Sexism on L&D

Post Reply New Topic

I was under the impression that you were providing Alex evidence of sexism on WrongPlanet. Some of those threads didn't appear to mention this site at all; a few were just discussions about sexism in general.

For example, this one appears to be a girl ranting about her offline experiences with sexism: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt251935.html

I would if i saw any of it here. maybe its cause I'm in a left leaning state and left leaning city, but women are equal here if nor more powerful, all but 2 of my bosses are women, every job I've applied to except for car ones, have been women bosses. women are firefighters, police, politicians lumber jacks etc here. most the workers I've meet have been women and get paid the same as me. the automotive program had few women and more appling, hopefully they will change the shop owned by guys thing. but if I saw anyone being treated unfairly due to sex, race, disability, etc I would speak out.

as for the prison label, it cost money to shelter and feed them, so aren't they working to pay for that in a way? i mean the ones in our state have pcs, tv, library, good food, yard time, cable. they get better stuff then poor people.

@cubedemon

Alex does have the right to set the ground rules, nobody is arguing whether he can legally do it or not.

Did I ever mention anything about have any "rights" here on WP? You're debating a strawman, I have made no mention of US law or of having any right to free speech here, instead I have argued for it as a principle unto itself and explained the benefits, as well the downside of the censorship being proposed by others. Censorship, I'll again clarify, does not require a state actor, merely the suppression of expression. Please stick to what I actually say in the future, I don't enjoy being called out on things I haven't actually said.




See above. Also consider a dictionary, or at least a link to one, as you'd clearly see that censorship does not require government action to qualify as such without having to pester me about it.



Completely irrelevant, and further, I've not argued that a restauranteur was outside his rights in prohibiting weapons on his premises, nor would I. Again, please at least try to stick with what I've actually said, not whatever pops into your head that you think I might say.



And? What's your point?



It's an idiom, a figure of speech...

But, I'd certainly invite starvingartist to explain what she's perceiving in these threads that I'm not, as I'm now not the only member to have actually read them and failed to see how they in any way further her arguments, let alone in the way she seems to think they do. I've already given my synopses, it's her turn now...



Try educating yourself, I find it helpful.

Heres a sexist thread http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt249483.html an equaly sexist thread would be something along the lines of all women are worthless and only want men for money or something of the sort. Neither type of thread or assumption is right! Sexism does go both ways and should not be ignored on either side! Hyperlexian when she was a Moderator enforced against sexism agains both women and men and she is a feminist.

Idk, it looks like the posters piled on her in the first page (didn't read past that), I'm not sure why a moderator should enforce against this. The idea that someone has to filter their thoughts and experiences in order to make them more acceptable to the group at large is more offensive than what this poster said.

Okay, I get where you're coming from now. I get what you're doing now. You're bringing the abstract idea here and you're trying to discuss the merit as to whether censorship should exist here or not. Is this what you're trying to convey or am I way off base still?




I thought it is your job to make your points clearer if one doesn't grasp the point your making. Didn't you tell StarvingArtist that if one makes a claim one has to back it up? Your point was unclear to me so you didn't adequately back up your point in my opinion so it is your job to make your point readable, legible and understandable. What exactly are your standards? Again, I don't understand.

Telling me to read a dictionary does not help because the definitions can be interpreted in multiple ways and the dictionary does not provide context and subtext.

Besides, which dictionaries would you consider reliable? Can I use any dictionary I choose or do I use the oxford, websters, etc?

Yes, if you make a claim I don't understand I will most definitely indeed "pester you" about it since you want others to back their claims up in a clear manner, I expect the same from you. All is fair in love and war right?





Now that I understand what you're doing and it makes sense now I have to concur. This part is indeed moot.





My point was what I said. I was making a conjecture. I will make the same suggestion you made to me. You can go look up the word conjecture in the dictionary if you do not know what it means. Please use the oxford dictionary. I find the oxford to be one of the more reputable ones.



Didn't know, thank you for telling me. I will keep that in mind next time.



Well if she wants to do that then she will. If she doesn't then she won't.




I like to read from time to time and I'm educating myself right now by using the method of simply "asking questions" especially on the things I don't understand nor grasp when I do attempt to educate myself.

Why would I be arrogant enough to think I can read something, educate myself and not follow up by asking questions to make sure I understand and grasp the material I am reading? Please read what I've written here. Educating myself to me is not enough. I need to be able to ask questions to comprehend what I am reading and I am understanding the material as intended.

http://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.c ... it-myself/

I asked you questions on what you were conveying here. All you were doing was trying to discuss an abstract idea and you took the position against having censorship here. You were presenting your case as to why it should not happen here.

I do not agree with the position you take but I do believe I understand the concept of what you're doing now and I understand that one can separate the concept of censorship from government. You taught me this one and I appreciate that. Reading the material and educating myself isn't enough for me because I can easily misconstrue it. This is why I ask questions. I like to discuss the aspects of what I don't grasp. When one puts forth an idea or a claim I don't understand I want to make sure I understand the claim as intended. I want to fully understand what is going on and the reasoning behind it. I simply take the Socratic position that "I am ignorant on many matters at hand and I know nothing and I know that I know nothing." It means that I can never know anything with absolute certainty but I can know some things with a reasonable amount of certainty.

You ask me to educate myself . I myself can't in good conscious can't rely on this because I will more than likely misconstrue what I read so what you ask me to do is unreliable to me because I have reasonable certainty that I will fool myself and think I know when in fact I really do not. The reason I come to you is you know the things I do not so why wouldn't I come to someone who is more learned, more intelligent and more wise than I to understand and grasp what is above, on, and below? You are an intelligent man Dox and a learned scholar. I am a man with 98 IQ. Compared to me, you are a giant so why I would not come to you for your knowledge, wisdom and guidance in the things I know not nor understand. Would it not be foolish of me as an ignorant man to not go to those and ask questions of those whom are my superior, profound and wise? Why wouldn't I listen to the council of the wise. You say to educate myself. I say I am by asking you and others my questions of those who are more intelligent and wiser than myself.

By the way, there are things that I don't even know that I don't know. How do I research and educate myself on things that I don't even know that I do not even understand? Do you not understand why I come to you and others who are wiser than lil ole' me to obtain understanding.

The thing is Dox, the more I learn and understand the more I realize how little I know or understand. The more I learn the more ignorant I truthfully realize I am.

Now Dox, I think what StarvingArtist did was provide some secondary sources? Are you looking for primary sources only? What are the parameters and constraints she must adhered to that will meet your satisfaction?

Now Dox, since I am an ignorant man looking to educate myself from one of the noblest, wisest and intelligent men on the face of the earth will you come back to this posting I put up and answer my questions and if my logic is erroneous will you show me where my logic is off instead of fawning over Ayn Rand? http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt261748.html

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 25 Jun 2014, 2:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

I don't think it should be banned. Us Aspies tend to have communication problems & things we say get interpreted the wrong way. I've been accused of being a misogynist before when I was depressed, lonely & frustrated. Venting/ranting helps me feel better & I don't explain things well or say them the rite way when I'm upset & people getting upset with me & arguing makes me more upset & frustrated so I say things really badly that get me into trouble. I'm really somewhat of a feminist.

Don't try to be sarcastic and clever, it doesn't suite you. Anyone who can read can see I was merely quoting Rand where it was appropriate to do so (in a completely unrelated post no less), while you've gone out of your way to mischaracterize me, marking yourself as dishonest. You really think I'm going to give you a civil answer after you take a massive passive aggressive shot at me like this?

It is possible that I may be misconstruing you and if I am wrong then I'm wrong. I do believe I have a reasonable characterization of you. I think you're a very intelligent man, a noble man, a learned man and a very wise man. I think I can learn a lot from you. Are you saying that I mischaracterized you as being intelligent, noble, learned and wise? Again, I don't grasp what you're trying to state to me or convey to me. Are you saying that I can't and others can't learn anything from you? I literally do not grasp what you are saying because you are just so unclear, vague and ambiguous.

You state that I'm dishonest. What have I said that is dishonest? What did I do that comes across as dishonest to you? Again, you make no sense because you've not provided any specific charges of dishonesty on my part or any empirical evidence of any dishonesty on my part?

To me, it seemed as though you fawned over Ayn Rand more than answering the question asked. This is my interpretation. Am I wrong? Why?

A patsy-looking white chick on WP?! Now I've seen everything.

@Cube: You do realize half the point using the Socratic approach is not to actually arrive at answers, but to simply raise more questions? Just my opinion here, but I'd reserve questions for when I genuinely want to get deeper into something, or to dig up the real truth behind what someone is saying. The idea is to make people actually THINK about what they believe or think they know and ultimately get them to voice THEMSELVES the truth you already know. They have to come to the realization of what you're saying on their own before they'll believe it, to say they KNOW you're right, thus creating a paradigm shift. Most debaters tend to take a combative approach such as we do here. What Socrates does is take the offensive position and refuse to give it up. His underlying assumption is "we know nothing." This is especially important for teachers as a technique because it puts the onus for discovery on the student. In other words, x does NOT equal y simply because I said so; take a look at x, take a look at y. Are they the same? Why? The student isn't just regurgitating rote instruction, but has fully experienced the lesson.

If I'm understanding correctly, Dox is actually challenging starvingartist's position rather than defending his own. My position is that her heart is in the right place, but her approach may pose some unwelcome consequences, i.e. causes more problems than it solves.

And I am what passes for Napoleon Bonaparte these days, I know how to strategically set the canons in a battlefield.

And I am the Wolfman!

Which is what I desire.



I will change my mind if I see an error. If I'm wrong on something I want to know why. I mainly seek to understand not prove you right or wrong. Maybe Dox does have some points. If he does and I'm in error I want to know why. I was wrong about something once I was able to retrace the steps of my thinking. I misconstrued something he was doing.



Actually, when I question other people I'm actually questioning myself as well. I don't look to be right. I look for truth and why that is true. If I'm misunderstanding something I want to know where I'm misunderstanding and why.



My approach is different. I like to use the Socratic approach on myself and others. It works for me and has helped me a lot and shifted my own paradigm on ideas.



If my position turns out to be faulty then I will revise my position.



I've discovered different things. It has helped me to understand biblical concepts better.



Which is what I desire with people on here including Dox.



I simply did not understand a certain aspect of Dox's position. The aspect makes better sense to me now. Censorship is an abstract concept that he was taking a position against here on wrongplanet. I always thought that idea of freedom of speech that is enumerated in our Bill of Rights and Censorship go hand in hand and were two peas in a pod. What he is saying and this is my interpretation of what he is getting at with me is that they don't have to necessarily have to be.

From what I gather and understand, Dox values the free flow of information above protecting people's emotions and took what he valued and applied it here. My question is this though. If one wants to have a forum in which one has free flow of ideas then why not go to a forum that is less moderated or start your own that is less moderated. There are those who feel unsafe with certain hasty generalizations being made which is really what is happening. Why can't these folks have their own forum and the folks who want more free flow of ideas have their own forum?

Remember the story of Abraham and Lot. They prevented a quarrel with each other by going their own separate ways. Personally, I would stay in the more moderated forum because I believe I could still have free range discussions without making hasty generalizations. I want the women on here to feel safe to post. I believe we can still have free flow of information with certain guidelines and rules. If I'm wrong here can you or Dox explain why.

Really, what Tarentella and StarvingArtist really wants is for folks to quit making hasty generalizations about subgroups. Honestly, I don't understand why people would object to this. Quite honestly, they're right.

Here is the thing though. I misconstrue things all of the time including God's omnipotence. I did not understand that a being could be omnipotent and still have a nature that constraints one omnipotence. Dogs have a nature, so do Jellyfish and so do human beings. For instance a human being can jump but his jump height is constrained by gravity. God's abilities are constrained by his holiness. He can't lie because it would go against his nature to lie.

This is why I ask questions of others and of myself. I use the Socratic method against myself as well. When I'm questioning and debating Dox and others I'm actually debating myself. Shoot, I will question Tarantella on things as well and I will debate her on things.

Reading through the discussions and what StarvingARtist, Tatentella, Dox and others have said is the idea of Misogyny the only thing that is going on or is there more? What if it really is the case of fallacious reasoning more specifically hasty generalizations are being made about a sub-group.

What if prejudice and bigotry comes from fallacious reasoning of the hasty generalization because the person in question making this fallacy encountered a number of entities who seemed to fit x criteria? If bigotry and prejudice is an evil and if Socrates is right and that evil comes from ignorance than is it possible that misogynists, sexists, and racists are simply ignorant and they think they know but they in truth do not know?

I've only read through some of them, but I had the same impression.

The allegation was that there were rampant attacks on women (not just on feminism) happening on WP (not happening elsewhere and just being discussed here). This list doesn't support that. Starvingartist has said elsewhere that she isn't asking Alex to ban attacks on WRAs/MRAs.