yhwx

Handman said:

There is always this thought that just because something is done the same way it’s always been done, it should be done differently.

Not at all my argument. Things should be done differently when there’s a good reason for doing so.

In this case, I don’t see why anything should change. What’s the benefit? The effort and cultural shock that would result is far more work than benefit.

It’s just an unnecessary inequality. There’s no reason for it, so why not remove it? Sometimes you need to take controversial steps on these things.

A lot of these progressive ideas for men and women seem to be change for the sake of change rather than any real benefit for anybody.

The symbolic nature of these things is important too.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The rating system is awful and arbitrary, who cares what words they don’t like? Actually, the rating system legitimately is sexist. Exposed breasts of a woman will get you an R these days while the exposed chest of a man wouldn’t even push it to PG.

Have you visited a public pool or a non-nude beach? Have you noticed at those places men are topless but women are not? Men’s and Women’s bodies are different. A man topless is not nude. A woman topless is nude.

I’d be a lot happier if everyone kept their clothes on since most people, male or female, are quite unpleasant looking without garments, but there is no reason for male toplessness to be considered less “offensive” than female toplessness.

Men’s and women’s bodies are different.

Yes, but what’s the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple?

I’ll you what, I’ll post a pic of male nipple and you post a pic of a female nipple. Lets see if the mods treat it the same.

Yeah, I know. I just think that’s wrong.

It is that way society has worked for years and years.

Not a good argument. Living in caves was the way that society worked for years and years, but we decided to move out and make civilization.

Yes, but in all that time we still haven’t moved away from treating the male nipple differently than the female nipple.

Still a bad argument.

Just because we don’t see or understand the reason, doesn’t mean there isn’t a good reason. Humans don’t know everything about the way the universe works. Should we fix and change everything we don’t see a reason for?

I happen to think this little niche of human behavior is perfectly explainable by humans.

If a woman has breasts more like a typical man, should that be censored? What if a man had large breasts? This distinction is most arbitrary.

male breasts ≠ female breasts

But why‽

Because they are.

Sure, they’re different, but why should they be treated differently?

Because they’re different.

This is quite circular thinking.

Things that are the same get treated the same, things that are different get treated differently from each other.

What if a woman has small breasts and a man has large breasts?

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The rating system is awful and arbitrary, who cares what words they don’t like? Actually, the rating system legitimately is sexist. Exposed breasts of a woman will get you an R these days while the exposed chest of a man wouldn’t even push it to PG.

Have you visited a public pool or a non-nude beach? Have you noticed at those places men are topless but women are not? Men’s and Women’s bodies are different. A man topless is not nude. A woman topless is nude.

I’d be a lot happier if everyone kept their clothes on since most people, male or female, are quite unpleasant looking without garments, but there is no reason for male toplessness to be considered less “offensive” than female toplessness.

Men’s and women’s bodies are different.

Yes, but what’s the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple?

I’ll you what, I’ll post a pic of male nipple and you post a pic of a female nipple. Lets see if the mods treat it the same.

Yeah, I know. I just think that’s wrong.

It is that way society has worked for years and years.

Not a good argument. Living in caves was the way that society worked for years and years, but we decided to move out and make civilization.

Yes, but in all that time we still haven’t moved away from treating the male nipple differently than the female nipple.

Still a bad argument.

If a woman has breasts more like a typical man, should that be censored? What if a man had large breasts? This distinction is most arbitrary.

male breasts ≠ female breasts

But why‽

Because they are.

Sure, they’re different, but why should they be treated differently?

Because they’re different.

This is quite circular thinking.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The rating system is awful and arbitrary, who cares what words they don’t like? Actually, the rating system legitimately is sexist. Exposed breasts of a woman will get you an R these days while the exposed chest of a man wouldn’t even push it to PG.

Have you visited a public pool or a non-nude beach? Have you noticed at those places men are topless but women are not? Men’s and Women’s bodies are different. A man topless is not nude. A woman topless is nude.

I’d be a lot happier if everyone kept their clothes on since most people, male or female, are quite unpleasant looking without garments, but there is no reason for male toplessness to be considered less “offensive” than female toplessness.

Men’s and women’s bodies are different.

Yes, but what’s the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple?

I’ll you what, I’ll post a pic of male nipple and you post a pic of a female nipple. Lets see if the mods treat it the same.

Yeah, I know. I just think that’s wrong.

It is that way society has worked for years and years.

Not a good argument. Living in caves was the way that society worked for years and years, but we decided to move out and make civilization.

If a woman has breasts more like a typical man, should that be censored? What if a man had large breasts? This distinction is most arbitrary.

male breasts ≠ female breasts

But why‽

Because they are.

Sure, they’re different, but why should they be treated differently?

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The rating system is awful and arbitrary, who cares what words they don’t like? Actually, the rating system legitimately is sexist. Exposed breasts of a woman will get you an R these days while the exposed chest of a man wouldn’t even push it to PG.

Have you visited a public pool or a non-nude beach? Have you noticed at those places men are topless but women are not? Men’s and Women’s bodies are different. A man topless is not nude. A woman topless is nude.

I’d be a lot happier if everyone kept their clothes on since most people, male or female, are quite unpleasant looking without garments, but there is no reason for male toplessness to be considered less “offensive” than female toplessness.

Men’s and women’s bodies are different.

Yes, but what’s the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple?

I’ll you what, I’ll post a pic of male nipple and you post a pic of a female nipple. Lets see if the mods treat it the same.

Yeah, I know. I just think that’s wrong.

If a woman has breasts more like a typical man, should that be censored? What if a man had large breasts? This distinction is most arbitrary.

male breasts ≠ female breasts

But why‽

If even if you see no reason, you know that society considers female toplessness to be nudity while male toplessness isn’t.

We know—that’s what we’re duscussing, Ric.

*sigh*

Huh?

Alright. No further questions. You’re dismissed.

Do you just listen, or do sonething else at the same time?

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The rating system is awful and arbitrary, who cares what words they don’t like? Actually, the rating system legitimately is sexist. Exposed breasts of a woman will get you an R these days while the exposed chest of a man wouldn’t even push it to PG.

Have you visited a public pool or a non-nude beach? Have you noticed at those places men are topless but women are not? Men’s and Women’s bodies are different. A man topless is not nude. A woman topless is nude.

I’d be a lot happier if everyone kept their clothes on since most people, male or female, are quite unpleasant looking without garments, but there is no reason for male toplessness to be considered less “offensive” than female toplessness.

Men’s and women’s bodies are different.

Yes, but what’s the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple? If a woman has breasts more like a typical man, should that be censored? What if a man had large breasts? This distinction is most arbitrary.

If even if you see no reason, you know that society considers female toplessness to be nudity while male toplessness isn’t.

We know—that’s what we’re duscussing, Ric.

How many albums do you listen to in a day?

Deja vu!

I always think I can save people from their misconceptions, and, like and behold, it never happens.

TV’s Frink said:

And yet I love this thread, so entertaining. See below.

MaximRecoil said:

Your concession is noted.

Do you know what “slang” means?

it’s also comically ironic, coming from an admitted misandrist.

Already confuted.

irrelevant to this argument.

Your post indicates otherwise.

Arguments are a bit more entertaining when you step away from them.

Speaking of the FCC…

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/rip-net-neutrality-fcc-chair-releases-plan-to-deregulate-isps/

The Federal Communications Commission today announced its plan to deregulate the broadband industry and eliminate net neutrality rules, setting up a December 14 vote to finalize the repeal.

As expected, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to reverse the commission’s classification of home and mobile ISPs as common carriers, eliminating the legal justification for the net neutrality rules and numerous other consumer protections. The Republican-controlled FCC is likely to vote 3-2 along party lines in favor of Pai’s plan at its regular monthly meeting in December, ignoring Internet users who voiced widespread support for net neutrality rules.

Pai’s decision is a big win for cable companies, telcos, and mobile carriers that will no longer face regulation of their broadband businesses under Title II of the Communications Act. Pai ignored numerous calls from consumer advocates, website operators, and Internet users who urged the FCC to preserve the rules that force Internet providers to treat all Web content fairly.

Pai was on the losing end of a 3-2 vote in 2015 that imposed Title II regulations, including net neutrality rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. He started the repeal process shortly after President Trump appointed him chairman this year.

Today, Pai said that he intends to eliminate the core net neutrality rules while preserving some requirements that ISPs inform consumers about their network management practices.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet,” Pai said in a statement today. “Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.”

This is just stupid. There is no good argument for repealing these rules, and Ajit Pai is just wrong.

For those whose browsers do not support the webp format.

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I guess my hangup is that there is one specific gendered insult that is supposed to be far, far worse than any other, even other female-gendered insults, and is unacceptable in any context for very vague reasons of nondescript power dynamics and vague references to “history”. I know about the historical oppression of women, but why this word rather than any other?

I’m pretty sure it’s the same reason that “fuck” is a lot worse than “shit”.

Perhaps to a soccer mom it is, but like yhwx said, they’re kind of on par with each other. I’d say those two are considered worse because of what they literally mean, but then that brings up the hypocrisy of people considering “crap” worse than “shit” so, like I said, the only consistent way to handle this stuff is to either say they’re all okay, or they all aren’t. OR even better, you take it on a case by case basis. Did the person saying it use it in a way that made him asshole? If no, then move on. If yes, then, well, move on but remember that that guy is an asshole.

Fuck is definitely worse than shit. Which gets you an R-rating?

Huh. People clearly have different ideas of the badness of swear words.

I can see how you would argue that fuck is worse than shit, considering our attitudes towards sex in our culture.

Possessed said:

You can say ass and you can say hole but you can’t say asshole.

You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose but you can’t pick your friends’ nose.

Ricy

Jeebus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I guess my hangup is that there is one specific gendered insult that is supposed to be far, far worse than any other, even other female-gendered insults, and is unacceptable in any context for very vague reasons of nondescript power dynamics and vague references to “history”. I know about the historical oppression of women, but why this word rather than any other?

I’m pretty sure it’s the same reason that “fuck” is a lot worse than “shit”.

Is it? I would equate them if creating a scale of swear words.

So I’m watching this Moore press conference thing. They’re doing the stupid hand-writing analysis argument now.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Wikipedia editors can decide what sources to choose and how to interpolate that information, m’kay?

And please don’t “well, actually” me again and say how technically it isn’t allowed under the rules. The thing is, when a majority of people in a group are men, the group is going to collectively hold masculine viewpoints. And those viewpoints can be wrong and toxic.

Take your misandry somewhere else. It doesn’t make for a valid argument.

Ahahahaha. Nice.

My new user title here would be “Chief Misandrist.”

Sure, there’s weight given to people with especially large and coveted megaphones. But there’s still some weight given to those who have less social standing. Otherwise, slang terms wouldn’t make it into the dictionary.

Which is why it’s considered slang to begin with, because it hasn’t reached the status of a generally accepted word.

But it’s still in the dictionary.

Since you seem to have lost interest in reasonable discussion (did you ever have it in the first place), here’s the main points in nice, bullet-point form:

• The term “Mary Sue” is used in a misogynist way, regardless of how it was originally intended
• The term is a product of the sexist society that we live in
• Try not to say Mary Sue. It’s an offensive term.
• Wikipedia is a great source for information, but its internal process has many problems
• I am not a misandrist.

Now, good day, sir. I will not be engaging with you further.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
If you excerpted Wikipedia, then that is the source.

No, it isn’t. The information in the opening paragraph that I quoted is all included in the sources that they cited. There is no “original research” included.

If you want to be this pedantic about it, I guess I can’t stop you.

Wikipedia editors can interpolate the primary sources however they feel fit, since all writing is open to interpretation.

No, it doesn’t work that way. If you write something that doesn’t reflect the source you sited, it can be removed because it is considered “original research”, and interpolation is considered “synthesis”, and is also against policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

Seems like you ignored my request to not have you explain to me the rules of Wikipedia.

Do you believe the use of the word “decimated” to destroy a large part of something rather than to kill one out of every ten people to be a misapplication?

It depends on when it was said. Correctness of an application is relative to what’s correct at the time that it was applied. Words in the English language acquire definitions based on usage, with extra weight given to notable usage, as I mentioned in my previous post.

So I guess you agree with me.

It has, in some parts of the Internet.

“Some parts of the internet” is meaningless. It takes more than some misapplications here and there by nobodies to establish a new sense of a term.

I guess I muddied the waters with talking about dictionaries and such, but honestly, I don’t care about whatever the dictionary definition of “Mary Sue” is. I just know the way it’s being used, and that’s all that matters in this argument.

Gosh, you really go on about Wesley Crusher a lot.

And you ignore it a lot, due to special pleading, which is a fallacy.

My use of a fallacy does not invalidate my argument.

Internet argument are like quicksand: Once you take a dip in, it’s very difficult to pull out.

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Holy shit, did you not read the last two sentences of that section that you just quoted. I clarified my intention there!

It doesn’t matter what you claim your intention was. The fact remains that pointing out that Wikipedia editors are primarily male is nonsensical, given that they aren’t the source of the information in the first place.

Wikipedia editors can decide what sources to choose and how to interpolate that information, m’kay?

And please don’t “well, actually” me again and say how technically it isn’t allowed under the rules. The thing is, when a majority of people in a group are men, the group is going to collectively hold masculine viewpoints. And those viewpoints can be wrong and toxic.

Logically, I guess, but it is still an extremely toxic attitude to take.

How can something that is logical be “toxic”?

You could make an argument that eugenics is logical. It’s still toxic.

I’d rather refer this issue to the women rather than you, thank you very much.

Since “the women” don’t define the English language, nor are they a hive mind, this statement of yours is nonsensical.

The reliable sources are based on how people generally use words.

That’s how all words in the English language are defined, with extra weight given to notable usage, such as by people like Kat Feete who is a writer, and speaks about how the term is used in the publishing world and writing community, both of which also constitute notable usage, given that it is a writing trope to begin with. Usage in e.g., YouTube comments does not constitute notable usage.

Sure, there’s weight given to people with especially large and coveted megaphones. But there’s still some weight given to those who have less social standing. Otherwise, slang terms wouldn’t make it into the dictionary.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

yhwx said:

Is ‘dick’ as bad an insult?

To even imply that it might be would be to be completely ignorant of our culture’s history of misogyny.

Either all gendered insults are okay or they’re all unacceptable. I say they’re all okay. That same standard should be applied to all categories by the way.

DominicCobb said:

yhwx said:

Is ‘dick’ as bad an insult?

To even imply that it might be would be to be completely ignorant of our culture’s history of misogyny.

Maybe in the future if men and women swap power dynamics then “dick” will be unacceptable. Ideally, we’d live in a truly equal world, but even then we’d have to be generations removed to get away from the history of the words. But yes, in this ideal future, gendered insults would all be okay. But that’s not the world we live in now.

This is a good post.

MaximRecoil said:

adywan said:

You keep going back to wikipedia to say we’re all wrong about how Mary Sue is a derogatory term used towards female characters, yet you seem to have ignored this one paragrpah in that same wiki entry

Wikipedia isn’t the source. I’ve only posted two excerpts from Wikipedia, both of which are sourced from other places, primarily this site:

http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue30/marysue.htm

“Christine Scodari, a researcher in media studies from gender perspective, noticed a tendency within slash fandom to label major female characters (e.g. Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot) as “Mary Sues” because the slash fans “begrudged” how the development of the female character takes away screen time from slashable male characters.[16]”

If you excerpted Wikipedia, then that is the source. Wikipedia editors can interpolate the primary sources however they feel fit, since all writing is open to interpretation.

Only correct application of the term is relevant. Every word/term in the English language has been misapplied by someone, somewhere, countless times.

Do you believe the use of the word “decimated” to destroy a large part of something rather than to kill one out of every ten people to be a misapplication?

Like i said before, just because a word or term originated with a certain meaning does not mean that , after time, it can’t become something that becomes commonly used as a derogatory term towards a race or sex. It is more widely used as in derogatory form towards female characters that it is used in its original meaning. You only have to go on certain forums and sites to see just how many use it because they hate the “female agenda” in Hollywood as they see it. The comments section on youtube alone since TFA came out was littered with the comments using “Mary Sue” in a derogatory fashion.

The reasons given for Rey being a Mary Sue have nothing to do with her sex. And whether or not a “female agenda” resulted in the creation of a Mary Sue is a completely different argument. Rey is a Mary Sue regardless of what led to her creation. If your theory were true, people would commonly be calling all female leads in major works of fiction “Mary Sues”, yet that hasn’t happened.

It has, in some parts of the Internet.

Additionally, there wouldn’t be any male Mary Sues, but in reality, the most famous one until Rey came along was Wesley Crusher.

Gosh, you really go on about Wesley Crusher a lot.