Female traffic light signals at pedestrian crossings

Post Reply New Topic

yeah wow. way to twist my words into your obsequious meaning.

i wanted strong girls to call me a complete sexist and bigot because i like the feel of their claws.

Social movements in my opinion are more important than car crashes. What is your opinion on Anita Sarkesian?

For the love pizza do I need to add a /sarcasm label every single time I'm sarcastic?

I thought that one was to obvious to require a label.

Or is that too subtle for you? Do you require a sign?

yeah fail to you. you can't squirm out. i don't care anyway

You claim you don't care yet you respond?

Not much except that I have many higher priorities. While I'll always make time to argue principles if confronted by a leftist with the kind of aggressive stupidity that you worry about, I don't seek it out. I have plenty of things to oppose in the mainstream, and mainstream social barriers cause more problems than fringe nuts.

What are some mainstream social boundaries for women? I have seen these nuts and they are pretty mainstream. Anita Sarkessan is mainstream. She makes feminist frequency.

On this site, I've disagreed with other feminists on topfree equality and legal prostitution, for starters. I don't feel the need to hunt down arguments with my fellow feminists, but I do enjoy them when they come my way.

Likewise, I don't need to go out hunting for places where I see women treated dismissively with regard to their talents, or subjected to harassment. I have the opportunity to address that far more often. I expect to have even more opportunities, as people get more comfortable defining their own gender roles in ways that stir up the haters. My feminism includes all genders.

People should totally pursue their special interests, but don't imagine that the topic contains the importance. The importance of an obsession is in the obsession, and an interest can turn into an obsession if you start to think everyone should feel your level of emotional charge.

Feminist Frequency frequently lies and scams.

Shame on them, in that case. Lying gives our opponents unlimited ammunition to mull over again and again. The truth hurts plenty, and we should keep hitting people with the truth, over and over.

I feel their pain, too. I grew up in West Texas, believing I was a good person with a clear picture of human decency. Then I somehow got A Handmaid's Tale, and suddenly those traditional values didn't look so decent. It hurt. I felt really tormented, obviously, an undiagnosed teenage aspie who suddenly has to rebuild his value system. I guess I was a Culture War Baby, but I dealt with it.

The actual bullies were the malicious jerks who physically bullied me for gender nonconformity, not the brutally frank Ms. Atwood and her confrontational ideas.

I am sorry for that happening to you, but that doesn't seem like a gendered issue.

Anita Sarkeesian only became big because people tried to silence her. She'd have been forgotten a long time ago if people had just ignored her instead of getting up in arms over her nonsense. The more people rant and rave about her, hurling all sorts of ridiculously immature abuse at her, the more ammo she has to boost her publicity with. Controversy gets attention.

Who tried to silence her? She is known for finding sexism in anything, collecting huge sums for her charity to complete a project and not finish them. She claims harrasnent for disagreeing with her. Plenty of her opponents are at risk of being silenced. Plenty of her opponents get threats. She is the one complaining.

Which makes no sense whatsoever considering what I just wrote, but whatever.




And onwards marches the doublespeak! It doesn't compensate, but it can produce results, but it doesn't need to be worked at. What. If it produces results that mitigates the effect of the deficit, then that is compensation. It might not fully cancel it out, but it is still compensating. And if working on skills that help mitigate the impact of the deficit increases the degree to which it does just that, then what sense does anything you just said make?

And yes, deficits in the social realm is a defining characteristic of autism. But you seem to be confused as to what "deficit" means. It means a value that falls short of an expected benchmark. It does not mean that someone excised a part of your brain and cauterized the area, setting whatever value could have been there to a permanent 0.




Yes, and it still doesn't make sense. In what way is a spouse leading a perfectly happy existence with their seemingly normal but secretly psychopathic partner in any way similar to another spouse who meets, dates, falls for and eventually marries an autistic person? The pair with the autistic partner would likely be a case of "what you see is what you get", while the psychopath couple would be literally the opposite.




So, "being autistic" is a wrongful act that one inflicts on others now? Do you even listen to yourself?

And yes, if one person feels they are not being hugged, kissed and told they are loved enough by their partner, and instead of saying something they secretly resent their partner for it, then they are at fault. They're not wronged, they are comitting a wrong. And we are talking about people who have known each other for long enough, and like eachother enough to get married. I'm not sure how they manage to suddenly be surprised when the autistic person behaves like an autistic person.



She is. And I'm entitled to express that she's a histrionic, hateful, scientifically illiterate, disingenuous woman-child throwing a temper tantrum rather than practicing even the slightest bit of introspection. She, if anyone, is having a harmful influence on those unfortunate enough to be in her presence.




I'm not sure what to say to that. Watch out for naked greeks carrying shiny shields?

Resubmitted for review: (sorry, my turn with the Zinfandel.)


I think what I understand you to be saying is that there is a failure to produce an output because of a lack of awareness of a receptor. Is this right?

Anyway,

I don't understand what is unclear.


That is what I said.


The benchmark in this case would be satisfying one's partner's emotional needs.


Similarities can appear in the dissimilar.


Being autistic is not a wrongful act; it is what it is. "Inflicting" one's autism on another, which I take to mean as offering more than possible, is wrong.

Bluntly, autism is not a picnic for others to be around. You mentioned before that you have been in relationships with autistic people and are close to autistic people. The same is true of me. Being around other autistics has been useful in that their behaviour has made me aware of my own annoying characteristics. I agreed already that compensation can result in improved communication. However, this does not replace the intrinsic connection that NTs experience with each other. It is not defeatist to realize what is impossible and to adjust one's plans accordingly. It is a waste of time lament the impossible.

I feel that autistic people have let NTs set the agenda (well, I guess it couldn't be otherwise.) But their game works for them, not everyone.


Two wrongs make a marriage.

It's the Streisand Effect allover again.