Should Reason, Rationality and Logic Be the End all Be all?

Post Reply New Topic

as i understand it, when the moderator/s contacted you and you explained your intent with the thread, they unlocked it. where is the problem with that?

what about women who say hateful things towards
women,would they be suspended?

Last edited by billiscool on 24 May 2014, 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The problem is that this is a public forum and "misogyny" can mean anything anyone wants it to, aka there is no solid definition of what "misogyny" entails, most reactionary women define "misogyny" and "sexist" as "anything that makes me uncomfortable". This is why mature adults know, highly emotional reactionary people are immature.

The problem is the definition just expands and widens to suit the selfish needs of the person who is 'uncomfortable'. Say I was on a bus and all the men on it "made be uncomfortable" by their mere presence, do I have a right to tell people to get off the bus? Just because your nervous system feels something doesn't mean it's reality. I was trying to point out the human body is not well put together, and most mature folks have a healthy respect for science and not to take anything too seriously because the nervous system is constantly over-estimating perceived "threats" and "discomfort".

Think about how firstworld problem this thread is FFS. There are bigger more serious problems in the world then female discomfort on a forum on the internet.

I mean you got to be pretty egotistical and selfish to try impose your egocentric reactionary feelings on an entire forum and claim they are the highest reality.

I think you make some good points here, but what worries me in particular is what exactly defines "hate speech"? I'm not critical of feminism as a whole?just certain parts of it, and the "feminist" label may not even apply to what I've been critical of. But, at any rate, there's a fine line between "hate speech" and criticism. Where's the line? I'm worried that, as Dox has mentioned, that the line can too easily be moved so that anyone can say they're being victimized by hate speech when all that really has happened is someone has demonstrated that they're wrong about something. I hold some "unpopular" views about homosexuality and gay marriage. But I'm not "afraid" of gays, etc., nor do I wish any harm on anyone based on lifestyle or choice of partner or "legal status" I may not approve of. But I've been made aware that I won't get too far into a discussion expressing such views without getting mod-spanked.

It doesn't take much to kill a discussion that way, which I suspect is the whole point. I've considered playing the "-ist" card and the "bully" card to make a point, but I normally resist it. It's very easy to do. There's been at least one user who, despite how offensive and disgusting I found his posts, has had his antics curbed by mods on some occasions, some of which I felt were unfair. As much as I'd have liked to see this guy banned, in retrospect I always found his posts both informative and entertaining. It's sad to see a lot of the humor and personality in this forum get stifled. It's kinda nice NOT to be challenged when I say things, but I don't enjoy talking to myself, either.

Come to think of it?where IS ArrantParriah lately, anyway?

i really don't know--if a jewish member of the site made hateful comments about jews, should they be suspended? i really don't know how the moderators would deal with that. perhaps you should ask them.

so,is it Ok for women to say ''all women are x,y,z''
if it's bad for men to say that,shouldn't it also
be bad for a women say that.Your the leader of this movement.

I've wondered that too.

i didn't make the rules on this site, and i don't know what the rules are for remarks made about a group by a member of that group, you have to either look up the terms of service or ask the moderators because i really don't know how they deal with that.

so,Would you have women get suspended if they
say hateful and falsehood stuff about women.

only if they would do the same in the example i gave: if they wouldn't do it for a jewish person badmouthing jews, then they shouldn't do it to women badmouthing women. as i have said (numerous times now) i want sexist comments to be dealt with THE SAME WAY that racist/homophobic/ableist comments are dealt with. THE SAME WAY. SAME. as in EXACTLY THE SAME. how many more times need i say it before it sinks in?

no,Im not talking about the moderators.Im asking you,if
you had control of WP,would you suspend women for
say hateful things towards women.

i will say this as simply as i can: if the moderators currently suspend jewish people if they make disparaging remarks about all jews, then i think the same measures should be applied to women who disparage women. if the moderators do not currently suspend such remarks based on race when coming from a member of the race being disparaged, then i think they should not suspend women for disparaging women.

but aren't you trying to have the moderators(under Alex)
to change their policy on sexism on this site
but now your saying the moderators have the right
to uphold the current rule(which may or may not
be the rule)

You do want men to get suspend for saying hateful
stuff towards women.So why not the same for women

are you sure you're actually functionally literate? i want the moderators to have permission from alex to deal with sexism the way other forms of hate (like racism) are dealt with on this site--I WANT THEM TO TREAT RACIST AND SEXIST COMMENTS IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

There are bigger, more serious problems. But they will not be solved from this forum, and perhaps do not even particularly impact on this forum. What does impact, and what can be solved, is that sexist language/statements are not treated the same as their racist/homophobic/ablist analogues.