Sexism on L&D

Post Reply New Topic

I voted yes even though its being enforced anyway, I do agree sexism is a bad thing but not much can be done when its rampant on the internet. There always going to be bigots out there saying stupid crap.

Do you only have a problem understanding my position, as you only seem to ask me these questions, or is this more about wasting my time, since I oppose something you support? I'm having a hard time telling at this point. In this post alone, you've asked 13 questions, which I'm going to answer in order to humor you, but remember that I'm going out of my way here, and I don't owe you explanations if you can't keep up.



I'm generally against it in all cases except for narrowly defined circumstances, such as libel, slander, and true threats, and I think the reasons for those exceptions are pretty self evident. I'm against it because I believe everyone should be free to express their own opinions, even when they're unpopular or others find them distasteful or offensive. To put a finer point on it, I don't trust any third party to determine what is and is not an "acceptable" opinion, as that tends to get out of control pretty quickly, and is wildly subjective and oppressive besides.



I'd think that would be obvious, a claim that can be verified via evidence, in this case a simple link to an example of a sexist post being allowed to stand. I'm not sure that "permissible" is the word you're looking for, I'm reading that as what would satisfy me, which, again, would be a simple link to an unmoderated sexist comment. That should clear up several of your questions, as I'm not interested in people talking about how sexist they think it is in here or how that affects them, as my primary contention is that endemic sexism on WP is overstated, at best, and the lack of primary sources in support of the endemic sexism argument is a strong point in my favor. The whys should also be obvious at this point, for all the reasons I just gave. Basically, I'm not just going to take someone's word for it, I want to see what they're talking about, as should anyone evaluating a claim.



To be specific, I'm looking for posts that contain sexist statements that would be subject to sanction had equivalent comments been directed at minority groups, that were ignored by the mods, as has been contended. Like I keep saying, if this were really such a common occurrence, this should be no problem at all to provide, especially as the proponents of this argument have had months to come up with them.



Why not? The people you're supporting do it repeatedly and you don't bat an eye; why is that?



You could, or maybe you could evaluate the evidence for yourself and draw your own conclusions? Really, that's all that I ask of anyone.



What's lazy is asking others to do all of your thinking for you, or simply slavishly copying the opinions of others and parroting them without actually thinking much about them. Like I said, you asked me 13 questions in this post alone, which is a bit of an exasperating thing to repeatedly demand of a stranger on the internet, especially one you seem to have singled out for this treatment. You did this to Fnord some time ago, I think I may have even pointed it out at the time, and the behavior has not grown on me now that I'm the focus.

+1 on all the questions. I've used a similar approach before, and I've noticed it does tend to piss people off. People only respond to it in a remotely positive way if: 1) You're not trying to make a point, and 2) It succeeds in putting someone on the defensive. The trick is to find which questions are really the most important and keeping them few.

If I ask someone exactly what the issue is they have with something I believe, I'm used to them throwing a whole compendium at me. My usual tactic is to refuse to answer unless they'll satisfy the demand that they pick at most 2 (two) concerns they have. I'll tackle two issues at once, but no more. Find the ONE question to ask someone that they can't answer and you've nailed them.

Of course, asking a question implies that you don't know the answer yourself. So if it's really a rhetorical question, you're going to come off as disingenuous, and that's not going to help your cause. Personally, I like answering questions, and I think most people do. It's the teacher in me coming out. But sometimes it's just nice to sit back and be taught. One question at a time gets the best results. People tend to shut down after a whole barrage of them.

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2736

[img][800:1463]http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/comics-JaGo-sexism-superheroes-911826.jpeg[/img]

^ I didn't get the kiss comic but that second one is very true lol; "buff" men are sexualized too all the time and it's not only recently.

That reminds me of some threads in women section where they were posting the pics of their favorite buffs.

Yeah, AspieOtaku's post nails it

Questionable Content is a serial comic, so what I posted only makes sense if you follow it. (I put a link at the bottom of my post to the rest of the strip.) Summary: It's a very liberal strip. The mother of the guy in that installment is a professional dominatrix and his dad just came out as gay and got married. There are as many GLBT characters as straight ones, and there are lots of role-reversals.

The strip above is one of them. The guy is meek and unsure of what he wants. He spends his time being pursued or rejected by women, always vulnerable, never in control. He's confused afterward about how he feels and what he wants.

I thought it was relevant to Eureka13's post.

What you said here presents another question about your belief system. You say you don't owe me explanations yet you believe SA owes you anything. Didn't she want you to look it up yourself? From this, all I can do is draw out as a conclusion is that your beliefs are inconsistent. If you owe me no explanations then how does she owe you anything as well?



Herein lies the problem. What is self-evident is your interpretation. From my interpretation it is not. You say except for cases such as libel, slander and true threats.

What if one made a false statement against someone but he did not know it was false meaning he could've misinterpreted the evidence using fallacious reasoning and he didn't know the reasoning was fallacious? Facts and empirical evidence can be open to interpretation. I could see a red world and you see a green world.





For me, things aren't so obvious because evidence and "facts" can be open to interpretation. I can look at evidence and read but I will draw out conclusions that are of my own interpretation. If I am laboring under fallacious reasoning already then how can I truthfully depend upon myself to read the material correctly and draw out sound conclusions?



I think I understand now what is going on. I shall put my own conclusions and recommendations when I feel like it and I am able to make myself time.





Unless we have our own interpretations as to what evidence, sexism and other abstract ideas are and what would constitute as evidence.




Because we can all have different interpretations of the same piece of evidence.



Good question! Here is my answer! It is because they may think they know and understand but they really do not. How does one really know if one truthfully knows? Where you see facts I see more than just facts. I see in addition to facts, I see varying interpretations.




I could go through the mechanics of it and draw my own conclusions. You're asking the unreasonable and I will state my reasoning again. I am still drawing my own conclusions through my own thoughts. To be as objective as one can be I have to consider that my thoughts may be faulty as I am imperfect. I do not have an absolute or complete view of reality. I have be able to get "myself" out of the way. I need a mind and a way of thinking that is not my own. You're asking me to be hubristic. To draw my own conclusions without checking with other people and bouncing them off of other people's thoughts is the height of pride, lunacy and hubris. I purposely assume ignorance in many matters at hand. In fact, I may even not know that I do not know something and I may suppose to know it.

What you ask of people is the height of unreasonableness which is one of the things the American culture demands as well.





Not in all cases but in some cases I purposely do that. I don't see it like you see it and again I don't grasp why it is considered that way. Why wouldn't I use other people's thinking to look at the data from different perspectives to obtain a more holistic view? To me, your thinking is to restrictive and to narrow. Why would I restrict myself to my own thinking? To me, it would be arrogant on my part to know that I can obtain an accurate perspective if I use my own mind only.

Let's say I create an interface. Why wouldn't I test it on many platforms to make sure it works on different platforms? It's like you're telling me to restrict myself to one platform only. Why? You and those who would say that my style of learning is considered lazy thinking makes no sense to me and your logic makes no sense.



Why couldn't I have thought through them but in an erroneous way? You're making assumptions without checking out the facts yourself. Am I not fallible? I can't be perfect. Maybe you and Fnord perfect and infallible but alas poor Yoric I am not. This is why I do what I do.



When the stranger makes claims and statements that make no sense to me, I could be misinterpreting it or could be based upon fallacious reasoning why am I not allowed to question it. Fnord made certain claims like a lot of people which are very similar to what people in America believe. I question their beliefs and claims. Am I committing offense? How? Have I broken any wrongplanet rules? If yes, which ones? If the moderators have an issue with me then I hope they pm me and explain in depth so I can alter my conversational style. Anything they have asked of me to do or not do I have done so to the best of my ability.

True and no less sexist than the other way around. However, please get back to me when men are kept out of careers, regarded as idiots, and reserved for use as fap/sexual material because hot.

Honestly, if I had the charisma, the money, and wasn't lazy, I would love to start some kind of matriarchal polygamist religion similar to the FLDS, except the guys would have a choice. It would be similar, but nobody marries young boys against their will, no arranged marriages, etc. But one where the women make the decisions, are the bread earners, and we can have as many husbands as we can support. And NO, not just for sex either. I wouldn't say they would have to be kept out of careers, but if the women earn the money (and of course because of biology, give birth to the babies) then the husbands could stay home and share the housework duties. There's actually lots of guys who like it. Nothing wrong with that. They would probably not all be beefcake, but I bet there would be a few, and they wouldn't be treated like idiots, although I'm sure a few twinkies might be in there here and there, but I'f that kind of religion/culture/intentional living space ever happened, I'd certainly want mandatory education for all, working and not working, and mandatory outside cultural interests besides the marriage. WIthout that it's just Cinderella/Cinderfella drudgery all day. And not that whole bed hopping things like on Big Love. Mutual consent to whatever each married group wanted and how they wanted it. Commitment to each person in the marriage, voluntarily, even if the commitment between some of the guys is nonromantic, there should still be familial love there.

My notion of that is nothing like what you mentioned in your post, but it reminded me of something I was thinking of before, after hearing a discussion about why polygamy is so bad and evil. Which it is when you marry some unwilling gal off to some guy she doesn't want and force her to be one of his stable of wives. (This to me, doesn't fall under free exercise of religion like the Hobby Lobby thing, because while the husband is has the free exercise of his religion, but the wife does not and that's a major difference to me) After hearing somebody rail against polygamy not only like the FLDS captive and brainwashed women - who are not at all like the somewhat well adjusted suburban regular gals from HBO's Big Love - but also because this dude says it's against the Bible, etc, I tried to find a logical reason why consensual polygamy is bad. I couldn't. Whether it's one guy and a few girls, one girl and a few guys, or a few of each. What's so wrong with that? Polyamory isn't illegal and I know many people involved in happy poly relationships, they just aren't legal and don't need to be for those involved to be happy. It's all freedom of choice, and I think it's one that everybody should have, although few would take it.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, please read up about the early days at The Farm and Stephen and Ina May Gaskin's ideas of group marriage. I don't know if it would be right for me, but for some people I think it would be an ideal solution. Again, this is nothing like the degrading stuff that happened to women that you mentioned, for some reason it just reminded me of how it could be if mutual respect and courage to do something different could be combined and offered as a viable option to those interested, who could set the parameters of their relationships however they wanted.

I know I'm off on a totally different direction, but I'm very tired and wanted to mention it while I remembered it. I'd like your opinion on it please, pro or con. Not to argue, it'll probably never happen, but wouldn't it be nice to have that option available to anyone who felt it was right for them? I also think is a travesty that gay marriage isn't legal and I think that many people have a long way to go before they are considered and treated equal.

So, good idea, bad idea, the way I described it please. Also, read Stephen and Ina May's words on their group marriage before you answer, if you haven't read it already. This might be interesting for PPR, because that's usually about FLDS polygamy there.

Hit me back here if you want to discuss it or if I miss it, holler at me in PM. No yelling from me, I promise. Let's put aside this thread issue for a while ok?

Point out where I said I was owed anything; I'll wait.



Here's how it works: you know that libel and slander are subject to torts, i.e. that you can be sued for damages if you make libelous or slanderous statements, so when you accuse someone of something based on shaky evidence, you assume certain risks. The person you've slandered can then take you to court, and present evidence that you knowingly lied about them, while you can present your own evidence that your claim was true or that it was made in good faith, and a judge or jury makes the final call; notice that at no point is speech censored, but instead damaging speech is addressed by the injured party using evidence. Pretty simple, or so I thought.



Do you consider yourself stupid? That's the conclusion I'm drawing from all this navel gazing about the possibility of fallacious reasoning on your own part, which if it really is something you're so concerned about, is your own responsibility to address through education and research. Why do you think I'm qualified to judge? Further, if you think I'm qualified to judge, why do you reject my conclusions in this particular instance and instead side with people who have provided no evidence and failed to back up their claims, to say nothing of engaging in personal attacks and hyperbole?

Also, what's to "interpret" in a link to unmoderated sexism? Did you actually look at any of starvingartist's links? Everyone who has hasn't seen what she's claimed is there, so speak up if you've seen something you think we've missed.



Sounds like progress; evaluate the evidence for yourself, and draw your own conclusions; don't take anyone's word for it, as they've got skin in the game and thus reasons to shade the facts or outright lie (this includes me, but lying isn't my style, too crude).



Again, actually read the links starvingartist provided, and tell me that they in any way support the 'rampant sexism' argument she and others have been making. I actually took the time to read and address every single one of them, time I could have spent drinking rum and smoking cigars, so if you want to argue about them, I expect you to do the same.



What evidence?



Can *anyone* make sense of this reply? I mean the simple answer is a form of partisanship; you declared your allegiance early to the 'rampant sexism' argument and it's backers, and I threaten that narrative, but I hesitate to call bad faith on limited evidence, as I really hate it when people do that. Unlike most people, I try really hard not to be a hypocrite.



Asking you to think for yourself is unreasonable? If I simply wanted to discredit you and ignore you in the future, I could easily have simple parsed and edited this paragraph and responded pithily to it, but I'm actually kind of shocked at this response. Are you really that insecure in your own ability to assess facts and draw conclusions? Other people may have their own opinions, but they don't have their own facts, or any facts, in this particular case.



Thinking for yourself is "the height of unreasonableness"? Okaaaaay. What does American culture have to do with anything?



Thinking for yourself is "arrogant"? Again, it's one thing to consider all opinions, but it's perfectly okay to examine the actual known facts and draw your own conclusions, there's nothing wrong with that, it's healthy in fact.



Human being are not platforms, and it's not "my" logic, it's just logic, which is universally applicable. Focus on the facts and ignore the rhetoric, I don't know how else to get it across to you.



I've never claimed infallibility, but you're welcome to point any failings out to me. Also, what facts am I failing to check out myself?



No one has claimed you're breaking any WP rules, what I'm saying is that you're numerous questions are unreasonable and annoying. If educating yourself was truly your only purpose, you'd be questioning everyone, but you don't, you only question those who make claims that you disagree with, which makes you disingenuous at best. You dogged Fnord for months, as you're dogging me now, and it's annoying, if not creepy, which you now know, since I just told you. I'm not a tutor, neither was Fnord, and I doubt he enjoyed being treated as one any more than I am now.

You did not say it but I interpreted that way based upon your attitude. Maybe I misinterpreted it.




This clears some things up for me but a lot of things are not really simple once one gets past the first glance.





I would rather say that I am ignorant on many matters at hand. I side with the ultimate truth(s) of all.



I shall speak the truth to the best of my ability.




I can do all of this but my mind is not enough. This is my conclusion My particular neurology has limits on its functional capacity even though it is malleable. You and others have access to a way of thinking I may not have. The conclusion I have come to based upon the empirical data that I have gathered since I can remember which is about the age of 4-6 is I need to go outside of my particular mind to obtain a better understanding of reality. I wish I could get you to understand what I am conveying to you but I have to be able to think the thoughts that are different than my own and use a processing that is different than my own. My own thoughts and reasoning is not enough and it is to bounded. My reasoning and using my own thoughts to come to my own conclusions is inadequate for me.




I have read them and it seems to me that she is approaching it from a different perspective than you are and she is using a different configuration then you are so therefore she presented what she presented from her own interpretations.





Any possible evidence that could possibly exist for anything that is possible to prove in all timelines (past, present, future) in all space that exists and is possible to exist.




My allegiance is to the truth(s) of all.




I have explained myself to you. Am I insecure? Maybe I am but maybe it is what I conclude about myself and that is I am fallible and imperfect. Why is insecurity a vice and security is a virtue?





Yes, because I only have access to my own perceptions. To rely upon my own thoughts only when my thoughts could be fallacious, erroneous, open to misinterpretation makes no sense to me. Why would I rely upon my own thought process, reasoning when it may not have all of the data and may not be able to obtain all of the data?



My explanation and my conclusion has been given.





I'm using figurative language to make a point.



True in theory but in practice we're all fallible.





I will try to explain using the speed of light as an example. It is said that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m / s. This fact is based upon ones interpretation of the parameters given. In some cases I accept it as truth and in other cases I accept it as false. The interpretation given is a base 10 interpretation with the 0-9 numerical digits interpretation. It assumes that there is an entity called light and there is an entity called existence and that the parameters of light and existence itself are constant which are interpreted through our five senses and then processed through our neurology of our individual selves. Facts are only factual in the given assumptions and parameters interpreted through.




.

I have questioned others on wrongplanet and I have questioned many others off of wrongplanet with varying results. Some give well thought out answers. Others curse me out. Some have mentioned "Two Girls, One Cup" to me, whatever that means. Some ignore me.





Do you want me to quit speaking to you? If you want me to quit speaking to you then please tell me directly to do so and I shall do so if you request it and this will be my last post to you. If the moderators are monitoring this and believe I am doing anything wrong then again I hope they tell me so I can correct myself.

My question to the moderators who are reading this. Am I doing anything wrong or breaking any of the wrongplanet rules. If yes, will you please tell me what rules I'm breaking, how I am breaking them and what I can do to avoid breaking them in the future? Thank You and I do enjoy coming here and want to continue to be able to post here.

^ You're asking lengthy and detailed questions about the nature of enquiry, evidence, interpretation etc. which would be better asked in PPR and to that extent, they're off-topic in this thread and derailing it.

If it keeps up you could always move it to PPR because I sense at the rate this thread is going it might end up there.

reddit ladyboners, male cam shows, etc.

though women aren't reserved for that.

so do you mean that cause you don't see men kept out of careers then sexism towards men is less bad or not important.

there are places and fields where men are kept out of.

there are tons of women who will regard men as idiots all the time.
I hear it all over fb and out and about.

No problem I agree, will you please move it if you do not mind?

Besides this, am I doing anything else wrong that I may be unaware of?