rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:44 pm**

tapitsbo » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:17 pm wrote:Is there demonization of "elite white males"?
All through the US election the media megaphone was consistent in demonizing the "white working class".

?X100

Interesting. I assumed that it was common knowledge the perception that Elite White Males are the cause of every bad thing that has happened ever and are the group standing in the way (and holding back) of progress. Am I alone in this? The trope that colonialism, patriarchy, capitalism, war, racism, classism, sexism, etc. is the elite white male's game and they are the game masters? Don't most round tables of conspiracies have drawn in a bunch of "elite white males" around the table? (With or w/o tails.) I mean the Nation of Islam's the white man is the devil credo is now openly kind of the subtext of most university liberal art courses these days.

Whereas, I'd say "white working class" is hardly to less demonized. They are usually paternally lauded as the backbone of the nation, or portrayed as long suffering and/or dismissed as misled, ignorant, angry or "hurting". Even when they do wrong, as in voting in someone who couldn't be less inclined to their interests, it is assumed they would do better "if they only knew better".

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:20 pm**

Sure brekin, leftists might subscribe to that narrative

I think it was pretty clear during the election that the MSM of the nyt, national review, atlantic, and other establishment rags were more than willing to openly lament their inability to liquidate the "white working class" fast enough

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:03 pm**

tapitsbo » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:20 pm wrote:Sure brekin, leftists might subscribe to that narrative
I think it was pretty clear during the election that the MSM of the nyt, national review, atlantic, and other establishment rags were more than willing to openly lament their inability to liquidate the "white working class" fast enough

Some quotes would be good. I thought there was more rage for the "skipping this one" non-voters and dream casting voters of third, fourth, fifth party candidates. But this is going off topic, so maybe reply in one of the white working class/political threads? Further, you also haven't even told me, which gender are you?

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:11 pm**

According to the language analyzer at the beginning of this thread, I (a male) am pretty strongly predicted to be female based on both a semi-formal letter and a piece of academic writing.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:45 am**

liminalOyster » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:11 pm wrote:According to the language analyzer at the beginning of this thread, I (a male) am pretty strongly predicted to be female based on both a semi-formal letter and a piece of academic writing.

Yea, I tried the language analyzer (http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php) too and came out MALE (I'm female) on 1) an academic writing sample and a 2) a less formal story and 3) an RI post.

WTF!!!

Just goes to show that 'gender' is BS.

Genre: Formal
Female = 230
Male = 522
Difference = 292; 69.41%
Verdict: MALE

Genre: Informal
Female = 116
Male = 639
Difference = 523; 84.63%
Verdict: MALE

Genre: Informal
Female = 161
Male = 719
Difference = 558; 81.7%
Verdict: MALE

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:20 am**

One reason that Jeffreys and her allies are always far more energetic in prosecuting and preemptively pathologising trans people than in understanding their subject, is that they regard the existence of trans people as posing a problem for the theory upon which they have based their politics and strategy of women’s liberation. Their ‘materialism’ is one in which the body is essentialised and naturalised, sexual difference being reducible to certain chromosomal, hormonal, and reproductive distinctions. Above all, the reproductive body is the basis, and the exclusive basis, for sexist oppression: you are sex oppressed only if your capacity to give birth is used to subordinate you. It is also the basis for resistance: only the reproductive body can be admitted to the political community of women in struggle against patriarchy: “Respect is due to women as members of a sex caste that have survived subordination,” says Jeffreys, “and deserve to be addressed with honour. Men who transgender cannot occupy such a position.” That, as we have seen, “men who transgender” are swiftly subject to oppression either as the women they identify as and are read as, or as gender freaks deserving of punishment, does not enter this picture. Hence, the tactical willingness to police gendered demarcations, to police other women’s bodies (extending also to hostility to sex workers, and opposition to new reproductive technologies and surrogacy in some cases), and to revile the emulation of femininity.

Such narrow-mindedness is not only depressing; it may actually be depressed. The austere forbiddingness of such politics depends upon shutting down certain possibilities, because it can only regard them as threatening. Theory always has a tendency, if its oppositional currents are not cultivated, to become a resistance to new and troubling knowledge — dogma, in other words.

None Shall Pass: Trans and the Rewriting of the Body by Richard Seymour

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:04 am**

Heaven Swan » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:45 am wrote:
liminalOyster » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:11 pm wrote:According to the language analyzer at the beginning of this thread, I (a male) am pretty strongly predicted to be female based on both a semi-formal letter and a piece of academic writing.

Yea, I tried the language analyzer (http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php) too and came out MALE (I'm female) on 1) an academic writing sample and a 2) a less formal story and 3) an RI post.

WTF!!! Just goes to show that 'gender' is BS.

Genre: Formal
Female = 230
Male = 522
Difference = 292; 69.41%
Verdict: MALE

Genre: Informal
Female = 116
Male = 639
Difference = 523; 84.63%
Verdict: MALE

Genre: Informal
Female = 161
Male = 719
Difference = 558; 81.7%
Verdict: MALE

Damn. That's weird! I just picked out a recent comment here I wrote that I thought was benign. Identified me as male. Very curious and interested. This will be fun to play around with. I am semi working on a book and have been also semi toying with the idea of making my protagonist female (just switchin' names and references out with a female name). I came to the realization I could not in good conscience and I would sound like a male.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:23 am**

Holy shit. The above comment by me identified me as female both informal and formal.

(I just checked out the above recent comment and 100% male in both cases.) I am going to be fascinated by this all day.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:25 am**

Holy shit again, even my Propagandhi sig came out as 100% male in both categories.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:12 pm**

Those sites are designed to mislead you as to their purpose, which is simply to strip your personal information stored in your computer. Imho, of course.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:03 pm**

Dick Hallorann: Mrs. Torrance, your husband introduced you as Winifred. Now, are you a Winnie or a Freddy?

Wendy Torrance: I'm a Wendy.

Dick Hallorann: Oh. That's nice. That's the prettiest.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:26 pm**

Lie Like A Lady: The Profoundly Weird, Gender-Specific Roots Of The Turing Test

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:56 pm**

Heaven Swan » 19 Mar 2017 03:45 wrote:Yea, I tried the language analyzer (http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php) too and came out MALE (I'm female) on 1) an academic writing sample and a 2) a less formal story and 3) an RI post.

Formally, weak male, informally, 86% male.

:lol:

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:21 pm**

Iamwhomiam » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:12 am wrote:Those sites are designed to mislead you as to their purpose, which is simply to strip your personal information stored in your computer. Imho, of course.

Oh, I don't think so. it's an esspiriment. Good luck getting anything personal off my puder. I mean you can have it as there is nothing damning. But it is "secure". Fuck, I'll freely upload the entire contents of all my hard drives in life for free. Ain't gonna find no nuthin'.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:53 pm**

I entered some random "Splicing Adjacent Thread Titles" phrases into the Gender Guesser:

Marijuana legalization is popular, more popular than Vertical Integration. Can we start a new Russia thread? Chelsea Clinton Poisoned Alexander Litvinenko. Mike Pence is seriously High. Was Seth Rich Splicing Pizzagate thread? Is Keith Richards Behind a Secession Effort in California? Journalist Michael Hastings is at home in Peace. Democracy Is for those having a bad day. Should the US Government choose our Gender?

Total words: 64
Too few words. Try 300 words or more.

Genre: Informal
Female = 41
Male = 132
Difference = 91; 76.3%
Verdict: MALE

Genre: Formal
Female = 16
Male = 105
Difference = 89; 86.77%
Verdict: MALE

I'll have to round up some of my writing to test.

rigorousintuition.ca

Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?