Print

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

[Shrugging Khan]

Hugs and Backstabbing! 

But really...including spammers? Don't be harsh, man. I've never done anything that bad to you. I couldn't.

[Andir]

I've never done anything that bad to you. I couldn't.

Interesting statement... because some people place certain aspects of society in a lower bracket than spammers.  While you may not feel you fit in that bracket, I can guarantee that someone does.

[Shrugging Khan]

And I think his name is Sowelu. Which saddens me; that such things must be. At least you still respect me.

[Andir]

And I think his name is Sowelu. Which saddens me; that such things must be. At least you still respect me.

I think respect is pushing it.   There's a fine small list of people I respect in this world and you don't get on it until I know you better.

[Leafsnail]

Why derogatory? I used it in an entirely general manner. Just because there was a "weak" next to it doesn't mean that it has anything directly to do with the "woman-like", rather than the unknown traitor's nerves it referred to. Two attributes aimed at one object do not make the two attributes related to one another, which would be the only way to read derogatory-ness in my earlier lines.

Or because, you know, you were strongly implying it had a negative meaning.  And still are.  Quite frankly, I can't see any way to read it in which it isn't derogatory (unless you like inserting random non sequiters into everything).

Also, that's the entire use of generalisations - using them to describe the vast majority of a group, rather than to painstakingly explain that yes there are exceptions, quite a lot actually, but there's still a bigger part of them that do fit into this pattern, so stop it already. To point at generalisations as something universally bad is just childish.

Firstly, I'd like to call bullshit on "vast majority", considering that I've never seen any girls I know lose their cool in a debate (not to mention that the leader of my debating society is female).  Secondly, yes, I do object to generalizing about half of the general population.

Finally, this bothers me... well, because it seems to be taking an extremely backward viewpoint.  The kind I would've hoped no longer exists.

[Andir]

Finally, this bothers me... well, because it seems to be taking an extremely backward viewpoint.  The kind I would've hoped no longer exists.

I had hoped you would see what is going on by now... there's a (not so) subtle group character assassination going on.

(hint: group association, stereotypes, thread topic, rudeness, arrogance, asinine statements... )

[Shrugging Khan]

I think respect is pushing it.   There's a fine small list of people I respect in this world and you don't get on it until I know you better.

Ah, I forgive you. It's not like I personally have a notion of respect, anyways   

Or because, you know, you were strongly implying it had a negative meaning.  And still are.  Quite frankly, I can't see any way to read it in which it isn't derogatory (unless you like inserting random non sequiters into everything).

If I called a man's breast "woman-like", would that be derogatory because it's commonly accepted that a) women tend to have tits, and b) man-tits are not a nice things?

Firstly, I'd like to call bullshit on "vast majority", considering that I've never seen any girls I know lose their cool in a debate (not to mention that the leader of my debating society is female). 

Tell me where you live, I want to join that club - because over here, there's an unmistakable tendency for debating women to grow hysterical faster, to not last as long, and to just drop to personal insults when men are still exchanging actual arguments. It's not prejudice, but observation.

Secondly, yes, I do object to generalizing about half of the general population.

Your objection is noted, but disagreed with. Generalisations are legit, as long as they serve as simplifications of an otherwise complex issue, enabling it to be implemented in an argument without having to explain the debate-irrelevant details - criticising a generalisation based on the assumption that there is no reasoning behind it is simply premature.

Finally, this bothers me... well, because it seems to be taking an extremely backward viewpoint.  The kind I would've hoped no longer exists.

What? That there's biological and neurological differences between the sexes, and that those can occasionally manifest in situations such as debate?

[Sowelu]

Man, master of debating aikido here.  Takes a stance, then when someone attacks it, steps out of the way and claims a more mild position and pushes people right over.

[Phmcw]

  oh great, an "it's not sexism it's true" argument.

Well, yes i's sexism, and blatant sexism with that.
But given that the last ime I've red "weak and woman like nerves" in a book date from a book published in the 1920's, I'm wondering if you're not willingly derailing this thread, which would happen to make it clause, given that a mod just had to intervene.

Respond mister Anderson.

[Shrugging Khan]

Man, master of debating aikido here.  Takes a stance, then when someone attacks it, steps out of the way and claims a more mild position and pushes people right over.

What am I to do? People are all too eager to attack my non-serious language with in full gallop; just asking to trip over the serious core of relatively reasonable arguments.

oh great, an "it's not sexism it's true" argument.

Well, yes i's sexism, and blatant sexism with that.
But given that the last ime I've red "weak and woman like nerves" in a book date from a book published in the 1920's, I'm wondering if you're not willingly derailing this thread, which would happen to make it clause, given that a mod just had to intervene.

Respond mister Anderson.

Well...if you want it, here it is: "It's not sexism, it's pretty much true except for the usual exceptions." Just because my conclusions after observation are in some vague sense similar to what the chauvinists of old came up with simply based on unquestioned prejudice doesn't mean I'm a sexist.

Spoiler: Don't click me. I'm a spoiler. Don't hurt my privacy. (click to show/hide)

God damned Leonidas said it.

[Leafsnail]

If I called a man's breast "woman-like", would that be derogatory because it's commonly accepted that a) women tend to have tits, and b) man-tits are not a nice things?

Well, no, because it's generally established that women having breasts isn't bad.  Wheras weak nerves... not so much.

Tell me where you live, I want to join that club - because over here, there's an unmistakable tendency for debating women to grow hysterical faster, to not last as long, and to just drop to personal insults when men are still exchanging actual arguments. It's not prejudice, but observation.

Cambridge.  Really, to me, it seems beyond overgeneralization, and well into "complete bullshit" territory.  Sortof like "Men are better drivers".

[Shrugging Khan]

Well, no, because it's generally established that women having breasts isn't bad.  Wheras weak nerves... not so much.

What's bad or not shouldn't be judged lightly. Weak nerves can help avoid unnecessary stress...anyways, women's nerves aren't even necessarily weak. Just woman-like - they may even be stronger than men's when it comes to things other than debate. Or maybe it really does depend on culture.

Cambridge.  Really, to me, it seems beyond overgeneralization, and well into "complete bullshit" territory.  Sortof like "Men are better drivers".

Generally speaking, men are better drivers than women. Not "safer", "more fuel-efficient" or "better in all aspects, always, all men!", but generally they seem to have less overall problems with the handling of cars, a higher degree of skill behind the wheel, and better perception/judgement of the road and its condition.

[Sowelu]

trollface.jpg

[Glowcat]

Shrugging Khan you may want to stop digging your ditch and accept that what you said was pretty damn sexist. Just avoid using language that portrays females as a whole in a negative light.

[Leafsnail]

What's bad or not shouldn't be judged lightly. Weak nerves can help avoid unnecessary stress...anyways, women's nerves aren't even necessarily weak. Just woman-like - they may even be stronger than men's when it comes to things other than debate. Or maybe it really does depend on culture.

So, linking this back to your original statement, apparently "women-like" nerves make you more willing to report stuff you see online.  Or drive you into some kind of fit of passion (apparently the only reason to report someone).

...Yeah, this still isn't making any sense.

Generally speaking, men are better drivers than women. Not "safer", "more fuel-efficient" or "better in all aspects, always, all men!", but generally they seem to have less overall problems with the handling of cars, a higher degree of skill behind the wheel, and better perception/judgement of the road and its condition.

Which is why women have fewer accidents...?