What constitutes Misogyny?

[compared2what?]

Or I guess I could have just said:

Hateful views are not hate speech, in themselves. Freedom of expression can, should and actually has to allow for them on the most minimally acceptable terms possible in order to be meaningfully free. That's a fine line to walk, but the rewards are universal, so it's worth the effort.

That's all.

[brekin]

compared2what? wrote:

Or I guess I could have just said:

Hateful views are not hate speech, in themselves. Freedom of expression can, should and actually has to allow for them on the most minimally acceptable terms possible in order to be meaningfully free. That's a fine line to walk, but the rewards are universal, so it's worth the effort.

That's all.

Beautiful. I dig it. As Hannah Arendt said:

There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.

[vanlose kid]

^^

so i guess that since i don't consider SM's "thoughts" on the "feminist reign of terror" to be thinking i can safely deem it nonsense without fear of condemnation.

*

[barracuda]

Not quite sure what the first quote there has got to do with that.

It was the part where you said, "not that such a thing would stop me posting the truth of the matter..."

I should think that would explain itself.

Obviously the cavalcade of posters eagerly denouncing malekind as evil and monstrous somewhat flout the "anti-sexist board" part of the rule, but that's a relatively orthodox sort of hypocrisy. Like the police enforcing laws against shop-lifters while there are bankers not in prison, good for order if not justice.

Not that I'm buying into any of the conspiracy theories about this board, mind. The bigotry is too pedestrian.

Au contraire, the demeaning of women on this board reached such pedestrian proportions that we were required to institute a new fucking rule to attempt to reign it in somewhat. If you think that was done lightly, you are quite wrong. If your think it was a pointed attempt to stifle you personally, you are quite wrong. The rule was instituted as a result of what the admin saw as a long term systemic problem here, the details of which you know quite well, whether or not you agree personally that there was a problem.

I finally get it. This thread just needs a steady stream of sacrifices to perpetuate itself.

Are you volunteering?

No one wants to ban anyone here. Jeff hates having to suspend people. But there are guidelines, and it would be remiss of the mods to ignore instances when posters are in contravention of those guidelines, wouldn't it, now? Otherwise, why bother? Might as well just let folks troll away, and have god sort 'em out.

[compared2what?]

barracuda wrote:

I think it's time to foist some barbarous and dictatorial totalitarianism on you, Stephen, by reiterating the posting guideline in juxtaposition with your opinion:

"We correctly assume that women, as a group, have been and continue to be the object of oppression based upon their gender."

I'd ask you to refrain from explicitly standing outside of the inclusiveness of the pronoun which begins that statement. The implication that you do so has become inextricably connected to your username, so I think we can assume it to be understood as the underlying principle attached to your posts. You've successfully branded your username in that respect. Congratulations.

I finally get it. This thread just needs a steady stream of sacrifices to perpetuate itself.

Shorter version:

If I may, please allow me to mildly observe that you broke the rules and to remind you of them in terms that are wholly free of the slightest suggestion of punitive intent.

I'm sorry I have to do this to you, but you need to pay for what you did.

IOW: brekin --

It's distressing that you heard a threat when none was spoken, for one reason and one reason only. And it's that you suffer unnecessary distress yourself as a result of that perceptual malfunction.

That's not at all unusual and it doesn't reflect poorly on you. On the contrary, it's very nearly a universal trait among sensitive people the whole word over to mistake an internal locus of control for an external one. It's really pretty easy to make the distinction once you're aware of it, though. And the good news doesn't stop there! Because empowerment follows automatically once you do.

That's why I recommend it in an amiable spirit.

[brekin]

vanlose kid wrote:

so i guess that since i don't consider SM's thoughts on the "feminist reign of terror" to be thinking i can safely deem it nonsense without fear of condemnation.

Friend, in my world you can think what ever you want! And I won't ever try to get you condemned.
But that's just me.

I would caution you though that once we start to dismiss other people's thoughts as "not thinking"
(compared to say sloppy thinking, or biased thinking) when we merely disagree with them, we can demean them as
a less rational being and then it is a small step to not extend to them the respect we all deserve.

For example, while I disagree with say Stephen or Hugh about their views on feminism or keyword high jacking
I would never assume they are not thinking. They both seem to spend a lot of time pain stakingly showing us
their thinking. I could say this or that point, or all of their theory, is faulty or not convincing to me but I
would never condemn it all outright because ultimately I can never know. Those who do though I find a little scary. As Orwell said
"The problem with the enlightened is they have no responsibility." Those who are convinced they have the
truth and a quick to condemn are the ones I fear.

[vanlose kid]

*

have no fear, i just class "feminist reign of terror" alongside "all Cretan's are liars". some people enjoy that stuff.

*

[Searcher08]

[compared2what?]

compared2what? wrote:

Or I guess I could have just said:

Hateful views are not hate speech, in themselves. Freedom of expression can, should and actually has to allow for them on the most minimally acceptable terms possible in order to be meaningfully free. That's a fine line to walk, but the rewards are universal, so it's worth the effort.

That's all.

Beautiful. I dig it. As Hannah Arendt said:

There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.

Not exactly. Because as Lou Reed said:

Between thought and expression lies a lifetime.

From which it follows that there is such a thing as dangerous speech, although it does have to be unmistakably, unambiguously and demonstrably dangerous in my book before I'd call it that, personally.

Further, and more to the point for the purposes of this thread, though, there is also such a thing as abusive speech. It might not be dangerous in the strictest sense of the word. But since it can cause real harm, it can also be a real ill. It's dirt common and not always easy to recognize from the perspective of either the speaker or the listener or both.

There's a lot to be said for making a best effort to recognize it in yourself and others, therefore. So much so that I don't really understand why anyone who could do that would choose not to, to be honest.

And that, again, is all.

[brekin]

brekin wrote:
I finally get it. This thread just needs a steady stream of sacrifices to perpetuate itself.

barracuda wrote:
Are you volunteering?

No one wants to ban anyone here. Jeff hates having to suspend people. But there are guidelines, and it would be remiss of the mods to ignore instances when posters are in contravention of those guidelines, wouldn't it, now? Otherwise, why bother? Might as well just let folks troll away, and have god sort 'em out.

Woah, I already did my duty once. I'm not reupping for the Wicker Man role again this season.
By the way, where are the guidelines? Honestly I've only seen them quoted in comments and
can't find their sticky. I just ask because I believe women as a group have been oppressed and
continue to be oppressed, but I was still banned. I would like to know what guideline I trespassed
so it doesn't happen again. Thanks.

[vanlose kid]

*

just a note, but since you yourself quoted this:

... As Hannah Arendt said:

There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.

then you should know that in light of things like The Bananlity of Evil Arendt herself actually knew and showed that there is such a thing as non-thinking. i mean, the entire book is about it.

*

[Stephen Morgan]

Not quite sure what the first quote there has got to do with that.

It was the part where you said, "not that such a thing would stop me posting the truth of the matter..."

I should think that would explain itself.

I wasn't even referring to those viewpoints it is forbidden to mention when I said "the matter", just whatever we happened to be discussing at the time. Whether I should have been banned a long time ago, for example, which is a position Willow holds with which I disagree. A position which is currently still allowed, I should add. You can hardly condemn me for merely stating that I have been truthful. No doubt you would have been better pleased with "not that such a thing would stop me posting my bizarre delusions and hate-filled lies", but you can hardly expect me to post that. As you said, everyone knows my position on these matters, I have no doubt they know my belief that what I believe is true, too.

Obviously the cavalcade of posters eagerly denouncing malekind as evil and monstrous somewhat flout the "anti-sexist board" part of the rule, but that's a relatively orthodox sort of hypocrisy. Like the police enforcing laws against shop-lifters while there are bankers not in prison, good for order if not justice.

Not that I'm buying into any of the conspiracy theories about this board, mind. The bigotry is too pedestrian.

Au contrare, the demeaning of women on this board reached such pedestrian proportions that we were required to institute a new fucking rule to attempt to reign it in somewhat. If you think that was done lightly, you are quite wrong. If your think it was a pointed attempt to stifle you personally, you are quite wrong. The rule was instituted as a result of what the admin saw as a long term systemic problem here, the details of which you know quite well, whether or not you agree personally that there was a problem.

Yeah, yeah. The record speaks for itself, which is lucky because no-one else is able to. Those who have eyes to see can see, what was going on then and what's going on now.

I finally get it. This thread just needs a steady stream of sacrifices to perpetuate itself.

Are you volunteering?

No one wants to ban anyone here. Jeff hates having to suspend people. But there are guidelines, and it would be remiss of the mods to ignore instances when posters are in contravention of those guidelines, wouldn't it, now? Otherwise, why bother? Might as well just let folks troll away, and have god sort 'em out.

You do make a lot of thinly veiled threats though, barracuda. Not that I let it stop me posting the... er... you know... the things that I post. But I can see why it gets to people.

[compared2what?]

vanlose kid wrote:

so i guess that since i don't consider SM's thoughts on the "feminist reign of terror" to be thinking i can safely deem it nonsense without fear of condemnation.

Friend, in my world you can think what ever you want! And I won't ever try to get you condemned.
But that's just me.

I would caution you though that once we start to dismiss other people's thoughts as "not thinking"
(compared to say sloppy thinking, or biased thinking) when we merely disagree with them, we can demean them as
a less rational being and then it is a small step to not extend to them the respect we all deserve.

For example, while I disagree with say Stephen or Hugh about their views on feminism or keyword high jacking
I would never assume they are not thinking. They both seem to spend a lot of time pain stakingly showing us
their thinking. I could say this or that point, or all of their theory, is faulty or not convincing to me but I
would never condemn it all outright because ultimately I can never know. Those who do though I find a little scary. As Orwell said
"The problem with the enlightened is they have no responsibility." Those who are convinced they have the
truth and a quick to condemn are the ones I fear.

FFS. VK can condemn Stephen's thinking on its substance, if it's his considered opinion that it should be condemned on reasonable grounds. And he can also condemn Stephen, if it's his considered opinion that Stephen should be condemned on reasonable grounds. Those are two different things and should not be conflated, because one of them is not a thing but a person, to whom the greatest care and consideration are owed as a birthright.

I not only can and do but just did condemn Stephen's thinking several times in the course of one short post. I did not condemn Stephen. Stephen has the same rights I have, which he not only can but frequently does use to condemn my thinking. That's fair, afaic.

Do you have a problem with any of that, either on substance or wrt understanding it? And if so, what is it?

[Stephen Morgan]

For example, while I disagree with say Stephen or Hugh about their views on feminism or keyword high jacking
I would never assume they are not thinking. They both seem to spend a lot of time pain stakingly showing us
their thinking.

Not me, pal. I should one of these days put together a single document about my views on feminism and post it somewhere other than here, but I've generally just objected to things other people have said here. I didn't come here expecting to talk about feminism, I came here expecting to talk about the things that originally brought me to the blog, like UFOs and James Randi's paedophilia, but I didn't know that there were people here who considered the ills of the world to be the result of patriarchy, as opposed to capitalism or corruption or organised crime or evil people conniving themselves into positions of power, which were all just seen as symptoms. I found that provocative and . Race faced, hard-headed little chap in the smilie, there. But if I can't even post that any of my past posts have been truthful for fear of vague allusions to forbidden areas, I shall have to refrain even from the more productive areas touched on by this thread, rather than being randomly swatted for some passing comment.

[brekin]

vanlose kid wrote:

just a note, but since you yourself qouted this:

brekin wrote:
... As Hannah Arendt said:

There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.

then you should know that in light of things like The Bananlity of Evil Arendt herself actually knew and showed that there is such a thing as non-thinking. i mean, the entire book is about it.

'

Yes, yes...and I'm sure you picked up in her other book the Origins of Totalitarianism that the lack of appreciation for diversity of opinion and
uniformity breeds non-thinking. I'm not anyone's advocate here but whatever you want to claim most of the posters seem to consider and
reason through their rational for things. Some of their general claims may border
on the repugnant but thinking differently from the status quo here seems to be frowned upon, and there wouldn't be much of a discussion if they didn't.
I think as long as people can remain civil why not discuss? Remember Socrates was a bit of a pest to.

brekin wrote:
For example, while I disagree with say Stephen or Hugh about their views on feminism or keyword high jacking
I would never assume they are not thinking. They both seem to spend a lot of time pain stakingly showing us
their thinking.

Stephen Morgan wrote:
Not me, pal. I should one of these days put together a single document about my views on feminism and post it somewhere other than here, but I've generally just objected to things other people have said here. ...

You know, I have to apologize. I may have confused your views with someone else's (I don't want to name him either because I could be wrong about him to.)
But since I don't have time to review everyone's posts in this thread I'll just say I'm not clear on your views and leave it at that.
In the end doesn't really matter to me though the content as long as it hasn't been directly abusive to anyone; name calling, labeling, swearing, etc