"[...] FEMINISM IS NOT A DEBATE [!!!!!!1!!!1!one!!!]"

[Kevin Keel]

Had an interesting Easter. I'll let the images do the explaining, but I will say I'm obviously no master-debater ... not that it would have helped any. 







So - what did we all learn from this? 

Turns out she was right - feminism is not a debate. 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>because feminists apparently do not know how to debate. 

Happy holidays!



 

[Tservitive]

You may want to edit. The girl's name is reviled in the second purple line of dialogue. Still good though.

[Bouncelot]

The original poster may have started off aggressive, and was not very articulate.... but you started off by being a dick....

There were numerous ways you could have started into that conversation without being so confrontational. I saw nothing in their original post that warranted that. Asking them to clarify to to expand on their thoughts would have been a better start. Some of what they were saying was actually not that bad. It definitely did not deserve the response you gave.  But perhaps there was more then what was in the images you shared?

[Kevin Beal]

The original poster may have started off aggressive, and was not very articulate.... but you started off by being a dick....

There were numerous ways you could have started into that conversation without being so confrontational.

What? Like this way you start off your response?

 

Do you have no sense of irony?

[J. D. Stembal]

You are an asshole and belong in the ground is a great way to not actually have a productive discussion. You fell for a troll. Jacqui, j'accuse!

[Bouncelot]

Yes, exactly the way I started off my response

[Kevin Beal]

Yes, exactly the way I started off my response

Okay, thanks. I will dismiss your post then, as per your instruction.

[Bouncelot]

Okay, thanks. I will dismiss your post then, as per your instruction.

 

I never said it was work dismissing. I admitted that it came off more abrasive then I had intended, that is all. If an apology is needed then I apologize.

But this is in no way a retraction of my comments. My point stands.

 

The OP looked like he was starting a fight for no apparent reason. He could not expect any other response then the one he got given his post. Just the fact the the post he was responding to mentioned respect (rather then demanding/ insisting on rights) and mention it was for both MEN and Women, should have been an indication that the post he was responding to may not have been your typical feminist drivel.

It may have been worth asking for clarification in an interested tone rather then "attacking" the poster with a philosophical debate that was not invited. It was an attempt to wow the poster with his mental superiority, and thus shut down the conversation. 

[Kevin Beal]

What matters, according to you, is to have a non-aggressive response. According to your own standard, you fail. What you are saying is "X should be rejected, and I'm doing X right now, what I'm saying should be rejected". It's a performative contradiction, which can be intentional in the case of sarcasm and irony, but as I understand it, this was unintentional.

 

Your "point" absolutely does not stand. You said so yourself with your actions.

 

And it's not like you cited what he said and explained how and in what way it was aggressive. You just poisoned the well with some obnoxious assertions (e.x. "The OP looked like he was starting a fight for no apparent reason").

 

The point of psychological projection is to deny certain traits you have by pretending that they belong to other people. It's a near certainty that this is what is occurring when in the very moment that you make your accusation, you yourself do what you accuse the other party of. It indicates a reality distortion, especially when it's maintained by exempting yourself from your own rules. I pointed out the hypocrisy and it didn't matter even a tiny bit to you. It only matters when it's the OP who does it.

 

Hypocrisy is a bigger issue and worthy of more attention than styles of presentation, because hypocrisy, in order to be maintained always escalates in terms of rationalization.

 

I'm not treating you like a fragile porcelain doll because you are (presumably) an adult and that's how I'm going to treat you: like an adult. You didn't fall apart did you? Maybe you should give his philosophical opponents a little more credit.

[shirgall]

If an apology is needed then I apologize.

 

 

In the computer industry an instruction that has no effect other than to take up space is called a "NOOP" meaning "No Operation". In the quoted phrase we call it a BSNA, a "Bullshit Non-Apology". It has no effect. Just get rid of NOOPs in your prose, it will make your writing clearer.

 

I think your message of "Your first response was abrasive and made you appear to want to start a fight" cold have been simply stated, without the nuanced attempt of doing the same thing that OP did.

 

For example, do you think OP would have had a better conversation if he had said, "All people are different from one another, so I would like to know more about the context in which you want some people to treat other people with no respect to those differences. For example, when you mentioned "wages" I assumed to meant employers should not take gender into account when hiring people at a certain wage, but can consider relevant factors such as experience and potential future value to the company..." ?

 

Having been down the road of youtube comments, facebook threads, usenet flame wars and the like, the more anonymous and irrelevant the poster is, the less likely you will ever learn any useful context or gain any ground in changing people's minds if you engage them. However, when you really know someone, you can short-cut past a lot of "common definitions" exploration and go right to the heart of a matter. We have no context ourselves to figure out just how well OP and the others knew one another.

 

Therefore, we can only make popcorn and kibitz. OP needs to tell us what worked and what didn't and we can shoot from the hip, which is what the Internet is all about.

[Bouncelot]

In the computer industry an instruction that has no effect other than to take up space is called a "NOOP" meaning "No Operation". In the quoted phrase we call it a BSNA, a "Bullshit Non-Apology". It has no effect. Just get rid of NOOPs in your prose, it will make your writing clearer.

 

I think your message of "Your first response was abrasive and made you appear to want to start a fight" cold have been simply stated, without the nuanced attempt of doing the same thing that OP did.

 

Oh, it definitely was a BSNA. I only put it there b/c Kevin seems to have taken excessive issue with my comments and seems to demanding one (my interpretation).

 

You are completely right that I could have worded things differently. I admitted it above. I did in fact make the same mistake the OP did, and without realizing it until Kevin pointed it out.

I should have stopped to think before writing. I read the OP, and saw what looked like someone starting a fight, and then blaming the "feminist" for the direction the the conversation took; and it bothered me.

 

I do like your rewording. I myself would have asked what they meant by respect, where they thought there was a lack of respect, to get some context on why they they made their post. What was the "root cause". That would give a starting point to a debate, and a chance to discover if they were really willing/open to discussing things rationally.

 

I agree that w/o any real context we don't know where this discussion "began" (was there a history of these conversations? how well does the OP know this person?) Which is why I asked if there was more to it then the images shared.

[A Madman Person Guy]

The original poster may have started off aggressive, and was not very articulate.... but you started off by being a dick....

There were numerous ways you could have started into that conversation without being so confrontational. I saw nothing in their original post that warranted that. Asking them to clarify to to expand on their thoughts would have been a better start. Some of what they were saying was actually not that bad. It definitely did not deserve the response you gave.  But perhaps there was more then what was in the images you shared?

 

Yes, because tone is entirely translatable to the medium of text, and is absolutely germaine when it comes to discussing matters that come down to principial views. And indeed, his tone was clearly aggressive and unreasonable, not at all pondering and perfectly passable in a formal debate environment.

 

It's true that it might be appropriate to investigate why he would go and disputate with some facebook warrior such as this, since the sane response to any such person or indeed any feminist is to give them the hand and walk away without a word, but couldn't we also ask you to give at least a little benefit of doubt?

[shirgall]

I do like your rewording. I myself would have asked what they meant by respect, where they thought there was a lack of respect, to get some context on why they they made their post. What was the "root cause". That would give a starting point to a debate, and a chance to discover if they were really willing/open to discussing things rationally.

 

 

Yeah, the definition of "respect" is a knotty one. That's why my approach would be first to find common cause in some other aspect of the posting before trying to deconstruct words like "respect" and even "equal treatment". The poster's immediate resort to "asshole" would have made me not even start a conversation unless it was a family member or close friend anyway...

 

I appreciate you engaging with me, though. I think we are pretty much loudly agreeing anyway.

[A Madman Person Guy]

Yeah, the definition of "respect" is a knotty one. That's why my approach would be first to find common cause in some other aspect of the posting before trying to deconstruct words like "respect" and even "equal treatment". The poster's immediate resort to "asshole" would have made me not even start a conversation unless it was a family member or close friend anyway...

 

I appreciate you engaging with me, though. I think we are pretty much loudly agreeing anyway.

 

Precisely. You don't debate whether if the sky is green or not. So she's right after all, though not for the reason she imagined. Because modern feminism is nonsense.

[Tservitive]

Yes, because tone is entirely translatable to the medium of text, and is absolutely germaine when it comes to discussing matters that come down to principial views. And indeed, his tone was clearly aggressive and unreasonable, not at all pondering and perfectly passable in a formal debate environment.

I loved the link! Thank you for sharing it!

[utopian]

Nazi-ism is not a debate. You either are against Jews in every capacity or you are an asshole and you belong in the fucking ground.

 

The logic is overwhelming.

[Bouncelot]

What matters, according to you, is to have a non-aggressive response. According to your own standard, you fail. What you are saying is "X should be rejected, and I'm doing X right now, what I'm saying should be rejected". It's a performative contradiction, which can be intentional in the case of sarcasm and irony, but as I understand it, this was unintentional.

 

Your "point" absolutely does not stand. You said so yourself with your actions.

 

And it's not like you cited what he said and explained how and in what way it was aggressive. You just poisoned the well with some obnoxious assertions (e.x. "The OP looked like he was starting a fight for no apparent reason").

 

The point of psychological projection is to deny certain traits you have by pretending that they belong to other people. It's a near certainty that this is what is occurring when in the very moment that you make your accusation, you yourself do what you accuse the other party of. It indicates a reality distortion, especially when it's maintained by exempting yourself from your own rules. I pointed out the hypocrisy and it didn't matter even a tiny bit to you. It only matters when it's the OP who does it.

 

Hypocrisy is a bigger issue and worthy of more attention than styles of presentation, because hypocrisy, in order to be maintained always escalates in terms of rationalization.

 

I'm not treating you like a fragile porcelain doll because you are (presumably) an adult and that's how I'm going to treat you: like an adult. You didn't fall apart did you? Maybe you should give his philosophical opponents a little more credit.

 

Seriously dude. What the fuck is your problem?

 

You talk about projection and hypocrisy And yet you have jumped to all sorts of conclusions about my intentions and the meaning of my words, even my psychology and mindset. Who are you to know? Did you even ask me?

Hypocrisy? You are in essence doing to me what you accuse me of doing to the OP.... 

 

Yes i admitted my mistake, and yet you still come after me. Dismissing my entire comment b/c of a mistake in the first 2 sentences.

I did not apologize because to me any attempt would have come off as a BSNA. I prefer to make my apologies by changing my actions and never (hopefully) repeating my mistake.

 

I know what I did and I thank you for pointing that out. I did not realize it at the time, and I will do everything I can to see it is not repeated. 

 

I honestly fail to see how my comments elicited  such a toxic response from you.

[fractional slacker]

Reminds me of: "The debate is over." BS tactic they trotted out to politicize weather.

[Kevin Beal]

Seriously dude. What the fuck is your problem?

[...]

I honestly fail to see how my comments elicited  such a toxic response from you.

I (mistakenly?) took your previous comment: "Yes, exactly the way I started off my response :)" to be a kind of "yeah I'm guilty of it, so what?!"

 

The post you quoted of mine was operating from this assumption. It appears that I have mistaken your meaning, and I apologize for assuming the worst.

 

Text isn't the best medium for getting tone across. And my post wasn't intended to punish you or make you feel bad or anything like that. I'm just trying to get a principle across that applies more often than you might think. It will probably make a lot more sense if you consider my misreading of your first response.

 

I was actually quite surprised by this latest response, and to find that I went down like 5 points in reputation. What I experienced as expressing my own frustration about something that happens a lot is taken as a toxic, punitive condemnation, with a "what the fuck is your problem?" thrown in there. My experience of our exchange is clearly different than yours.

 

Hope that clarifies things a bit.