Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 303

Apparently this whole bingo card was in response to this:

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/marc-canter-apologizes-for-harassing-women-in-silicon-valley.html

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: If you think that saying “Not All Men” is sexist or even problematic in any way whatsoever, then you’re absolutely crazy. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think that reminding people not to generalize and blame an entire 50% of the population for the actions of a few is something that we shouldn’t do.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/171595-6-reasons-not-all-men-misses-the-point-because-its-derailing-important-conversations

Well, number one is true in plenty of cases, but a lot of these people make absolutely no effort to refrain from blaming the entire male sex, and from what I scrolled through of that lady’s Twitter, she seems like one of the latter. As for the second point, I don’t think patriarchy exists in the United States anymore. It’s almost a meaningless term at this point. Number three is a good point. Number four is fair. I don’t like number five; it just assumes I’m sexist (and racist) in some way when I’m not. I also don’t like number six for similar reasons. I’m not shifting focus to my ego because I have no pride or confidence in myself to begin with and I don’t like being lumped in with people who do. It also says that it’s my job to listen without defending myself but sometimes it’s necessary to be defensive when people make assumptions about me that are wrong.

I’ll even throw you a bone: I really think Donald Trump is shaping up to be the worst president we’ve had in at least 140 years.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The reason I was thinking “women share responsibility” is potentially a valid comment is because I personally have been harassed by both men and women, and guess what? Nobody fucking cared. Now obviously that doesn’t mean that I’m advocating no one care when it happens to other people, quite the opposite in fact, but you can see why I get salty when assholes oversimplify everything to “It’s only men,” or “It’s only women.” Again, I have no clue what that quote is even supposed to be in response to, but it isn’t unreasonable on it’s own.

I assumed “women share responsibility” refers to the thing where some people say women shouldn’t dress a certain way or behave a certain way because that means they’re asking for it.

Maybe. That’s what I was thinking after I typed it, but that had it’s own square so I figured it was something else. It also doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the article it was in response to. I really don’t know though because I haven’t read it and I’ll forget that I’m supposed to in less than a minute from now.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ll even throw you a bone: I really think Donald Trump is shaping up to be the worst president we’ve had in at least 140 years.

Tweets are 140 characters.

Coincidence much?

[rimshot]

Well, after March 4, 2019 I’ll be able to say 150 years. I’m not willing to say that he’s worse than Andrew Johnson yet.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: If you think that saying “Not All Men” is sexist or even problematic in any way whatsoever, then you’re absolutely crazy. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think that reminding people not to generalize and blame an entire 50% of the population for the actions of a few is something that we shouldn’t do.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/171595-6-reasons-not-all-men-misses-the-point-because-its-derailing-important-conversations

I agree with a few things the that article says, but some of it is bs. I agree “Not All Men” should never be used to silence women or to derail conversations or to justify any sexists or argue that women shouldn’t feel uncomfortable in certain situations. But it is true that not all men are sexist pigs. Not all men are rapists. There is nothing wrong with saying the truth at the right time.

I think the article is trying to say that there isn’t a right time.

Point number #2 and point #4 are sometimes untrue.

When?

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it, because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.

Should it really be all that surprising that I would take that as an attack on all men and view it in a men vs. women kind of way??? The same is true for point #6. I especially can’t stand the attitude at the end of point #6, that is all about men vs. women and attacking men.

How so?

But I will admit that “Not All Men” shouldn’t be used to excuse you when you are part of the problem. Finally of course the article has to bring up privilege. There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.

You are a white man. I bet that might distort your viewpoint.

Also forgotten is the very slight minor privilege women and black people have: They don’t get blamed for the acts of a few.

I’m sure that many times, women and minorities are blamed for the acts of a few.

They don’t get blamed for acts that happened years before they were born. They don’t get articles like this written about them telling not bring up completely true facts like “Not All Men”.

As I said before, I’m sure these articles are being written. Maybe we just don’t read or see them, but I bet these sorts of views are held by many people.

I guess I grew up with a character flaw: I don’t think people are guilty due to their sex or race. I guess I listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech too many times. I was taught that stereotyping is wrong. Sorry.

There’s no need to be sorry. I think you get the wrong point from the article.

Btw, if “Not All Men” is wrong to say, doesn’t it also make it wrong to say “Not All Muslims”? I don’t think it is wrong to say “Not All Muslims”, but I think you see my point.

That’s a point I can’t really generate a response to. A better debater would probably challenge you better here, but I’ll stay out of this.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: If you think that saying “Not All Men” is sexist or even problematic in any way whatsoever, then you’re absolutely crazy. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think that reminding people not to generalize and blame an entire 50% of the population for the actions of a few is something that we shouldn’t do.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/171595-6-reasons-not-all-men-misses-the-point-because-its-derailing-important-conversations

I agree with a few things the that article says, but some of it is bs. I agree “Not All Men” should never be used to silence women or to derail conversations or to justify any sexists or argue that women shouldn’t feel uncomfortable in certain situations. But it is true that not all men are sexist pigs. Not all men are rapists. There is nothing wrong with saying the truth at the right time.

I think the article is trying to say that there isn’t a right time.

If so, the article is wrong.

Ok.

Point number #2 and point #4 are sometimes untrue.

When?

There are times we when feminists are attacking men and not just Patriarchy. There are times when it does seem like it is men vs. women.

Like… when?

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.

I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it,

I didn’t put it that way, the article did.

because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.

read what I wrote above.

I did.

Should it really be all that surprising that I would take that as an attack on all men and view it in a men vs. women kind of way??? The same is true for point #6. I especially can’t stand the attitude at the end of point #6, that is all about men vs. women and attacking men.

How so?

point #5 was basically looked like it was attacking all men and saying there weren’t any good ones. That sure seems like an attack on all men.

After reading the article a second time, I think I get your point now.

I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally. I’m sure the author believes that there are good men out there, but she used the phrase “good guy” to illustrate what many men want to present themselves to the world as in these conversations.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.

Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?

Read? Listen?

Maybe you don’t owe us, but if you want us to understand the lesson, you better teach it. Deciding not to teach the lesson because “nobody owes them” benefits no one.

You’re correct, that is a little weird.

But I will admit that “Not All Men” shouldn’t be used to excuse you when you are part of the problem. Finally of course the article has to bring up privilege. There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.

You are a white man. I bet that might distort your viewpoint.

no more than being black or a women would distort your viewpoint.

Not untrue, but I think you’re missing the point.

This is a conversation about women. Their views are the main object of this discussion.

Also forgotten is the very slight minor privilege women and black people have: They don’t get blamed for the acts of a few.

I’m sure that many times, women and minorities are blamed for the acts of a few.

When they are, the blamers are called sexist and racist and their complaints are ignored as such(and probably should be).

There are still millions of people in America that have regressive viewpoints, just like there are millions of people in America that eat DiGiorno Pizza.

They don’t get blamed for acts that happened years before they were born. They don’t get articles like this written about them telling not bring up completely true facts like “Not All Men”.

As I said before, I’m sure these articles are being written. Maybe we just don’t read or see them, but I bet these sorts of views are held by many people.

Again, those that hold those view points about black people and women are called sexists and racists.

See above.

I guess I grew up with a character flaw: I don’t think people are guilty due to their sex or race. I guess I listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech too many times. I was taught that stereotyping is wrong. Sorry.

There’s no need to be sorry. I think you get the wrong point from the article.

It is how the article comes across to me.

Well, there’s not much I can do about that.

Btw, if “Not All Men” is wrong to say, doesn’t it also make it wrong to say “Not All Muslims”? I don’t think it is wrong to say “Not All Muslims”, but I think you see my point.

That’s a point I can’t really generate a response to. A better debater would probably challenge you better here, but I’ll stay out of this.

ok.

Ok.

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: If you think that saying “Not All Men” is sexist or even problematic in any way whatsoever, then you’re absolutely crazy. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think that reminding people not to generalize and blame an entire 50% of the population for the actions of a few is something that we shouldn’t do.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/171595-6-reasons-not-all-men-misses-the-point-because-its-derailing-important-conversations

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it, because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.

Then why frame it as a problem with masculinity? I don’t buy the “it’s a problem with the human condition” argument, if that’s what she meant, she would have said it. I think it’s very clear what the author is saying—by the very nature of being a man in the western world, you do have problems with women in some form or another.

Good points. I could have written that better to emphasize that, but I mixed in some thing with human nature in there.

¯\(ツ)/¯

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.

Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.

Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.

Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people. You’re misunderstanding the concept of privellege.

Every group of people is disadvantaged in one way or another, in this world. That is the human condition. Rather than focusing on one and pretending another doesn’t exist, why don’t we work on all of them?

True, but we just have so much more to fix with women’s issues.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Point number #2 and point #4 are sometimes untrue.

When?

There are times we when feminists are attacking men and not just Patriarchy. There are times when it does seem like it is men vs. women.

Like… when?

Like how about when women go “men are pigs . . .”? Sorry, but I can’t think of any good examples and I am go searching. But I think it is fairly obvious that some extreme feminists attack men and not just patriarchy.

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.

The idea that there are no “good guys”

Still not seeing where someone argued this point.

I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it,

I didn’t put it that way, the article did.

because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.

read what I wrote above.

I did.

ok.

Cool.

Should it really be all that surprising that I would take that as an attack on all men and view it in a men vs. women kind of way??? The same is true for point #6. I especially can’t stand the attitude at the end of point #6, that is all about men vs. women and attacking men.

How so?

point #5 was basically looked like it was attacking all men and saying there weren’t any good ones. That sure seems like an attack on all men.

After reading the article a second time, I think I get your point now.

Thank you.

Sure.

I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally.

possibly, but that is not how it comes off to me.

Your problem. There’s more to writing than just the literal meaning of it.

I’m sure the author believes that there are good men out there, but she used the phrase “good guy” to illustrate what many men want to present themselves to the world as in these conversations.

I am sure there are plenty of men that wish to be seen one of the good guys when in reality they are not. The problem is, the way the article words point #5 comes off as attacking the real good guys along with the fake ones.

::shrug::

I think you’re reading it wrong, but there’s nothing I can really do about that.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.

Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.

Did you miss it when I said “There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.”? I think some think the privilege is the same was it was back in the 1950’s. Things have changed. Privilege isn’t what it used to be.

True, but it still exists.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

Before I would judge something as undermining my points, I would have to know exactly what she said and how she said it. I wouldn’t necessarily take her saying “not all women are like that” as undermining what I was saying.

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Maybe I just sick and tired of articles like this about sexism and racism. Maybe I am tired of being groups with men that act like assholes, just because I am one. I know I am sick and tired of being blamed for slavery and jim crow. I know I am sick and tired of being assumed that I am some sort of racist because I am white. I am sick and tired of being in the group that is blamed by some for all of society’s ills.

Yet again:

::shrug::

You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.

Maybe someone should tell the writer of the article to think about her words.

I’m not sure why you’re treating this article like it’s some offensive BS.

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?

Read? Listen?

I try. But maybe all groups need to do some reading and listening to the other group. Maybe some women could learn from experiences of when men were falsely accused of sexism or were victims of sexism themselves. Maybe some black people could learn from experiences of when white people were falsely accused of being racist or were victims of racism themselves.

The problems you’re pointing out here are compartively small boar to the problems minorities and women face all the time.

Maybe you don’t owe us, but if you want us to understand the lesson, you better teach it. Deciding not to teach the lesson because “nobody owes them” benefits no one.

You’re correct, that is a little weird.

But I will admit that “Not All Men” shouldn’t be used to excuse you when you are part of the problem. Finally of course the article has to bring up privilege. There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.

You are a white man. I bet that might distort your viewpoint.

no more than being black or a women would distort your viewpoint.

Not untrue, but I think you’re missing the point.

This is a conversation about women. Their views are the main object of this discussion.

Seems to me that men and all bad stuff they do was the object of the article.

Also forgotten is the very slight minor privilege women and black people have: They don’t get blamed for the acts of a few.

I’m sure that many times, women and minorities are blamed for the acts of a few.

When they are, the blamers are called sexist and racist and their complaints are ignored as such(and probably should be).

There are still millions of people in America that have regressive viewpoints, just like there are millions of people in America that eat DiGiorno Pizza.

agreed. But not everyone eats DiGiorno Pizza. This is true and it shouldn’t be wrong to say something that is truth.

Ok.

They don’t get blamed for acts that happened years before they were born. They don’t get articles like this written about them telling not bring up completely true facts like “Not All Men”.

As I said before, I’m sure these articles are being written. Maybe we just don’t read or see them, but I bet these sorts of views are held by many people.

Again, those that hold those view points about black people and women are called sexists and racists.

See above.

I responded above.

Ok.

I guess I grew up with a character flaw: I don’t think people are guilty due to their sex or race. I guess I listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech too many times. I was taught that stereotyping is wrong. Sorry.

There’s no need to be sorry. I think you get the wrong point from the article.

It is how the article comes across to me.

Well, there’s not much I can do about that.

agreed.

Ok.

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.

Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.

Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.

That was more of a rhetorical question.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.

Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.

Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.

Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.

a few of the whole = some

And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men. The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve. Men are still more privelleged than other groups.

Surprised nobody’s talking about Ivanka filling in for dad at the G20 table…

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Surprised nobody’s talking about Ivanka filling in for dad at the G20 table…

It’s not surprising. All that matters in Trump-land is if you’re a Trump.

Or if you’re not Tiffany.