I don’t think that’s a fair reading of my posts. It’s good to be angry about sexism. My objection is to the idea that sexism (or most any other bigotry) always reflects malice rather than ignorance. And I don’t think that objection as made in this thread can fairly be characterized as an attempt to defend sexism, especially since I’m not the one who raised the issue.
That said, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from 13 years on this board, it’s than when people like Banquet Bear start calling you an asshole, you’re probably doing something wrong! So I’ll leave it there.
…lets not forget Merneith’s lengthy and explicit explanation of their position:
What do you object to there? You don’t agree that there is a “societal attitude that uppity women ought to be smacked down”? Did you see what happened to Kamala Harris…twice? Do you disagree that "If Morgenstern told a Jewish poster to “keep his big nose to himself” that you should assume that Morgenstern may have had good intentions?
Richard Parker dismissed that explanation with:
Thats condescending bullshit. Its strawman 101. Merneith is not expressing “moral outrage.” Merneith is just sick and tired of the bullshit and isn’t willing to give anyone that expresses blatantly sexist opinions the benefit of the doubt. That has nothing to do with what is and isn’t reality.
Its about Merneith’s decision not to give people expressing blatantly sexist statements the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t actually matter if the joke was in ignorance or not. It takes a certain level of cluelessness to belittle someone by calling them a “little girl”. kayaker has apologised, the apology was accepted, and the OP and kayaker are all good. But the OP wasn’t wrong to call kayaker out. And essentially that is all Merneith is saying.
Yeah, but that isn’t the point. Merneith’s lengthy post I’ve just quoted explains their point. Richard Parker dismisses that post out of hand and doesn’t even attempt to understand it. The later references to “leftist discourse” and “academia” show that he isn’t even listening: he’s attributed a position to Merneith based on some pre-conceived ideas on what the argument actually is.
The only person who bought up “humanity” is Richard Parker. Nawth Chucka got it right when they said “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.” Richard isn’t having a discussion with Merneith, he isn’t listening to them, he isn’t having a debate. He has simply dismissed their opinion and is lecturing them.
With all due respect, you don’t get to declare what the point is. You don’t get to impute objections to me. Especially when I’ve also given a lengthy and explicit explanation of what I do and don’t object to.
But it’s a shitty experience to see the Breitbartian fantasy of liberals eating their own over doctrinal purity actually happening, much less participate in it, so I’m going to leave it at that, too. You’ve also made yourself clear.
…with all due respect: you don’t get to declare what I think the point is or isn’t.
I can do what I fucking like. We are in the fucking pit and I’m not breaking any fucking rules. I’ve read your lengthy and explicit explanation. I disagree. I’ve explained why I disagree.
Fuck that shit. You are doing the same thing as Richard Parker. You aren’t listening. A bunch of men not listening to a bunch of women. And when this is pointed out to you you throw a fit. How fucking typical.
This isn’t doctrinal purity. This isn’t a Breitbartian fantasy. Feel free to drop whatever other fucking buzzword you want to drop. But you’ve got it wrong. This is about Merneith being allowed to express her opinion without being accused of being “everything that is wrong with society.” Merneith getting angry in the pit is not “doctrinal purity”. Telling her to shut up **is **the Breitbartian fantasy.
There are times when one should double down. For instance, when you get a 9 and a 2.
But there are folks in this thread who were dealt a pair of eights. Don’t ever double down on a pair of eights. When that happens, the only thing to do is split.
I suspect that if we met in real life you would find me eminently affable with a charming wit scarce among most men, particularly of my age. I suspect you would feel otherwise were you to meet the OP and have a few discussions with her. Your inferences can’t change the very real possibility that I spoke considerable, if unpleasant, truths.
Or I may be completely wrong. But I’m not the one throwing a hissy fit over what amounts to a “2” on the internet-outrage-o-meter. There are places in the world where men do literally own women - where raping your wife is codified into law as acceptable and women can’t leave the house without a man’s permission. The loss of perspective I sometimes see on this board is astonishing.
I’m not sure how to interpret this. Are you telling us that the person you portray yourself as here on the Dope is nothing at all resembling of your real life persona? “Eminently affable with a charming wit scarce among most men, particularly of my age” is so laughably opposite of the Stringbean I’ve come to know that I feel I must be gravely misreading your nuanced discourse.
Are you saying that you’re an asshole here for fun, but not an asshole in real life? Are you trolling, in that you don’t believe the bullshit you spout? Or, do you hide your true self in real life and only let it out here? Because the Stringbean here tends to be an asshole, not an affable, charming man.
Sunny Daze seems fine to me. She said, ha ha guys, but women don’t really like to be shared, so it’s not all that funny. That’s no hissy fit. You went on a rant that, were it not for your posting history, I would have assumed was parody.
I say things here that I don’t say in real life. For example, I don’t discuss abortion or atheism in real life with people I don’t know that well. Sunny Daze, when faced with idiots talking about sharing women may just roll her eyes in real life and walk away – it’s definitely more difficult to confront people IRL than it is on a message board. Here, she can safely confront people and tell them they are acting like jerks and maybe they’ll learn something (I did). At work or at a party, that is much more difficult.
Anyway, this is the pit, so asshole away. Don’t expect us to believe that you’re such a nice guy IRL, unless you want us to just assume you’re trolling here.
Four pages into the discussion and some people still don’t seem to get that the comment that brought on the OP in the pit was a pathetic, classless and desperately lacking of common social competence. As if that weren’t obvious enough there’s the predictable contingent of desperate loser who defend this cloddish sentiment while trying to blame liberals and PC politics for an utterly juvenile, clueless attitude towards an entire gender?
Honestly, for anyone still defending the classless comment as harmless is in desperate need of beating with a clue-by-four about why you’re wrong. And if you still don’t get it, at least have the common sense to shut the fuck up and move on instead of proving once again why you can’t get a woman to give you the time of day.
This IS the Pit, and I’m not obligated to give peer-reviewed citations for anything posted here. Nor do I post to yours or anyone else’s command, so get used to disappointment.
Besides, I checked and I believe there is a Moderator instruction (it’s ambiguous at least) about not calling this specific person a pedophile after a huge Pit thread involving him.
That’s too deep. Fantasy would be something like Rosie O’Donnell and Barbra Streisand in a cage match. Which seems a little circa-2002 to me, but those are two names I saw on their front page yesterday after you posted and that is just bizarre. I expect it to have a Trump News banner in the near future.
I’m reminded of how, in the 1980s, my generally “liberal” 9th grade English teacher explained the ideal length of an essay by quoting a line that compares it to a woman’s skirt. It didn’t seem out of place at the time, and I attribute this fact about 30% to my 14-year-old cluelessness, and about 70% changes since then in what is socially acceptable.
Fast forward to 2010. As a PhD student, I am participating in a graduate seminar on critical theory in social geography. The absolute last place and time that it would be appropriate to repeat this line.* Yet, I somehow DO say it. Silence.
Luckily, my colleagues and the professor knew me well enough to recognize that I was just suffering from a grievous brain fart, and we all moved on quickly.
That brain fart – how it occurs; what it tells us (or not) about the individual, and about power structures; how the farter reacts to and learns from the fart (or not) – this is, I’d say, the essence of this fascinating thread.
*I don’t mean to imply it would EVER be appropriate to repeat it – I only mean that this is a situation where men would be specially careful about such things. One would think so.
The delusion in your post is astounding. I look forward to eventually meeting the OP sometime (Portland Dopefest, Sunny Daze?) and am sure I will enjoy her company.
You, however, I would find anything but charming. In fact, I find you a completely self-absorbed, bitter person, confused and frustrated that the world has matured past you. Your belief that men in this thread are simply putting up a front for the ladies, and if you and I were to hang out one-on-one we’d bond over some ribald jokes, is pathetic. Your frustration and sensitivity to being called out on your sad and out-of-date views are apparent, yet you are too lazy, too narcissistic, or just too plain stupid to examine them.
And continually retreating behind an inane argument that jokes can’t be offensive, is cowardly. If you want to insult someone, try coming up with something that doesn’t make you sound like such a cretin.
