You intended the joke to be pro-feminist. You were making fun of the attitude you were expressing. Unfortunately, it just came off badly.
So just say that. Don’t act like me when I get pissed off. Notice how badly that’s gone.
That’s obviously true, and you are right to argue against that message in Merneith’s posts.
That said, I do think there is something important in there. There really is an instinct to make excuses for the person who says bigoted things. There is this attitude where, because he didn’t really mean it, it’s not really sexist/racist/whatever.
I personally argue that there is a benefit of a doubt given, but that applies only to explaining why it is offensive, and giving them a chance to apologize (even if they don’t agree). But that, if you double down, you lose a lot of that. Similarly, if you try and downplay it. And the more you do it, the worse that becomes.
At this point, I’m quite ready to say that Morgenstern has lost all benefit of the doubt, barring some huge apology and explanation. And I could see why Merneith could interpret your posts as defending Morgenstern, when, at this point, that ship has sailed.
There does have to be a point where you cut your losses, and realize that, at this point in time, you aren’t going to convince this person, and you might as well just right them off as a bigot.
I don’t. And I am a straight white cisgender male. May I ask what you find offensive about it?
I do agree it is an insult to the people it is applied to, but that’s not usually what we mean by “offensive.” There has to be something more that offends those it is not applied to.
I hope you’re not trying to tell me why I shouldn’t be offended.