|
icantfindaname posted:I feel like comparing men who ask about terminology or their welcomeness in the movement, seemingly perfectly legitimate questions, to white supremacists, is probably a bad way to win public support in a purely utilitarian sense, and bespeaks a fundamental hostility and lack of good faith in dealing with the general public This is a 'tone argument.' Now that we have given this argument a label which has a bad connotation, we don't actually have to address it. Next!
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Perhaps if you could say, "don't post unless you have read x, y, or z." Or even, "no asking a question before at least looking at the Google results for it." You need to come into the thread well-educated on the proper theory, but don't assume that there is a feminist canon or majority consensus within the ideology. That'd be untoward.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Usually there is an assumption that posters know what they're talking about, Just lol if you think this on this website. This is why the cries of 'educate thyself' in this thread are so out of place and unlike every other topic on this forum. Talmonis posted:
Instead of the thinly veiled passive aggressive chorus of 'educate yourself!' whenever the opinions/questions Are Not Right, this thread probably should put a creed stating the opinions posters must have and questions they must not ask into the opening post that posters in this thread have to swear to to be able to post in this thread. If a poster in the thread trespasses against the creed, they get probated. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 00:39
|
|
with this passive aggressive poo poo.
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Edit: Also you don't have PMs but let me know if you want your red text erased, because that's a particularly insane one. That'd be nice, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Gloryhold It! posted:There are absolutely young "feminists" who are transphobic as gently caress. I use the scare quotes because I don't believe that you can honestly be a feminist while denying that some women are actually goddamn women. That issue has actually caused an earlier instance of this thread to implode in the past. These threads don't implode because of posters outside of the faction coming in, they implode because of two accepted regulars getting into a heated argument, calling each other Mega Bigots, and creating a huge drama and fracturing the thread into two sub-factions, setting off a huge flame war. BarbarianElephant posted:Not sure if there's any good advice there but I still find it funny. It's a good example of how sexism can create collosally stupid economic decisions. It's a great thing to bring up in the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Male goon, upon being asked to clean: *sets down the controller, runs away* Lol maybe this thread has got it all wrong and goons are actually the cause of all societal ills. I guess that means that FYAD and previously Helldump are/were doing God's work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Don't give your baby to people who clearly tell you they don't want to hold them and your baby won't end up on the floor. It's pretty simple. Lol, this is the gooniest response. Jenner isn't defending him/herself or trying to justify what he/she did. It's just an embarrassing and amusing story, assuming no babies were harmed in the creation of the story. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
I can't stop giggling at your earlier post--I'm imagining some nerd announcing to the room during his/her family's holiday party as if he/she were some bank robber threatening the police during a hostage negotiation--"If you give the baby to me, I will put it on the floor."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:Fresh out of college I found myself in a room with about 70 people with majors covering every single major STEM discipline. We were all applying for a handful of open positions at what was/is my dream job. Of those 70 something people, there were 4 women. I and one other woman were the only people offered jobs. In a room that was overwhelmingly male, the only people offered jobs were women and that stuck in my craw for weeks. I kept feeling like I was hired because of diversity and not because of how intelligent I was or qualified I was. Then I realized how toxic that kind of thinking is. It doesn't matter why I was hired, what matters is that I am intelligent and am qualified and anyone who has worked with me knows it and would go to bat for me if anyone claimed otherwise. Maybe I have to work twice as hard to prove that I belong there but what matters is that I am proving that on a day to day basis. Even if you happen to be less qualified, so what? You wouldn't be the only person who got ahead not purely by merit. A lot of people get jobs through connections or nepotism. Being a diversity hire is certainly no worse than that. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Shame on you, and how dare you insinuate that diversity hires are necessarily less qualified. I never said that they necessarily were. Pretending that all diversity hires are hyper-qualified is wishful thinking though. I'm just saying that it's not unusual to get a job not purely on your own merit, so why should diversity hires feel bad about it when when beneficiaries of nepotism do not?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Is it really complicity when a woman's public-figure husband cheats on her? What was she supposed to do? I find it very hard to judge the personal choices of people in situations that I could never experience. I don't know that there's a correct answer, and that proper understanding probably entails her own knowledge of and emotions about her husband. Or are you saying he is actually a rapist? She went to the press and made personal attacks on women who had come out and had accused Bill of sexual assault and/or infidelity. I don't really hold it against her too much. I voted for Hillary in the election and also the primary. She was just doing what she had to do to defend her and her husband's political careers. However, posters in this thread would call what she did 'blaming the victim' and wouldn't be defending those actions if the person doing the blaming were anybody but Hillary. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I find it hard to judge a woman married to a predatory man, as I at least have no idea what being in such a position does to somebody. Maybe she never believed it. Maybe she loved him so much that she couldn't bring herself to turn on him. Maybe he abused her. I find it hard to ask these questions of people like Camille Cosby too, as they require knowledge of events and psychology that we don't have. I strongly suspect that what Hillary did was Machiavellian and not out of ignorance. After all, she and her husband were incredibly successful politicians, and it is really hard to get to where they were without being smart and ruthless. But you are right, I guess I don't really know what she was thinking when she went on the offensive for her husband, and contrary to a popular view of morality in feminism, I do believe that intent does matter when evaluating the morality of people's actions. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Can you substantiate that? Just curious, because I googled that and got a bunch of right wing propaganda, so I'm curious if that actually happened, cause I can't find it-part of that might be because it was old? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:this is an almost perfect rorschach test for what your preconceived notions of clinton are What is the interpretation of the events of the article that is charitable to Hillary?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and a decade of education to train a doctor in America. We then have to pay doctors absurd amounts of money so they can in turn pay off the ridiculous debts theyve accrued and pay for their malpractice insurance. So not only is it very costly to train a doctor but they are also very expensive to keep around, meaning we can't just have extra doctors to replace the bad ones. Therefore the bad doctors can get away with murder with no fear of reprisal. Its all systemic, which is why call out culture will completely fail to do anything meaningful about the problem. If you want better doctors, you need to make bad doctors easier to replace. Medical school needs to be cheaper, shorter, and with more slots available. We need tort reforms to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. The rest of the world doesnt have this insanity around the medical profession and they manage to not kill everyone in the hospital. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but isn't pushing tort reform for medical malpractice at odds with letting doctors get away with murder, both figuratively and even in rare cases, literally? I've heard the issue with the short supply of doctors in the US has more to do with regulations relating to number of residencies in US hospitals. The doctors' professional associations pushed for those regulations to protect doctors' very high salaries. I agree that there needs to be more doctors in the US, which should help with lowering medical care cost. Medical schools in the US should also be restructured to accept students from high school so you don't need to shell out the skrilla for four years of college tuition for like a year and a half of relevant pre-reqs for medical school. Most of the rest of the world does medical school that way, and their doctors are perfectly fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:04
|
|