Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

One can get pretty terse with the explanation though. EG:

You hit your head.
You are not able to stand, or walk.
Your speech is slurred, and your eyes do not properly dilate when exposed to light.
These are all signs of either swelling or bleeding inside your skull.
We took X-Rays to determine which of those it was. The X-Ray shows bleeding. You can see it here, on the exposure.
You have a choice. You can either allow us to drill the relief hole, and allow the blood to escape from the inside of your skull before you go into a seizure, coma, or worse--- OR-- you can choose to risk having those bad things happen, along with possible long term brain injury.

Doctow, what does sluwwed mean? Can you expwain what diwate is? I read a friend who can read told me that he read on the internet that X-rays can cause bleeding. You suwe you didn't do this to me? Help! I want another doctor!

[wierd]

Slurred, my good sir.  As in, you are finding it more and more difficult to speak-- the words are not coming out the way you want them to.
Dilate, as in, expand and contract. The little black area inside your eye is supposed to get smaller when I shine a light on it. Yours does not.

It does not really matter to me which choice you make; I can seek another neurologist for a consult, but by that time you will have lost consciousness. When he makes the same determination that I have, which he will, you will be too unconscious and and too convulsive to dispute his interpretation of the lab findings. As a result, at that time I will consider you to not be of sufficiently sound mind to refuse treatment. Having gotten the second opinion, and being unable to refuse treatment, we are legally obligated to perform the necessary surgery to save your life at that point. You can file grievance with the hospital at such time that you are able to contact your lawyer.

This brings us back to the original choice I gave you.

Clock is ticking. Do you accept the procedure now, and walk out of here with the better part of your brain intact-- OR-- do you choose to deny treatment, and leave here as a vegetable or as a corpse?

Your choice. Choose quickly.

[EnigmaticHat]

On the topic of the whole "Mansplaining" turdfest;

Shutting somebody down by playing the mansplaining card kills the second part of free speech-- that of other people to hear what is being said, and to join the conversation. It is extremely short sighted, and arrogant, to assert that your reaction to the person trying to give the explanation is the be-all, end-all of the discussion. If you choose not to participate in the discussion, there are better ways to extricate yourself than trying to shut the OTHER person down.

Additionally, the assertion itself-- that there is absolutely nothing this other person can say that will increase your understanding or knowledge, is a flat out fabrication created by the intellectually lazy. That is of course, unless you have perfect omniscience-- something I very much doubt.

The better way to go about this, is to say "I am finding this argument rather tedious, can we please not discuss this topic?" Not to basically say "I refuse to listen to anything you have to say, your boorish and unrelenting person! I obviously know much more about this subject than you do, and there is nothing you have to say that is of any value! I have given you the benefit of my wisdom, now away with you!" which is exactly what playing the mansplaining card does.

Didn't I just go on a rant about this a few days ago?

the First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are government acting on behalf of the government.

Both explaining things and complaining about people explaining things are covered under free speech.  People expressing their opinions without fear of oppression, even if those opinions are mean or dumb, that's free speech in all its glory.  Free speech was expected to foster a healthy dialogue, but never intended to make one mandatory. 

Also free speech only applies to the government.

[wierd]

That is a semantic argument about the legally defined right of free speech, vs the philosophical notion of free speech.

The philosophical notion has the second part attached; the legal definition does not.

I did not say it was illegal to shut people down. I said it was intellectually and philosophically destitute.
I do not argue that your view on the legal definition is incorrect. I point out that I am not arguing points of legality.

Since you have a firm grasp of the legal view, while presenting a deficit on the philosophical notion, here is a nice (and old) pdf from a political philosopher of some note.

http://eet.pixel-online.org/files/etranslation/original/Mill,%20On%20Liberty.pdf

[wobbly]

I did not say it was illegal to shut people down. I said it was intellectually and philosophically destitute.
I do not argue that your view on the legael definition is incorrect. I point out that I am not arguing points of legality.

Supposedly. You're going to waste a fair amount of your time if you let anyone & everyone rant at you just because they'd like to. Also cause yourself a fair deal of annoyance. Of course a point blank not interrsted is much more effective than any mansplaning nonsense but hey, otherwise.

[Frumple]

You'd think, but that nonsense developed specifically because a point blank not interested wasn't enough for some people. Occasionally a critter is largely only capable of noticing the clue by four when it has some sort of spike embedded in it, for whatever reason.

[Reelya]

tfw, one of my friends from my gamedev course has started posting further and further rightwing stuff on facebook recently, of the "the left is aiding terrorists" type stuff. When we were in the course he was popular with the girls and seemed a liberal / hippie type. Not sure what gives there. Techie girls in our circle aren't the type to go for nazi-boys.

Hope he doesn't start posting about how great Trump and Milo are.

[milo christiansen]

Hey! I'll have you know Milo is awesome. Oh, wait, you're talking about that other weirdo... Carry on.

[scriver]

Mansplaining can not be an intellectual dialogue, by the very definition of 'dialogue' including 2 or more people. It is, at best, an intellectual monologue; with the former part of that description being questionable at best. If someone is mansplaining at you, it is explicitly not a conversation or a thing involving 2 people; it's one person stroking their own ego at the other's expense.

I find this statement great because it is such a perfect description of alway's every contributions to this thread. It's nice to see you confess that all you're doing is mansplaining, alway. I'll go ahead and remember it to myself the next time you are stroking your own ego here.

[smjjames]

Mansplaining can not be an intellectual dialogue, by the very definition of 'dialogue' including 2 or more people. It is, at best, an intellectual monologue; with the former part of that description being questionable at best. If someone is mansplaining at you, it is explicitly not a conversation or a thing involving 2 people; it's one person stroking their own ego at the other's expense.

I find this statement great because it is such a perfect description of alway's every contributions to this thread. It's nice to see you confess that all you're doing is mansplaining, alway. I'll go ahead and remember it to myself the next time you are stroking your own ego here.

Eh? Lets not do personal attacks at each other, shall we?

[Hanslanda]

Seconded.

[ChairmanPoo]

I favor maimsplaining, myself. Its a much more effective technique

[Max™]

Maxplanations.

There, we're done, I killed the joke, how about them politics?

[ChairmanPoo]

Maxplanations.

There, we're done, I killed the joke, how about them politics?

MaxPlanckations. They're true and not true at the same time

[wierd]

I thought that was the smallest measurable explanation?