Arguments to Avoid

The place to ask questions about the basic values of Atheism Plus, feminism and social justice.

Arguments to Avoid

Postby SubMor » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:54 am

"Atheism+ should be called (whatever) instead."
    No, it really shouldn't. See these two forum threads and these two blog posts for more background reading.

"Privilege is the atheist version of original sin."
Siliddar wrote:They are both things that you didn't necessarily do, people you've never met are mad at you for ihttp://atheismplus.com/forums/posting. ... 7&p=11152t, people remind you of it often, and at first it seems like you're supposed to make up for it.

The difference that some people don't understand is, that privilege is something you should recognize and understand, not something that you should feel eternally guilty about and endlessly atone for. In recognizing your privilege, you will notice people that don't have that privilege, which gives you greater opportunity to help others.


"I've never seen it, so I don't think it really happens." See also: "I've never seen it, so I don't think it happens in my city/country/forum/etc."
ischemgeek wrote:I've never seen Mt Everest, but I recognize that it exists because there's plenty of evidence for the existance of Mt Everest.

    Your personal experience does not constitute a representative sample. That you may not have experienced a given phenomenon is not evidence that that phenomenon does not exist; it merely demonstrates that you have not encountered it. Discrimination happens where you live, even if you don't see it. Additionally, this is a multinational forum, so do not make assumption that we are talking about your locality.

"I don't think X is a problem." "I don't see why you're so upset about X." "I don't think we should be talking about X because it isn't that big a deal." etc.

    This is often an argument from incredulity: "I don't understand why X would be a problem, so it isn't a problem." That you may not find something particularly unpleasant does not mean other people don't (or shouldn't). The people you're talking to do think that X is a problem worth talking about, and they are upset by X, so an argument that stems from the privileged position of "X doesn't happen to me" or "I don't dislike X" adds nothing to the conversation and is very likely offensive. Telling people that their problems aren't real is invalidating and astoundingly rude. If you want to help, just keep that thought to yourself.

"Women/Females already have full equality."
    Actually, no.

    And don't call women "females." You have a lot of other words to choose from. When we're talking about human beings, let's not treat them like cattle. Okay? Okay.
tekanji wrote:Also: Using "females" as a noun for "female humans" is (generally) not OK out of a scientific context. In a non-science context it is dehumanizing and also is sexist because its counterpart ("males") is rarely used in similar settings. I assume that you are in favor of not doing shitty things to women, so I would be very appreciative if you would try to avoid using that word (at the very least when you participate here). Thanks!


"There is no more discrimination because discrimination is illegal."
ischemgeek wrote:"Because illegalizing them totally eliminated murder, arson, rape, assault, theft, larceny, fraud..."

    Seriously, you can't just make bigotry disappear by fiat. People still believe that crap. I know it's ridiculous, but they really do. And they act on it.

"I think everyone is equally oppressed in their own way."
ischemgeek wrote:There are people who advocate the killing and internment in concentration camps of people who are gay in this country. Show me somebody who says the same about straight people without intending it as hyperbole to illustrate the horror and absurdity of what the previous people are actually seriously suggesting.


"What about men's troubles?" or "Feminism is sexist!" etc.

"Misandry is a serious problem." or "Misandry is just as bad as misogyny."
Flewellyn wrote:Men who step outside of patriarchal norms certainly are punished for it, by the patriarchal forces in society. Those are the very same forces which punish women for stepping outside of their assigned roles, too. So the problems you are facing are not "misandry", but the fact that patriarchy hurts men, too.

Misandry, for the purposes I'm using here, is "hatred of men for being men", not "hatred of men who violate societal norms of what men should be and do". The latter is just patriarchy rearing its ugly head again.

Basically, men have systematic advantages solely by virtue of being men; everyone else lacks these advantages (and thus everyone else is automatically disadvantaged). In order for men to experience similar obstacles, they have to act in a way that invites rebuke for defying stereotypical masculinity. (Yes, this is an oversimplification.)

"I read Schrödinger’s Rapist, and it's unfair/sexist/hateful/etc. that women assume I'm a rapist. I'm not a rapist!"
ischemgeek wrote:Schrodinger's Rapist isn't saying that men are ebil nasty potential rapists, nor is it trying to shame men for being men, nor is it trying to relegate men to second-class status by demonizing them. It's not a statement on the nature of men, it's saying that society is set up so that women have no choice but to view each man with wary suspicion because the consequences of trusting a dangerous man are so much greater than mistrusting a safe one. Not just that the dangerous man might assault us, but also the social fallout of ineffective law enforcement, victim-blaming, stigmatization, etc.
IE: "Schrodinger's Rapist" says "This is a problem," not "Men are evil and women should be afraid of them." It's a "this is how the world is" statement, not "this is how men are."

piegasm wrote:Schroedinger's Rapist says nothing other than "women have no way to know if you're a rapist or not until you attempt to rape them (or not) when given the opportunity." It's just an appeal to men to recognize and acknowledge that rapists do not have "rapist" tatooed across their foreheads and to please consider how your actions appear to women.

smhll wrote:Packages left on the subway or on trains in Britain are assumed to be bombs, even though it's probably more common that something was left by accident. But the downside risk is major.


"The words 'man', 'men', 'male', etc. refer to every man; therefore, any statement which contains any of those words and is not complimentary is sexist."
piegasm wrote:I've actually seen men attempt to argue that they cannot possibly be expected to understand that a statement which doesn't describe them is not directed at them unless the speaker/writer explicitly declares that they're only speaking to those who fit the description. Formally this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.


"I don't want to dismiss your experience, but ..." "I don't want to sound sexist, but ..."
    But you're about to do it anyway? Just stop. If you can't say that thing without being dismissive/sexist, do not say that thing.

"That totally ~ist thing I just said was just a joke!" (sexist, racist, ableist, cissexist, fattist, something-phobic, etc.)
jinxybunny wrote:More Than “Just a Joke”: The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor-- Exposure to (or repeating of) sexist humor makes men who have sexist attitudes more likely to discriminate against women
Exposure to Sexist Humor and Rape Proclivity: The Moderator Effect of Aversiveness Ratings-- Exposure to and enjoyment of sexist humor increases rape proclivity
The Enjoyment of Sexist Humor, Rape Attitudes, and Relationship Aggression in College Students-- Enjoyment of sexist humor was positively correlated with rape-related attitudes and beliefs, the self-reported likelihood of forcing sex, and psychological, physical, and sexual aggression in men.
Social consequences of disparagement humor: a prejudiced norm theory-- Disparagement humor (e.g., sexist jokes) creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination

ischemgeek wrote:No, it's not. It's really not. Disparagement humor serves to normalize and trivialize prejudices.

The above-linked examples mainly concern sexism, but the same is true of racist humor.

"Your experiences as a person without privilege do not coincide with my preconceived notions as a person with privilege and so you're either wrong about your experiences or lying."
ischemgeek wrote:If someone's experiences do not work with your preconceived notions on an area where you have zero personal experience, chances are it's your beliefs that are wrong, not their experiences.


"A is easy, you just..." / "But isn't it rather simple to do B?" / "Surely that's not so difficult, you only need to do C." / "How hard can it be to D?"
Eowyn Entwife wrote:There are very few situations (if any) where an argument like those^^ does not step on someone's toes. Assuming that something is universally easy to do almost certainly is ableist, so don't do it. Our members have several kinds of disabilities with receiving and/or processing sensory input (e.g. hearing, seeing, reading, listening...), with producing and/or delivering sensory output (e.g. speaking, typing, drawing...), with moving around (e.g. difficulties with speed, agility or reach), with coping in social situations (e.g. due to anxiety, triggers or bullying), with allergies and other sensitivities (some of which can be lethal) etc. etc. etc. If you assume that something is naturally easy to do, you almost certainly have unaware/undiscovered/unowned privilege, and you would do well to lurk more.


"There is no unified message."


"Atheism+ is divisive."
Greta Christina wrote:Face it. This community is already divided. And it is divided in a way that is making many, many women feel cut out. ... So why is it that forming a subset of atheism that prioritizes the inclusion of women, over the inclusion of hateful, misogynist assholes, is what’s being seen as “divisive”?

    We can't kick anyone out of "the atheism movement," and we're not trying to do so. We're creating a subset of atheists who care about social justice issues. That's a specialization, not a division.

"You don't allow any debate!"" "Dissent is not tolerated!" etc.

Eowyn Entwife wrote:One of the main motives driving this forum community is learning. Our experience is that debate, when it is done in the spirit of constructive Socratic questioning and when arguments are supported with facts, nourishes, speeds up and enhances learning. However, our experience also is that debate, when it is done as a competitive sport, where the goal is for one point of view to win and the other point(s) of view to lose, is in direct conflict with learning, because the competitiveness encourages non-listening, stubbornly repeating arguments without actually supporting them with new facts, and using various rhetorical tricks that strive only to manipulate the opposition, not to bring new light on the issue.

Debate as a learning discussion we strongly encourage. Debate as competitive sport we strongly discourage.


"Why should I care about social justice issues? I'm not hurting anyone."
    Are you sure you know where your feet are?
    Get off my foot. [ Show ]
    Hershele Ostropoler wrote:If you step on my foot, you need to get off my foot.

    If you step on my foot without meaning to, you need to get off my foot.

    If you step on my foot without realizing it, you need to get off my foot.

    If everyone in your culture steps on feet, your culture is horrible, and you need to get off my foot.

    If you have foot-stepping disease, and it makes you unaware you’re stepping on feet, you need to get off my foot. If an event has rules designed to keep people from stepping on feet, you need to follow them. If you think that even with the rules, you won’t be able to avoid stepping on people’s feet, absent yourself from the event until you work something out.

    If you’re a serial foot-stepper, and you feel you’re entitled to step on people’s feet because you’re just that awesome and they’re not really people anyway, you’re a bad person and you don’t get to use any of those excuses, limited as they are. And moreover, you need to get off my foot.

    See, that’s why I don’t get the focus on classifying harassers and figuring out their motives. The victims are just as harassed either way.

"groupthink" / "us vs them mentality" / "party line" / "you don't accept people who disagree" / etc.
    Participation is voluntary. The only "them" would be 1) would-be theocrats or 2) people who are willfully bigoted. If you don't fall into either of these categories, you are not our "them." As to "not accepting people who disagree," why would we want to accept theocrats or bigots?

    A+ thread: What's so threatening about feminism?

"Equal rights means equal responsibilities!"
    Underprivileged groups are not in that position due to a lack of responsibility. Furthermore, rights are legal constructs that apply to people and, as such, are not correlated with responsibilities.

"Free speech!"
ischemgeek wrote:Free speech means you can say what you want without facing government censorship. It means you can yell on a street corner until your vocal cords give out. It does not mean I have to give you a soapbox to stand on and a megaphone to ampliphy your voice, nor does it mean that I have to let you into my living room to yell for as long as you feel like yelling. If you want to yell about something, get your own soap box and yell about it. Or yell about it in your own living room.


"First world problems!" or "There are bigger problems in the world!" or "You don't really have it so bad!"
ischemgeek wrote:Dear Muslima was a specific case of this. In short: "This more severe problem exists, therefore we should ignore your problems!" Which is foolish: Murder is a more severe crime than assault, but you don't see our justice system exclusively punishing murderers and letting those who assault people walk free, do you? It's the same here. We can work to solve less serious problems at the same time as we work on more serious ones.


"'Affirmative Action' is reverse racism!"
ACLUFL wrote:Q: Isn't affirmative action "reverse discrimination" against white men? Why should someone's race or gender be made an issue in jobs or education anyway?
A: Affirmative action policies have not made issues of race and gender. Rather, longstanding policies and practices that discriminate against nonwhite people and women are what have made issues of race and gender. Affirmative action aims to remedy such discrimination.


"Slavery was a long time ago."
rigorist wrote:Two lifetimes is not a long time. And considering the prevalence of debt peonage and sunset laws, "slavery" didn't end until (pick some date in the mid-20th century).


Arguments based solely on Merriam-Webster, Oxford or even the Urban Dictionary

In general, definitions used here are sociological definitions, as provided in our glossary. Any argument that requires redefining a word away from its agreed-upon definition or protesting a previously agreed-upon definition should be avoided.

Eowyn Entwife wrote:Because hashing and re-re-re-re-re-re-...-rehashing what definitions of words we should use here contributes nothing, nada, zilch to the content of the discussion. Especially when the regulars have already in September agreed on and by October-November codified what kind of definitions to use and what not to use on this forum.


The following are not "arguments," but they are common tropes that we're all sick of answering a million times:
(Yes, it's possible for these things to be raised in good faith, but they still tend to be ill-received for their repetitiveness.)

Saying "don't feed the trolls"
    There are many reasons why responding to a deliberately provocative comment is the right thing to do. For example, it may be necessary to refute a believable lie or to challenge a particular prejudice. Replying to a thoughtful rebuttal with that tedious cliché is patronizing, and dismisses other people's concerns as unimportant. Bear in mind that what may appear to be trivial insults to you, may be deeply hurtful comments to someone else.
Blaming the victim
    Wrong because it puts the blame in the wrong spot. A victim isn't at fault no matter where they were, what they were wearing and what they were doing because for them to be hurt, someone had to make the decision to hurt them.* Furthermore, this sentiment puts the onus on the victim to avoid victimization, rather than on the perpetrator to not hurt people. See this thread for more.
Lecturing women on staying safe
    Blaming the victim, with some sexism thrown in. Someone who does this assumes women are incompetent at evaluating their risk and taking steps to mitigate it (while placing the onus on them to mitigate risk, rather than on those who would attack them to not attack people).
Saying "not all X are like that"
    When someone complains about a serious problem, it is rarely helpful to complain that the scope of the problem has not been delineated with mathematical precision. For example, if someone gives an account of sexual harassment, replying with “not all men are like that” gives the impression that you care more about being vaguely implicated, than you do about the actual harassment.
Gloating about prison rape
    No one deserves to be raped, including prison inmates. Rape is a despicable act, regardless of context. Don't joke about it.
Being pedantic about the word "troll"
    The word "troll" has multiple definitions, including an obnoxious and disruptive poster. Insisting upon pedantic definitions, based on the word's origin, is not a helpful contribution to discussions about disruptive posters.
Policing tone (aka "tone trolling")
    Reasonable people don't always agree with each other, and in the course of our disagreements, we sometimes swear (some of us actually do it a lot). Someone who is angry with you may very well swear in the midst of an argument. Do not try to be the Tone Police. Especially do not ignore arguments in favor of criticizing someone for their tone. Being sworn at does not constitute abuse. The members of this forum reserve the right to call you out for being a disingenuous troll-faced asshole if that's what you're being.
Conflating social awkwardness with obnoxiousness
    Having poor social skills and behaving like a jerk are completely different things. The former can sometimes inadvertently lead to the latter, but the two are not intrinsically linked. Someone can be kind and considerate, but at the same time be poor at picking up social cues and appear shy and awkward in conversation. Similarly, a high functioning sociopath can be socially adept, but will use these skills to hurt and manipulate. Linking the two is offensive to awkward people who don’t behave like jerks, and provides an illegitimate excuse to those who deliberately behave like jerks.
Conflating autistic spectrum conditions with obnoxiousness
    Having an autistic spectrum condition is not the same as being a jerk. For the same reasons as above, conflating the two is deeply offensive. Asshole is not on the autism spectrum.
Countering insults about physical appearance with compliments
    If a person is taunted with abuse based on their physical appearance, it is tempting to reassure them with a warm compliment. This is perfectly understandable, but it can reinforce the prejudice behind the original insult. It implies that the abuse would have been justified, had the person been less attractive.
Defending insulting language
    If people take offence to a particular slur, then it is best to graciously withdraw it, and rephrase your argument. Remember that what may be a matter of semantics to you, may be a matter of dehumanisation versus acceptance for someone else.
Dismissing people's problems by appealing to greater problems
    For almost every problem, it is possible to find a substantially worse problem. This should not be used, however, to dismiss the original problem. For example, the plight of women under the Taliban is absolutely dreadful, but this doesn't mean that any problem faced by a western woman is trivial
"Talking about victimization/oppression is unhelpful and irresponsible."
    Talking about oppression isn't the problem. Oppression is the problem.
Changing the topic to less severe problems
    If a particular problem is being discussed, it is dismissive to generalise this into a conversation about less severe problems. Such problems may also be very important, but they should be discussed elsewhere. For example, a discussion about female genital mutilation should not degenerate into a debate about the morality of male circumcision.
"Educate me!" / "If you don't teach me, how will I learn?" - Demanding that an oppressed person be your personal tutor on issues of oppression
Last edited by SubMor on Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:35 am, edited 23 times in total.
Reason: Added racism links to just a joke
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Rum » Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:48 am

'Privilege and original sin - are they interchangeable concepts - discuss'.

Best avoided..
Rum
Banned User
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby SubMor » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:50 pm

Yes, I've seen that one too. It must be strange to live in a world where a comparison like that makes any sense at all.
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Rum » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:51 pm

If my world is strange that;'s your problem not mine. However it strikes me that there at at the very least some parallels. Original sin is inescapable in classic Christian dogma. It is also dogma of course. There's nothing short of handing your life over to Jesus that can help you escape from an eternity in hel you deserve because of original sin.

Similarly there are people here and elsewhere who subscribe to the dogma (for that is what it has become) that privilege is unavoidable if you are a person in a particular social place and happen to be male. You are damned whatever you do in other words. A whole class of people, through no fault of their own, no matter how liberal, open to others and progressive in their approach to life have become not only 'automatic oppressors' but also have any argument which counters that dogma demolished and very likely labelled as misogynistic.
Rum
Banned User
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:56 pm

A whole class of people, through no fault of their own, no matter how liberal, open to others and progressive in their approach to life have become not only 'automatic oppressors' but also have any argument which counters that dogma demolished and very likely labelled as misogynistic.


Yes, I vote that we add this as an argument to avoid, then send anyone who makes it to relevant threads, or to the Educational Links when they're up, to learn about what privilege actually is.

Edited: I'd probably suggest they read https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/ Of Dogs and Lizards first.
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Siliddar » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:05 pm

SubMor wrote:Yes, I've seen that one too. It must be strange to live in a world where a comparison like that makes any sense at all.


I imagine they seem very much like the same thing to people that don't fully understand Privilege. They are both things that you didn't necessarily do, people you've never met are mad at you for it, people remind you of it often, and at first it seems like you're supposed to make up for it.

The difference that some people don't understand is, that privilege is something you should recognize and understand, not something that you should feel eternally guilty about and endlessly atone for. In recognizing your privilege, you will notice people that don't have that privilege, which gives you greater opportunity to help others.
Flewellen, Grimalkin, Eowyn Entwife, Lovely, Cipher, and Maiforpeace wrote:Siliddar haet fun :(
User avatar
Siliddar
Sith Admin
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:37 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:14 pm

The difference that some people don't understand is, that privilege is something you should recognize and understand, not something that you should feel eternally guilty about and endlessly atone for. In recognizing your privilege, you will notice people that don't have that privilege, which gives you greater opportunity to help others.

And I am unashamedly stealing this for future reference :)
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Siliddar » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:17 pm

Stephen T wrote:
The difference that some people don't understand is, that privilege is something you should recognize and understand, not something that you should feel eternally guilty about and endlessly atone for. In recognizing your privilege, you will notice people that don't have that privilege, which gives you greater opportunity to help others.

And I am unashamedly stealing this for future reference :)


Not giving credit and paying me (lots of) royalties will earn you a perma-ban. :)
Flewellen, Grimalkin, Eowyn Entwife, Lovely, Cipher, and Maiforpeace wrote:Siliddar haet fun :(
User avatar
Siliddar
Sith Admin
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:37 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:20 pm

Siliddar wrote:
Stephen T wrote:
The difference that some people don't understand is, that privilege is something you should recognize and understand, not something that you should feel eternally guilty about and endlessly atone for. In recognizing your privilege, you will notice people that don't have that privilege, which gives you greater opportunity to help others.

And I am unashamedly stealing this for future reference :)


Not giving credit and paying me (lots of) royalties will earn you a perma-ban. :)

This comment has been reported for administrator abuse. :o


>USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:36 pm

Siliddar wrote:>USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST

Where do I send the royalties?
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby GodSlayer » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:36 am

Rum wrote:If my world is strange that;'s your problem not mine.


that's a good argument to avoid, indeed, since the shared goal of A+ is presumably not to oppress people against their will, but to educate people so that they will support changes you propound as good and just.
“Few people are prepared to use their reason without fear or favor, or bold enough to apply it relentlessly to every moral, political and social issue.”
— Chamfort
User avatar
GodSlayer
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby ischemgeek » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:02 am

"I've never seen it so I don't think it really happens."

I've never seen Mt Everest, but I recognize that it exists because there's plenty of evidence for the existance of Mt Everest.

"I think everyone is equally oppressed in their own way."

There are people who advocate the killing and internment in concentration camps of people who are gay in this country. Show me somebody who says the same about straight people without intending it as hyperbole to illustrate the horror and absurdity of what the previous people are actually seriously suggesting.
Image description of profile picture: A red d20 shown rolled to "1", with the caption "This is how I roll... unfortunately."
User avatar
ischemgeek
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby SubMor » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:42 am

Added both. I also grabbed a quick weblink for a resource for each. Additional resources will be added as provided.
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Rum » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:48 pm

Mod note: We already have plenty of topics for the discussion of privilege... see three stickies at the top of the Educational forum, for starters. Please keep this thread on-topic.

Siliddar wrote:
SubMor wrote:Yes, I've seen that one too. It must be strange to live in a world where a comparison like that makes any sense at all.


I imagine they seem very much like the same thing to people that don't fully understand Privilege. They are both things that you didn't necessarily do, people you've never met are mad at you for it, people remind you of it often, and at first it seems like you're supposed to make up for it.

The difference that some people don't understand is, that privilege is something you should recognize and understand, not something that you should feel eternally guilty about and endlessly atone for. In recognizing your privilege, you will notice people that don't have that privilege, which gives you greater opportunity to help others.


I am aware of the concept and have been for some time. I don't 'need' 'educating' either thank you very much.

The concept is, I agree, in theory value free, non-judgemental, neutral and dispassionate in an academic sense. That would be all well and good if that really was the case - or rather if those who love the rhetoric around these issues used it in that manner. Instead it is often used to attribute blame and responsibility, to hector an bully and perhaps more sadly to blame everyone else for one's own problems. I don't really have to quote as his place is dripping with self pity, self loathing and finger pointing. Be honest and admit it. Go on. Be honest.
Rum
Banned User
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby piegasm » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:53 pm

"Every use of the words "man", "men", "male", etc. must necessarily refer to every man who was ever born and ever will be born therefore any statement which contains any of those words or any variation thereof and is not complementary is sexist."

I've actually seen men attempt to argue that they cannot possibly be expected to understand that a statement which doesn't describe them is not directed at them unless the speaker/writer explicitly declares that they're only speaking to those who fit the description. Formally this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant. - Helen Keller
User avatar
piegasm
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:25 pm
Location: Rome, New York

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:40 pm

Why do women need special treatment / Women already have full equality.

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2005-11-22_72 has a nice list of why they don't.
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby SubMor » Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:23 pm

Good, good. I also took the opportunity to address teh menz.
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:27 pm

1. Sorry for the earlier derail. (Seems I've been unbanned now.) :)
2. Hadn't seen that link on teh menz before - thank you.

And another argument...
Schrödinger’s Rapist says all men are rapists.
Ok, I read Schrödinger’s Rapist, but I'm a nice guy.

101 response:
Schrödinger’s Rapist says women have no way of actually knowing if you're a nice guy and, unlike men, making sure they're safe is a constant part of their daily routine.
(Rushing out the door - you can probably phrase that much better.)
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby ischemgeek » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:55 pm

Stephen T wrote:1. Sorry for the earlier derail. (Seems I've been unbanned now.) :)
2. Hadn't seen that link on teh menz before - thank you.

And another argument...
Schrödinger’s Rapist says all men are rapists.
Ok, I read Schrödinger’s Rapist, but I'm a nice guy.

101 response:
Schrödinger’s Rapist says women have no way of actually knowing if you're a nice guy and, unlike men, making sure they're safe is a constant part of their daily routine.
(Rushing out the door - you can probably phrase that much better.)
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/


See also: Schrodinger's Rapist isn't a statement of ideology, it's an articulation of a problem.
Image description of profile picture: A red d20 shown rolled to "1", with the caption "This is how I roll... unfortunately."
User avatar
ischemgeek
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:39 am

ischemgeek wrote:See also: Schrodinger's Rapist isn't a statement of ideology, it's an articulation of a problem.

Can you elucidate, please?
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby ischemgeek » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:18 am

Basically, I was sort of restating your argument: Schrodinger's Rapist isn't saying that men are ebil nasty potential rapists, nor is it trying to shame men for being men, nor is it trying to relegate men to second-class status by demonizing them. It's not a statement on the nature of men, it's saying that society is set up so that women have no choice but to view each man with wary suspicion because the consequences of trusting a dangerous man are so much greater than mistrusting a safe one. Not just that the dangerous man might assault us, but also the social fallout of ineffective law enforcement, victim-blaming, stigmatization, etc.

IE: "Schrodinger's Rapist" says "This is a problem," not "Men are evil and women should be afraid of them." It's a "this is how the world is" statement, not "this is how men are."

Don't mind me, I was posting on just-got-in-from-biking endorphin rush.
Image description of profile picture: A red d20 shown rolled to "1", with the caption "This is how I roll... unfortunately."
User avatar
ischemgeek
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:18 am

ischemgeek wrote:Basically, I was sort of restating your argument: Schrodinger's Rapist isn't saying that men are ebil nasty potential rapists, nor is it trying to shame men for being men, nor is it trying to relegate men to second-class status by demonizing them. It's not a statement on the nature of men, it's saying that society is set up so that women have no choice but to view each man with wary suspicion because the consequences of trusting a dangerous man are so much greater than mistrusting a safe one. Not just that the dangerous man might assault us, but also the social fallout of ineffective law enforcement, victim-blaming, stigmatization, etc.

IE: "Schrodinger's Rapist" says "This is a problem," not "Men are evil and women should be afraid of them." It's a "this is how the world is" statement, not "this is how men are."

Don't mind me, I was posting on just-got-in-from-biking endorphin rush.

Just got in from dinner - concentrated on the 'see also'! Looked at the forum (now two threads on SR that I hadn't seen), then it clicked. Beautifully put. Actually you should paste this on the relevent threads as well :)
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby GodSlayer » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:05 am

ischemgeek wrote:Schrodinger's Rapist isn't saying that men are ebil nasty potential rapists, nor is it trying to shame men for being men, nor is it trying to relegate men to second-class status by demonizing them. It's not a statement on the nature of men, it's saying that society is set up so that women have no choice but to view each man with wary suspicion because the consequences of trusting a dangerous man are so much greater than mistrusting a safe one.

IE: "Schrodinger's Rapist" says "This is a problem," not "Men are evil and women should be afraid of them." It's a "this is how the world is" statement, not "this is how men are."


is the same not true for men with women, men with men, women with women?

in which case, why not talk about 'Schrodinger's psycho girlfriend who cuts off penises' and 'Schrodingers homosexual predator', or 'Schrodingers vindictive melodrama badgering bitch who bullies women towards suicide'?

it's not saying this is how all men are, or how all gay men are, or how all women are... it's just a fact about how the world is. it seems skewed/unfair to pick on only one of these, when, in fact, all people are unknown quantities.
“Few people are prepared to use their reason without fear or favor, or bold enough to apply it relentlessly to every moral, political and social issue.”
— Chamfort
User avatar
GodSlayer
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby Stephen T » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:16 am

is the same not true for men with women, men with men, women with women?

No.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=968&hilit=jadehawk&start=25#p11853

And Jadehawk has kindly collected some links for you. :)

Edit: At the bottom of her post.
User avatar
Stephen T
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: The Philippines

Re: Arguments to Avoid

Postby GodSlayer » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:32 am

Stephen T wrote:
is the same not true for men with women, men with men, women with women?

No.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=968&hilit=jadehawk&start=25#p11853

And Jadehawk has kindly collected some links for you. :)

Edit: At the bottom of her post.


I don't think anything in there invalidates a man's feelings about real threats that are in the news every year. are you just meaning to talk a numbers game, here, or did I miss the argument?
“Few people are prepared to use their reason without fear or favor, or bold enough to apply it relentlessly to every moral, political and social issue.”
— Chamfort
User avatar
GodSlayer
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Next

Return to Information and answers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron