|
It probably was a joke, yeah, but I was serious when I asked if there's a name for assuming anyone saying really dumb things whose on "your" side (whether it's left, right, up, or down) has to be a parody or a troll or a false flag.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It probably was a joke, yeah, but I was serious when I asked if there's a name for assuming anyone saying really dumb things whose on "your" side (whether it's left, right, up, or down) has to be a parody or a troll or a false flag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It probably was a joke, yeah, but I was serious when I asked if there's a name for assuming anyone saying really dumb things whose on "your" side (whether it's left, right, up, or down) has to be a parody or a troll or a false flag. Internet Web Forum for Your Home Computer Network System 97
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No this is what happens when you find the most insane parody view possible to validate your persecution complex and crow "I knew it, the feminists/injuns/negras/mexicans/scary folk want to kill white Christian men! I don't think you get to ask people to willingly omit your basket cases, then portray them as Hitlers incarnate whenever they disagree with you. Quite recently, there were an entire discussion about how radical left nowadays becomes a magnet for loonies. Murky definitions with hidden assumptions who's allowed to use them, the experience of oppression being treater like an absolute thing no one is allowed to question, additional rules how you're allowed to debate social topics - all these things that let you call someone a wannabe KKK member at the start of the discussion are also perfectly usable for a twitter shitlord crusading against appropriating kimonos. You don't get to demand others to ignore them, because you created a framework for them to use and fight tooth and nail against everyone who dares to criticize it. Does it bother you? It should, because it means your arguments are not holding up because of their merit. They weren't disproven because they are impossible to disprove by design. They hold up as well when used by a 13 - years old wolf otherkin or Effectronica.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:08
|
|
"
|
Nah, idiot edgy 13-year-olds aren't capable of discrediting a political movement, except in the eyes of people who are looking for any reason they can find to bash it. What you're saying is about as valid as pointing at the Westboro Baptist Church and saying "see, Christianity is a magnet for loonies, thus anything a Christian says is wrong". There are valid issues here (the Lakota letter) and invalid issues here (eating sushi), much as there are valid feminist issues (the gender pay gap) and invalid issues (consent is a lie, all hetero sex is rape), and it's common for opponents to trot out the latter as a strawman to avoid engaging with anything substantial. You're complaining that the left takes the shrillest people seriously, while simultaneously insisting that I must take the shrillest people seriously. No, I don't have to take tumblr idiots seriously. Isn't that what you want, for us to ignore these people? But now you're complaining that I'm not joining them? 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This is what happens when you abandon a reasonable-person standard for offensiveness, and instead defer to the shrillest seekers of offensive in existence. Yes, take it seriously. Take it into yourself. Increase in size.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Interesting question: is culture a scarce resource?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
No, the amount of culture is always increasing.Civilopedia posted:Culture represents the impact of your civilization's customs, arts, and philosophy on the people in the countryside surrounding your cities, and is represented in the game by borders. The real danger of allowing foreign culture such as movies, food, and fashion too near to our borders is the risk of losing terrain squares or even control of entire cities. Any white person who eats sushi is a traitor who is helping Japan along its way to winning the game with a culture victory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
That only happens if you're unhappy and have a different ideology to the dominant culture, you can otherwise ignore it. Conquer them before they win a culture victory and you're fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, idiot edgy 13-year-olds aren't capable of discrediting a political movement, except in the eyes of people who are looking for any reason they can find to bash it. Christianity routinely takes poo poo for their most extreme members. It is only fair, because it makes a lot of unfalsifiable claims that are likely to be appropriated by groups such as WBC. However, most Christians are at least able to show how their understanding of their faith is different from WBC and why they don't deserve to be lumped with them. A lot of them actually acknowledge the extreme groups and the fact that they are giving their faith a bad name. In fact, it's their more extreme members who are most likely to scream that people arguing about WBC are doing this only to discredit true Christianity. If your ideology can be taken verbatim and, without any significant changes, used to argue that eating sushi is racist, then it is poo poo. If you maintain that Tumblr basket cases have nothing to do with you, you should be able to tear their arguments apart without discrediting yours. Right now you're completely unable to tell us what differs your understanding of cultural appropriation from Effectronica's without escaping into "no true Scotsman" and claiming Nazi plot to bring back slavery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
But more seriously, you have a valid point about straw man or fringe groups, but remember what you said before: it was too deep or complex for the lowest common denominator. But take your example:VitalSigns posted:"What if being born into a poor black family is random and not a punishment from God for your future laziness" is a bit too complex. So you're valid in saying that CA shouldn't be judged by its outliers, but it absolutely can be judged by the average. Let's even take the Lakota declaration as a 'fair' implementation. Take note of this statement: "Lakota posted:WHEREAS individuals and groups involved in "the New Age Movement," in "the men's movement," in "neo-paganism" cults and in "shamanism" workshops all have exploited the spiritual traditions of our Lakota people by imitating our ceremonial ways and by mixing such imitation rituals with non-Indian occult practices in an offensive and harmful pseudo-religious hodgepodge; and VitalSigns posted:Sure sure I get what you're saying too, cultural exchange has created great art and humanity benefits from that, and as a practical matter if something is a good idea, people are going to see it and emulate it and bring it back home. Mimicry is basic human nature, hell basic primate nature, apes learn by watching too. My very first posts in this thread were me asking questions about what forms of exchange are and aren't appropriation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:If your ideology can be taken verbatim and, without any significant changes, used to argue that eating sushi is racist, then it is poo poo. If you maintain that Tumblr basket cases have nothing to do with you, you should be able to tear their arguments apart without discrediting yours. Right now you're completely unable to tell us what differs your understanding of cultural appropriation from Effectronica's without escaping into "no true Scotsman" and claiming Nazi plot to bring back slavery. Well it's not "my ideology", it's a description of things that happen. And I have already explained what the important distinguishing factor is: harm. Just because some people decide to complain about silly things doesn't mean the whole concept is illegitimate. Opening a door for a woman when you wouldn't for a man is undeniably sexism: it's treating people differently based on sex. But it's also not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and anyone who yells and berates you is a twit, sure. But it does not follow that all discussion of sexism is indistinguishable from this nor does it discredit everyone who we talks about any other instance of sexism, ya dig? Now the next question is "Who Is The Auhority On Harm, Who Speaks For A Culture" but these are irrelevent questions, like "Who speaks for all women". You're just going to have to listen (or not) to the case someone makes and decide whether the alleged harm is something that concerns you or not. E: the only people I am mocking are the ones posting paranoiac fantasies about the liberal mafia forcing everyone to live in colorless sharing-free worlds. That's like freep-level irrational fear; Native Americans are not going to come into anyone's houses taking away eagle feathers and slapping corn out of anyone's mouths at dinner. Now I assume those are sarcastic jokeposts, so I make jokeposts back, why does that surprise you. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well it's not "my ideology", it's a description of things that happen. And I have already explained what the important distinguishing factor is: harm. Just because some people decide to complain about silly things doesn't mean the whole concept is illegitimate. First of all, no one posted any freep paranoid fantasy except of you, SedanChair and Effectronica. People sometimes mock SJW grandiose tone and their tendency to demand everyone to agree with them in 100%. It doesn't mean they expect Native American stormtroopers inspecting their houses for rubber tomahawks, this is purely your fantasy. As for your stance about cultural appropriation, notice that harm coming from it is completely subjective and dependent which culture do you consider as legitimate and important. For you an American with a Kanji tatoo is something unworthy of attention, for Effectronica is a deliberate jab at Japanese - American culture, which is a completely distinct entity from Japanese culture. According to the people in this thread, it's only necessary for Effectronica to be Japanese - American and their stance should be considered as important as a Lakota's on shamanism. You're no one to decide if someone's grievances are legitimate after all... unless that someone is a suspected reactionary, of course. That's why you're constantly lumped with wolf otherkin and other Tumblr exotica - your own methodology fails to explain why their claims are not legitimate. Your own arguments against them resemble the criticism others raise against you. This brings us back to the question someone else asked before: what is the benefit of using a concept which lumps the oppressors using the culture they eradicated to make money with using a letter from the foreign alphabet as a tattoo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:First of all, no one posted any freep paranoid fantasy except of you, SedanChair and Effectronica. People sometimes mock SJW grandiose tone and their tendency to demand everyone to agree with them in 100%. It doesn't mean they expect Native American stormtroopers inspecting their houses for rubber tomahawks, this is purely your fantasy. Yeah and I'm mocking their paranoid tone, relax. I don't actually think they're in the KKK, they don't actually think I'm some totalitarian control freak measuring people's eye roundness before letting them have kimchi. You're making seriousposts so I'm engaging you seriously as you deserve. Gantolandon posted:That's why you're constantly lumped with wolf otherkin and other Tumblr exotica - your own methodology fails to explain why their claims are not legitimate. Your own arguments against them resemble the criticism others raise against you. This brings us back to the question someone else asked before: what is the benefit of using a concept which lumps the oppressors using the culture they eradicated to make money with using a letter from the foreign alphabet as a tattoo? Well okay, I've told you how I personally distinguish silly issues from substantial ones. If you don't agree then all right, you tell me what separates a legitimate complaint about sexism from a radfem parody yelling at you for your patronizing chauvinism in opening a door for a woman? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah and I'm mocking their paranoid tone, relax. I don't actually think they're in the KKK, they don't actually think I'm some totalitarian control freak measuring people's eye roundness before letting them have kimchi. You're making seriousposts so I'm engaging you seriously as you deserve. Opening a door before a woman doesn't stem from the fact that I really consider her to be weaker or in particular need of male protection. It's a vestige from earlier times that lost its cultural meaning. Nowadays people do this because they want to be polite and you can never know if the woman in case expect it or not, so opening them is a safe option. In case of legitimate complaints about sexism, the perpetrator has some ideology that's supposed to explain why his actions were OK. An entrepreneur who pays less money to women usually argues they are less effective or they are going to get pregnant any time now and require maternity leave. The sexism part comes from the assumption that women can't really work as well as men and are better suited to raising children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
So what you are saying is, while appearing similar from a superficial glance, in one instance the act is a harmless one done for innocent reasons that doesn't perpetuate negative stereotypes or cause any harm, and in the other case it's done from indifference or malice and actively harms or offends women for no conceivable benefit. This seems like a good heuristic to me. Well done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well it's not "my ideology", it's a description of things that happen. And I have already explained what the important distinguishing factor is: harm. Just because some people decide to complain about silly things doesn't mean the whole concept is illegitimate. Yes, but since in almost every case that's been discussed the harm is not material but psychological, how do you draw the line? Clearly an Italian person that complains about non-Italians eating pizza is unreasonable - but where do you go from there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what you are saying is, while appearing similar from a superficial glance, in one instance the act is a harmless one done for innocent reasons that doesn't perpetuate negative stereotypes or cause any harm, and in the other case it's done from indifference or malice and actively harms or offends women for no conceivable benefit. This seems like a good heuristic to me. Well done. Nope, the first action is not even remotely similar. It's not sexism, because there is no underlying assumption that one gender is different than the other. It's as sexist as symbols used for men and women restrooms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah and I'm mocking their paranoid tone, relax. I don't actually think they're in the KKK, they don't actually think I'm some totalitarian control freak measuring people's eye roundness before letting them have kimchi. You're making seriousposts so I'm engaging you seriously as you deserve. No, they actually think that. I imagine Ward Cleaver's face as he struggles with a hemorrhoid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:they are going to get pregnant any time now and require maternity leave. As a complicating factor, this and other things which are on their face sexist, like the idea that the woman sitting in front of you interviewing is more likely to take time off from work to care for family or get pregnant or etc, are true sometimes and those are things that will negatively impact a business. It's not fair to the women who want to be career focused instead of famiy focused but you can't exactly demand to see proof of their intentions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what you are saying is, while appearing similar from a superficial glance, in one instance the act is a harmless one done for innocent reasons that doesn't perpetuate negative stereotypes or cause any harm, and in the other case it's done from indifference or malice and actively harms or offends women for no conceivable benefit. This seems like a good heuristic to me. Well done. In the other case it's not indifference or malice either, though. It's something like "I should make this gesture because that's what a gentleman does." not "lol little gurrl can't open a door". The tradgedy of leftism is turning everything into an outrage. Come to Chile and you'll get all sorts of dirty looks if you don't hold a door open or give a lady your seat on the bus. edit: From the lady, to be clear. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:As a complicating factor, this and other things which are on their face sexist, like the idea that the woman sitting in front of you interviewing is more likely to take time off from work to care for family or get pregnant or etc, are true sometimes and those are things that will negatively impact a business. It's not fair to the women who want to be career focused instead of famiy focused but you can't exactly demand to see proof of their intentions. That's not a complicating factor at all. Why would you assume that a woman would take time off to care for family, but not a man? Eh?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In the other case it's not indifference or malice either, though. It's something like "I should make this gesture because that's what a gentleman does." not "lol little gurrl can't open a door". The tradgedy of leftism is turning everything into an outrage. please be careful if you go to chile, posters. you may inadvertently appropriate some culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's not a complicating factor at all. Why would you assume that a woman would take time off to care for family, but not a man? Eh? Because at least in this culture, and probably still in the States as well, it's more likely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Because at least in this culture, and probably still in the States as well, it's more likely. What other assumptions can we make about job applicants based on their demographics, and therefore pay them less? Lay it on us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
statistically 100% of women are more likely to give birth than men
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
VideoGames posted:statistically 100% of women are more likely to give birth than men hosed up if true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
I'd love to pay you as much as a woman, but to be honest there's no telling when you'll gently caress off to have prostate cancer treated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'd love to pay you as much as a woman, but to be honest there's no telling when you'll gently caress off to have prostate cancer treated. An argument that has never worked (for me).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What other assumptions can we make about job applicants based on their demographics, and therefore pay them less? Lay it on us. What we really need is a theory of gender equity that allows me to pay both men and women less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'd love to pay you as much as a woman, but to be honest there's no telling when you'll gently caress off to have prostate cancer treated. please dont equate child birth with prostate cancer. one is a magical process where we remove a gross tumour from a region of pleasure and the other is not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:As a complicating factor, this and other things which are on their face sexist, like the idea that the woman sitting in front of you interviewing is more likely to take time off from work to care for family or get pregnant or etc, are true sometimes and those are things that will negatively impact a business. It's not fair to the women who want to be career focused instead of famiy focused but you can't exactly demand to see proof of their intentions. It's not so complicating, because it's just taking one of many factors that can make someone temporary unable to work. Men won't get pregnant, but are statistically more likely to get prostate cancer, or get beaten up on the street to the point of needing hospitalization. None of these risks is considered a good reason to potentially lower someone's pension, isn't it? Besides, having children is good for the society overall and penalizing women for getting pregnant is a recipe for excerpting the problem of aging society. Edit: Holy poo poo, I actually agreed with SedanChair. The end is near.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's not so complicating, because it's just taking one of many factors that can make someone temporary unable to work. Men won't get pregnant, but are statistically more likely to get prostate cancer, or get beaten up on the street to the point of needing hospitalization. None of these risks is considered a good reason to potentially lower someone's pension, isn't it? I mean...there are risks and risks, and prostate cancer or getting beaten by thugs are way less likely than family leave and absenteeism to be things that gently caress up your schedule or leave your clients hanging or leave a vacancy in your team that you can't fill BY LAW while your new hire is out for a year (more relevant to Chile than U.S.). There really isn't a comparable risk with men. Some things are just culturally different (not biologically different - in 30 years men might be more likely to stay home with the kids while well-educated women go slay it in the workforce) between the sexes and that's a reality that's going to get recognized and factored in even if it's taboo to talk about. Gantolandon posted:Besides, having children is good for the society overall and penalizing women for getting pregnant is a recipe for excerpting the problem of aging society. IDK, maybe. Not really a problem we have down here or something I see as my problem to address.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Nope, the first action is not even remotely similar. It's not sexism, because there is no underlying assumption that one gender is different than the other. It's as sexist as symbols used for men and women restrooms. Right you can't just lump everything together on superficial similarities, you look at the intentions and effects. There's no ill intent, there are no bad effects so it's fine. This is the standard we apply to lots of things, and it's the one that I am applying here. Eating sushi, well that's just a good idea and doesn't contribute to negative stereotypes about Japanese people. Wearing a plastic feather headdress to a football game, ehhhhh not so much. E: Ahahaha I used sexism as an example of valid complaints vs insane ones, and of course someone comes in with "well shouldn't a woman get paid less if she's just gonna have babiesbabiesbabies"  Hmm, Gantolandon I suppose now I get to tell you that you can't just disclaim wateroverfire and No True Scotsman him because hmmm hmmm you can't deny that he's on your side about CA and is saying some crazy poo poo that discredits your position 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wearing a plastic feather headdress to a football game, ehhhhh not so much. That does far more to contribute to negative stereotypes about football fans than native americans, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That does far more to contribute to negative stereotypes about football fans than native americans, though. Well when football fans complain about Native Americans making them look bad by associating their traditional team-supporting culture with weird native superstitions, I promise to at least consider what they have to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well when football fans complain about Native Americans making them look bad by associating their traditional team-supporting culture with weird native superstitions, I promise to at least consider what they have to say. Theoretically there might be a level of irony so high it causes the collective unconscious to implode and leave us all in a naive state of animal innocence. I think this might be on the other side of that horizon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
I thought you would appreciate it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right you can't just lump everything together on superficial similarities, you look at the intentions and effects. There's no ill intent, there are no bad effects so it's fine. This is the standard we apply to lots of things, and it's the one that I am applying here. If I could pay a man less because he might theoretically decide to gender switch and roleplay pregnancy I would do that in the name of equality. #Progressive #EqualPay
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought you would appreciate it I genuinely appreciate you. =)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:05
|
|