Print

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

[Frumple]

The problem with that is that "mansplaining" is constantly used for the sole purpose of ensuring that no dialogue can take place, allowing the person using the term to win by default.

Or just end the conversation. The whole "win" perspective is kinda' part of the problem the term popped up regarding, really. Sometimes a person isn't trying to goddamn fight you, they just don't want your input. Alway's kinda' said repeatedly that ensuring no dialogue can take place is more or less the entire point. People not being able to disengage without considering some stupid shit lost is probably half the reason the thing's around.

... and ninja'd, but I'm entirely too tired right now to just delete it and move on. Consider it a +1 or some crap, I'unno. Don't even really know why the hell we're having this conversation in here.

Any case, the critics can kinda' stuff it if they're going to refuse to acknowledge there's reasons for that button to exist, methinks.

[Lord Shonus]

Wait until you see someone cause thousands of dollars worth of damage because she shut down the "don't do that, you'll damage the slot machine" explanation with "STOP MANSPLAINING TO ME!".

[sluissa]

And supporters can stuff it if they think it's anything but a sexist word used to shut men up when they're saying something the other party doesn't want to hear. (Regardless of whether or not the men have a valid reason for saying it.)

But yes, let's move on.

[Neonivek]

Ask him to explain years of medical knowledge?

Ok, I know this is a bit silly of a thing to say... But Medicine isn't THAT complicated.

I cannot think of any procedure that is so complicated, or condition so obfuscated, that a doctor couldn't explain both in a paragraph, maybe two at most.

"You have a cranial infarction causing the pressure in your head to increase. It will keep increasing until it crushes your brain. We will lower the pressure by drilling a hole into your head"
"But how do you know that I have this?"
"Well with the X-ray we took"

[smjjames]

Wait until you see someone cause thousands of dollars worth of damage because she shut down the "don't do that, you'll damage the slot machine" explanation with "STOP MANSPLAINING TO ME!".

I'm guessing that actually happened.

But yes, let's move on.

Yeah, been kind of going in circles.

[Lord Shonus]

Wait until you see someone cause thousands of dollars worth of damage because she shut down the "don't do that, you'll damage the slot machine" explanation with "STOP MANSPLAINING TO ME!".

I'm guessing that actually happened.

Yes. Beyond this confidentiality issues go into effect.

[nenjin]

'Mansplaining' to me pretty much encapsulates to me why Americans can't talk to each other anymore. It's a belief that's in the eye of the beholder and it can't really be refuted by the person accused of it. They can talk to you in the most neutral, non-judgmental or condescending way possible and if someone wants to keep calling it mansplaining, what are you honestly going to say to change their mind?

So it's working as intended then. The point is to be a way of saying "Stop talking, I've heard what you have to say from others before already or could explain it to you at or above the level you're attempting to explain to me." It means the target doesn't care about what you have to say because what you are saying has zero value to them. It's not something the explainer can remedy nor can they somehow force valuing their explanation on the target. So just stop; that's literally all it's asking.

Except it's used to dismiss an argument, not just say "I've heard that one before". After all, we have the latter phrase to use.

Yep; working as intended. Nobody owes you an argument. Nobody owes you a hearing. Demanding another person's time is not a respectful thing to do when they literally don't care about what you're offering in return.

You cannot, with a straight face, argue your point to someone then completely dismiss their reply like you don't "owe them anything." If you (as in the generic you) don't owe anyone a conversation but are still standing in a room full of people shouting your opinion at them....then shut the fuck up. You can't assert total hogwash then say "I don't have to talk/listen to you!" Having an opinion is not an immunity if you have even a shred of intellectual honesty. Which is what "mansplaining" is a chicken shit way of avoiding, like whoever you're talking at doesn't even get the right to their own opinion.

And FFS, you want to talk about condescension? "I know everything you're saying so it has no value to me so stop talking." That is literally the reverse of "woman, shut your mouth, no one needs to hear you talk!"

[smjjames]

Wait until you see someone cause thousands of dollars worth of damage because she shut down the "don't do that, you'll damage the slot machine" explanation with "STOP MANSPLAINING TO ME!".

I'm guessing that actually happened.

Yes. Beyond this confidentiality issues go into effect.

Seems pretty explainatory enough to me. Could have been worse, could have been a 'don't do that, you'll kill or injure yourself' type situation.

in an effort to get back on topic Trump uses the attack as a platform to push for his muslim ban. There's a good chance that the attackers and their families aren't even from the countries on the ban list.

[Frumple]

And FFS, you want to talk about condescension? "I know everything you're saying so it has no value to me so stop talking." That is literally the reverse of "woman, shut your mouth, no one needs to hear you talk!"

Eeehhh... nah, wouldn't quite agree there. The difference between "no value to me" and "no one" is pretty significant. Actually acknowledging the statement has value even if not to you specifically also is a hell of a difference. May be condescension in both but it's a hella' different type and/or magnitude.

[Max™]

I blame video games for not being violent enough to distract the internet hate machine and keep them from doing that gamergate shit which ended up pushing shit like the term SJW into the public awareness and allowing shitbags like Milo and Trump to paint themselves as victims deserving sympathy because it's so fucking hard being a white dude with money when all these nasty women keep trying to stop them from expressing their god given right to hate whoever they want.

Now we get this: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/03/donald-trump-ceos-corporate-relationship-239080

I think Musk is still in the same dumbfounded state many of us are, look at that fucking guy flapping his lips, what the fuck is he doing there, when is the camera crew going to jump out and reveal it's a practical joke, I mean, obviously this isn't really happening right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Even Musk's lifelong facial nerve injury cannot hide the feeling of helplessness that is trying to advise Donald Trump.

[Starver]

Trump does believe in climate change...  (I read it as being yet another official having to spin their wheels to somehow deal with their boss's eccentric actions...)

[ChairmanPoo]

Ask him to explain years of medical knowledge?

Ok, I know this is a bit silly of a thing to say... But Medicine isn't THAT complicated.

I cannot think of any procedure that is so complicated, or condition so obfuscated, that a doctor couldn't explain both in a paragraph, maybe two at most.

"You have a cranial infarction causing the pressure in your head to increase. It will keep increasing until it crushes your brain. We will lower the pressure by drilling a hole into your head"
"But how do you know that I have this?"
"Well with the X-ray we took"

Would it be OT to have it happen here?


Executive summary:  TBH I've found that even after dumbing down explanations people still ask for 'layman's terms'.  One of the reasons why you think things are easy to explain is likely that you have dealt with people with a lot of experience in  simplifying things down.
Sometimes even inter-speciality debate can get complicated.

[EnigmaticHat]

If you're wondering, "I heard only two nations didn't sign the Paris Agreement?  That doesn't sound right, that means that North Korea and a bunch of other dictatorships signed it."  The answer is yes only two nations didn't sign.  One country didn't sign because the agreement was too lenient, the other didn't because they couldn't attend, we did sign but now we're withdrawing.

I'm not surprised to be honest.  North Korea has always been a force for intellectualism, cooperation and globalism.  Whereas America is just some backwater dictatorship; I hear the only reason the Russians are propping them up is to save face.

[wierd]

Ask him to explain years of medical knowledge?

Ok, I know this is a bit silly of a thing to say... But Medicine isn't THAT complicated.

I cannot think of any procedure that is so complicated, or condition so obfuscated, that a doctor couldn't explain both in a paragraph, maybe two at most.

"You have a cranial infarction causing the pressure in your head to increase. It will keep increasing until it crushes your brain. We will lower the pressure by drilling a hole into your head"
"But how do you know that I have this?"
"Well with the X-ray we took"

Would it be OT to have it happen here?


Executive summary:  TBH I've found that even after dumbing down explanations people still ask for 'layman's terms'.  One of the reasons why you think things are easy to explain is likely that you have dealt with people with a lot of experience in  simplifying things down.
Sometimes even inter-speciality debate can get complicated.

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.

Your choice.

Etc.


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.