Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Flirtatious is not mutually exclusive to feminist. You're confusing acting like a b***h to a man with being a feminist.

"By your very own rationale the playing of Blurred Lines on public radio in public places doesn't even hold true to your own rules."

Such places can be chosen to be avoided. Or if you must carry out your business there, do so as quickly as possible or as far as possible away from the source of sound, if you're really that concerned you don't want your children to hear.

"I don't see you getting all upset about people bleeping out swear words on public radio, things which have been done for years pointlessly."

Yes, actually, I do.

"Freedom of expression is a human right." Yes.

"Not being raped is also a human right." Yes.

"To quietly accept culture/free speech that supports rape itself leads to the support of rape. That is a serious problem."

This cannot be proven.

Violence is very commonplace in the media as well, but how many people who watch violent movies would be just as encouraged to commit such actions.

As I have said, pro-rape media can be ignored.

"I feel your argument about free speech is akin to saying 'We shouldn't have laws because they stop my freedom", with individual freedom being the goal. But in an anarchist society the power just shifts and it leaves people ultimately far LESS free."

Coincidentally I am not opposed to Anachro-Socialism, but believe some sort of combination of Democracy and Socialism is far more sustainable in the long-term.

And, yes, that is my views of the world in many ways.

Self-expression leads to censoring, it leads to your movie being banned in many countries, or backlash from the media. Society forcing it's 'political correctness' agenda onto us.

I also am an avid supporter of the eradication of most victimless crimes.

""And so long as content not appropriate for children is not exposed to them"

I really hope you can see the hypocrisy with that statement in comparison to your other statements."

How?

Warning labels are on practically everything. Watch/play/listen at your own risk, I say...

It is the forms of entertainment media I'm alright with having racism, sexism, homophobia, or any of that sort of commentary.

Most companies and organizations that produce media typically don't allow such things to happen anyway to attract a wider audience.

I do not support however things such as the news, journalism, scientific articles, scholarly texts and such having hate speech and slander.

Why might this be different? Because these things are for informative/educational purposes, and should strive to be as neutral and free from discrimination as possible.

It is entertainment media that can be avoided, but educational media of any kind should, of course, be accessible for people to learn from.

If that makes sense...

Actually, feminists have "slut" pride marches. (Their word.) So, feminist and flirtatious are not mutually exclusive.

I am saying that libertarianism and libertinism are both conscious choices, which they use to get what they want. It's a ploy, act, mask, or costume.

I want to distinguish this from altruism, because if I were to pet my dog or bite into a piece of my favorite fruit, that would be apolitical.

Does anyone really want to be loved unconditionally? Or, is this like applying for a job.

"To quietly accept culture/free speech that supports rape itself leads to the support of rape. That is a serious problem."

This cannot be proven.

Violence is very commonplace in the media as well, but how many people who watch violent movies would be just as encouraged to commit such actions."

Proven, no, but right now it's really f*****g common sense. I agree initially that the comparison to violence being commonplace in the media would be all fine and dandy -if- rape (including date rape) and sexual harassment weren't unbelievably common in my society. When actual violence happens in my country, there's outrageous outcry against it. Murders, shootings, are few and far between. However, statistics Canada estimates that 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 1 in 4. Is absolute free speech (and I say absolute here because society is allowed to not allow thing to be played on the radio if it wants, that's the radio's perogative, n'est pas?) really more important than teaching people to not sexually assault people? If censoring some media prevents some rapes, is that not ultimately the better thing to happen?

Like, if something is commonplace, and it is portrayed in the media, it will remain commonplace. If something gets taken away from the media as commonplace, there is good chance it will become reduced in the culture as it is no longer a part of that culture. A good real-world example of this working is smoking cigarettes.

And that's another thought experiment, who controls the media? If I own a small local business, say, and I allow people to put up posters for events in my store window, who controls what goes up on the window? Now let's say I grow the business and suddenly I have a chain of a 12 stores in different cities. Who controls what goes up in the window? Now let's say I have 100, then 1000 stores. Who controls what goes up in the window? At what point is it censorship if the business disallows something to go up?

This conversation is me complaining at your complaining that other people complain about bad things SO much that those bad things end up getting censored by larger groups like, say, a radio station. But through things like social media, if I censor myself I actually end up censoring a bunch of other people. eg: if I like a thing on facebook, my friends are likely to see that I like that thing. If I don't like that thing, I don't. I can even ask facebook to not show me other similar items in the future. There is no real and true way to pick and choose what we end up exposing ourselves to.

Mostly, I just find this whole thing quite amusing the more I think about it because with media and the internet being what it is, we as individuals have far MORE control over what we experience as media than ever before in our lives. And somehow, through all that, there's this odd outcry against censorship, when all along BEFORE this, because our media has come from giant sources we do not control, like broadcast companies, billboards, advertisers, we have been strung along with what has been said much, much, much more than now. NOW we are free to speak our minds, have a say in public forums, support things, not support things, instead of having things spoon-fed to us that say 'this is this way and that is that way'. And yet, because the people who run things like WP or other internet forums have rules about what can and cannot be said, you probably dislike that. Well then go to 4chan, go to the real uncensored world.

Last edited by cavernio on 07 May 2016, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're a happy person, I can tell. /sarcasm

"Proven, no, but right now it's really f*****g common sense."

That's still just your own subjective opinion. I personally don't believe in common sense, at least in the form most people do.

To me it's just a synonym for 'culture', in which we have different cultures.

"I agree initially that the comparison to violence being commonplace in the media would be all fine and dandy -if- rape (including date rape) and sexual harassment weren't unbelievably common in my society."

More common than violence? Statistics? And I don't mean false rape statistics either that essentially say 50% of American women are raped or such.

"When actual violence happens in my country, there's outrageous outcry against it. Murders, shootings, are few and far between."

Don't know how it is in Canada, but from what I've heard from the U.S., this is the case for rape and sexual harassment, except when it is dismissed by some men's rights activists or such as false rape statistics due to sounding over-exaggerated.

In Australia, this is certainly the case for both violence and rape.

"Is absolute free speech (and I say absolute here because society is allowed to not allow thing to be played on the radio if it wants, that's the radio's perogative, n'est pas?)" really more important than teaching people to not sexually assault people?"

Again, you are erroneously associating one's choices in pure entertainment with actual actions.

And, I never said such a thing, so don't strawman.

Of course it's important to teach people not to assault, steal, rape, sexually assault, etc.

More important, in fact, but not at the cost of sacrificing free-speech in entertainment media.

But most of the above things are in plenty of R-rated films, that are rated R for such reasons and children are not legally allowed into the theatre of such movies.

Still, the movie may be banned in many countries for no rational reason.

Allowing people the option of watching a movie in the cinema does not 'force the public' to be exposed to it, as if no one wanted to watch it they don't have to go.

And besides, piraters will find a way to access it regardless.

"If censoring some media prevents some rapes, is that not ultimately the better thing to happen?"

I guess banks will be robbed less as well if it happens less in movies.

Illegal street racing will end if the Fast & the Furious series are banned and all copies burned.

All media should not be violent because it can prevent violence.

Censoring removes all expression, creativity, fun and thrill out of entertainment.

There would be no adult-rated films if we just decided to censor or ban anything even slightly upsetting or offending to anyone.

"Like, if something is commonplace, and it is portrayed in the media, it will remain commonplace. If something gets taken away from the media as commonplace, there is good chance it will become reduced in the culture as it is no longer a part of that culture."

Yes, but I will never be opposed to a minority being allowed to evoke such things. Not against a minority of media still being sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise anti-humanity in some way.

"And that's another thought experiment, who controls the media? If I own a small local business, say, and I allow people to put up posters for events in my store window, who controls what goes up on the window?"

You, the manager.

"Now let's say I grow the business and suddenly I have a chain of a 12 stores in different cities. Who controls what goes up in the window?"

Each individual manager of each store you selected by your own criteria.

You probably imposed rules and guidelines each manager must follow when running your stores and will fire them if any rules are breached.

"Now let's say I have 100, then 1000 stores. Who controls what goes up in the window?"

Your rules and guidelines, created by you. All companies have certain rules and guidelines that started from somewhere.

"At what point is it censorship if the business disallows something to go up?"

I've already said I don't think even privately owned businesses should have absolute free-speech, but limit it entirely to the entertainment-media.

Entertainment media already finds it hard enough to attract audiences anyway if it is anti-humanity in some way.

Networks don't want that filth making their channel look bad.

Why not freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequences?

I can make a song with anti-humanity lyrics, but not be surprised if it's massively unpopular and only a small number of people enjoy it. Whatever. If I wanted to make it and even release it commercially, I should have every right to. I'd struggle to find a label to publish it so I'd have to be an independent musician.

Just as a if I write such a novel I'd struggle to find a publisher, but if I did, why should my book be banned by the government in countries?

"But through things like social media, if I censor myself I actually end up censoring a bunch of other people. eg: if I like a thing on facebook, my friends are likely to see that I like that thing."

Facebook is giving more and more control and you can now actually select which posts show up in your feed and which don't.

A simple system right now - Always show updates, Sometimes show updates, and Not at all, but it's a start.

I see my friend likes a sexist page and see one post from them show up on my facebook, I change my settings to never see it again.

Or, I like a page but see they post hateful things all the time, I unlike them.

"There is no real and true way to pick and choose what we end up exposing ourselves to."

yet...

"Mostly, I just find this whole thing quite amusing the more I think about it because with media and the internet being what it is, we as individuals have far MORE control over what we experience as media than ever before in our lives."

Yes, but at a cost of the internet becoming a place ever more censored or the source of hate-filled backlash for, funny enough, hateful comments.

The internet began an age of freedom, let us not end it when we've only just gotten started.

"And somehow, through all that, there's this odd outcry against censorship, when all along BEFORE this, because our media has come from giant sources we do not control, like broadcast companies, billboards, advertisers, we have been strung along with what has been said much, much, much more than now. NOW we are free to speak our minds, have a say in public forums, support things, not support things, instead of having things spoon-fed to us that say 'this is this way and that is that way'."

And I'm enjoying it, while it lasts...

"And yet, because the people who run things like WP or other internet forums have rules about what can and cannot be said, you probably dislike that. Well then go to 4chan, go to the real uncensored world."

Nope, WP is not what I have a problem with, at least not significantly.

Truth is I've seen a slight increase in political correctness and toughening on the rules on what can and can not be said, and this has actually made me feel hesitant about making a post or not when I never did in the past.

That last point perfectly sums up what I'm trying to say. Apply this to the entire internet.

Just ask CommanderKeen and other such as Fnord if they know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, this is why, even if I wanted to, I'd have difficulty dating Feminist's - I'm always too extreme for them.

Why is a government's guidelines of what to censor more appalling to you than a corporation's guidelines when in the end, the result could be absolutely the same? At least a government's guidelines purportedly comes from the masses.

Well I'm not going to believe you over Stats Canada that the estimate is that 1/4 of women are sexually assaulted. You offer no proof, if you actually cared you'd google it and find the stats in the first few hits.



This isn't strawmanning though. It's a reality.



You are ignoring the cultural position of each of these individual things however. Given that sexual assault is a frequent occurence in culture, it makes sense to only compare it to frequent occurence of other things. None of things you have mentioned, violence or car racing, are proper comparisons.



Ahhh, but if the only way to keep it a 'minority' is to have people complain about it loudly, what then??



Not if the thing you are portraying is anti human rights but pro-culture. Plenty of cultures have things in them that are anti-egalitarian, anti-human rights, etc. You are taking a stance already assuming that we have all of these OTHER human rights under control perfectly. We do not though, and that I think, is where the real disagreement lies. You seem to think we have equality, when a lot of people don't feel that we have it yet. Maybe I'm wrong about what you think, but that is what I perceive. And I agree with you in that, if we have all these other human rights atrocities under control, we can truly then get proper free speech and fight for it tooth and nail, but until that happens censorship is simply a stepping stone towards getting the proper -actions- of human rights. Afterall, muffling your voice isn't the same thing as defiling your body, is it?



That last point perfectly sums up what I'm trying to say. Apply this to the entire internet.

Just ask CommanderKeen and other such as Fnord if they know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, this is why, even if I wanted to, I'd have difficulty dating Feminist's - I'm always too extreme for them.[/quote]

Just because you are hesitant about something and you disagree with why you should be hesitant about posting something can easily mean that you are thinking more about the things you say which is ultimately a good thing.

Anyways, I think it a better view to say that feminists would be too extreme for you :-p

Because I assume organizations or businesses may be more looser.

A far-right Christian organization may allow homophobic articles printed on their website or such without government tampering.

A far-left organization such as Anonymous is allowed to make statements of slander and treason against the government (and, a lot of the time, do) and I don't feel they should be disallowed from doing so.

And, when it comes to the entertainment media, plenty of people release their music, novel, movie, etc. independently.

As long as no illegal crimes were comitted in the making of the film such as animal abuse or actual rape or such, why can't it have anti-humanity content so long as an R or X rating is slapped onto it?

No, instead I know plenty of immoral and gory films actually banned by governments.

That's silencing of the freedom of self-expression.

"Well I'm not going to believe you over Stats Canada that the estimate is that 1/4 of women are sexually assaulted. You offer no proof, if you actually cared you'd google it and find the stats in the first few hits."

Again, I merely asked for the sources, and they haven't been provided.

I believe many things can be googled and some sort of statistic to prove it will be found. If I googled 10% of Canadian women are rather than 1/4, there may be at least one recent study somewhere to say this.

Studies can be conductd independently and with a small sampling-size, so it's difficult for me to not be skeptical unless you can prove me at least 1 comprehensive studies on the subject.

*Sigh*, well I will admit that back-fired because in Australia sexual harassment has increased and other crimes have decreased: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4510.0

Media exposure seems equal though from what I've observed.

However, I'd still like proof for what you're saying.

"This isn't strawmanning though. It's a reality."

You are strawmanning in that you assume I believe free speech > teaching proper moral values.

That is a very bold assumption and an incorrect one at that.

"You are ignoring the cultural position of each of these individual things however. Given that sexual assault is a frequent occurence in culture,"

which culture?

"it makes sense to only compare it to frequent occurence of other things. None of things you have mentioned, violence or car racing, are proper comparisons."

I am not prioritizing one form of crime over another and would rather a balanced approach be taken to them all.

Why ban sexism in entertainment media, but not racism, violence, homophobia, homicide, etc. are not?

I prefer to take an 'all or nothing'-style approach and that is if one is banned or censored, why not everything else? And vice-versa.

Unless censoring banning the objectification of women in video games and instead making them racist, homophobic and violent is going to do any good?

"Ahhh, but if the only way to keep it a 'minority' is to have people complain about it loudly, what then??
"

I don't know. I just meant to say culture changes all the time, for various reasons beyond entertainment media.

Entertainment media has an influence on our beliefs of the world but is not the beginning nor the be-all-end-all.

If anything, the media changing to be more tolerant towards everyone is a side-effect of a culture already doing so first.

It's not that racism against black people in older movies and television ending is what caused the Civil Rights Movement, I think the CRM is what kickstarted more positive representation of black people in entertainment media.

So an attitude in the media can go from mainstream to minority and obscure, and vice-versa.

I just meant to say I don't feel we have an influence on it. It's more so culture changes first, and then media. Not the opposite.

It is only when sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. are intolerated by a culture when it is intolerated on media created by such culture.

"You are taking a stance already assuming that we have all of these OTHER human rights under control perfectly."

No.

"but until that happens censorship is simply a stepping stone towards getting the proper -actions- of human rights."

No, I see censoring as ultimate the preventation of freedom.

Fighting for human rights in any form is a form of fighting for freedom, and censoring is the direct opposite of freedom, but is actually oppression.

You as a woman wouldn't have been able to say anything you are saying right now if it weren't for freedom of expression.

You, and I, everyone, male, female, black, white, gay, straight, owe our freedom in itself to freedom of expression and to living in a culture or society that allows such a thing.

I feel you are getting the process backwards.

Without free-speech, how would anyone have been able to stand-up to oppression without being killed or hunted-down by our government in the first place?

Protesting is a form of free-speech.

Maybe I executed my opinion in a bit of a misdirection, but we all have thoughts and views and beliefs and if we want to use the arts or entertainment media to push such an agenda, why shouldn't we have every right to?

If someone is a white supremacist I feel they should have just as much right as someone anti-racism and pro-multiculturulism to present their opinion in some form of media, whether that be through protesting, creating a video on youtube, or even, *gasp*, saying it in a forum or article on a website of some kind.

How can we commit actions without a voice?

Yeah, in the past plenty of people have stood up to oppression even if they would be killed or imprisoned or such, but at least we have more of the ability to have free-speech without consequences to take for granted.

If you really believe censoring is the first step to actions being committed because censoring is what makes such actions take place, then look at China or North Korea.

Their internet is monitored and one false move and you are dead.

"Afterall, muffling your voice isn't the same thing as defiling your body, is it?"

But in a world where your truths are taken, altered and silenced, how can one's voice ever be heard?

"Just because you are hesitant about something and you disagree with why you should be hesitant about posting something can easily mean that you are thinking more about the things you say which is ultimately a good thing."

We're all different. For some it can mean they actually have their ideas collected and are not afraid of such hesistation.

Some studies and psychologists associate someone less-afraid to swear as more honest:

http://www.psych2go.net/people-swear-lo ... t-friends/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hi ... s-swearing

"Anyways, I think it a better view to say that feminists would be too extreme for you :-p"

How so?

I believe I would be simply in many of my political and moral views.

They tend to be democrats and liberals, while I can be far-left and outright Anarchist at times.

Morally, I don't actually believe in any objective 'good' or 'evil' or 'right' or 'wrong'.

I do not support nor oppose the vast majority of actions typically considered immoral, such as violence, homicide, etc.

If your beliefs don't do very well in the marketplace of ideas, maybe they weren't that good to begin with. I don't need a thumb on the scale to "protect" my positions, I feel they're strong enough to compete on their merits and the case I make for them, and further feel that only weak opinions need that kind of shielding from criticism.

What do you mean?

I simply defended and elaborated on what I was saying as I enjoy a good debate.

"If your beliefs don't do very well in the marketplace of ideas, maybe they weren't that good to begin with."

A fair few of my beliefs aren't going to be very popular, but unpopular ≠ 'wrong' or 'bad'.

Any of the "feminists" here that advocate censorship should goto a place like China and see how well they like it there. Better yet, how about Saudi Arabia? Also, good luck no getting raped in an Islamic country. I wonder if that comment will get me banned.

Ok when I looked at the website to post the stats I found that it was not actually a stats canada website, but one posing as it. *grumble* Upon further searching I found http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2 ... es-eng.htm.
And I have personally been groped and had to basically shrug/laugh off what happened. This happened in an elevator in my apartment building. I had to repeatedly ask him to stop before he did. I was wearing slu*ty clothes and I said I wasn't looking for anything and he -actually- told me 'not dressed like that you aren't'. I wasn't dressing that way for him or any random guy. I dressed that way because I wanted to look hot for 1 specific person. And I know multiple people who have been outright raped and I'm not even a social person and I'm young in the grand scheme of things. That's just f*****g sad. Of course, that said, a large number of sexual abuses happen from family members when the person is very young, and there's like, no media that portrays that in a positive light and things like child porn (the media of it) are illegal.

Fair enough, free speech is freedom. I think we could both agree that free speech is the medium in which all discourse takes place. But the problem when something like a white supremacist group pushes their agenda forward is that they ARE anti-human rights in other ways, possibly supportive of things like homicide. In this case, free speech is the medium that creates the human rights violation. The ultimate bad result of censorship is not that censorship happens, but rather the loss of what gets censored. This is why it ends up being a weighing game, consequences of what is lost versus the outcome that it would bring.

I don't think that you think free speech is stronger than teaching moral values, or I didn't until you said this "I do not support nor oppose the vast majority of actions typically considered immoral, such as violence, homicide, etc."
So you don't seem to support human rights now?

My morality is that an individual should be allowed to do whatever the f**k they want as long as they are of sound mind and as long as it is not hurting someone else.

It's very true that media is probably more a reflection of the culture. It interacts though.

This...just...too much wrong with this to even bother pointing the flaws in it.

"My morality is that an individual should be allowed to do whatever the f**k they want as long as they are of sound mind and as long as it is not hurting someone else. "
What's considered offensive is subjective. I won't bother pointing out the flaws to this. It's people like you that think the world needs the government to be their nanny, that the world is in the shape it's in. Freedom of speech should not be censored for any reason, even if it does hurt someone's feelings.

When Trump wins, I'm so going to make a post about it here just to piss you off.