Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ApostateltsopA said:
2, Very briefly on the limerick and that other word. The words in the limerick were gendered, the other word (That gets used a lot) isn't. That is a meaningful distinction.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Even if 'wanker' was gendered, it is referring to the banker, and in a non-sexual way; in that case, the only sexism would be assuming that the banker was male. There would still be no sexual harassment.
 
zooterkin said:
Nonsense. Even if 'wanker' was gendered, it is referring to the banker, and in a non-sexual way; in that case, the only sexism would be assuming that the banker was male. There would still be no sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

A rough timeline of the limerick was this:

1. Limerick posted
2. "Target" of the limerick laughs about it
3. SJW says that it is offensive
4. Target says it wasn't
5. SJW says that all limericks are offensive because limericks are by their nature and invention sexualised and misogynist
6. Author denies being a misogynist
7. Mod says "Nobody called you a misogynist you WOMAN HATER!"
8. General argument about limericks
9. Someone claims that the word "wanker" means it was sexual.
10. Profit?
 
squealpiggy said:
A rough timeline of the limerick was this:

1. Limerick posted
2. "Target" of the limerick laughs about it
3. SJW says that it is offensive
4. Target says it wasn't
5. SJW says that all limericks are offensive because limericks are by their nature and invention sexualised and misogynist
6. Author denies being a misogynist
7. Mod says "Nobody called you a misogynist you WOMAN HATER!"
8. General argument about limericks
9. Someone claims that the word "wanker" means it was sexual.
10. Profit?
Click to expand...

Steps 3, 5 and 9 all occurred simultaneously in the 3rd post in the thread, and the first not by the OP.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Someone who is better with language than I am should write a translation based on the hypocritical I/You; sexy when I do it/sexist when you do it idea. For example:

I express my justified anger using robust language / You are an abusive *******

preferably using real examples of things A+ers have said.
Click to expand...

Irregular verbs are great. The third line would always be the same at A+:

I am showing you why you're wrong
You are 'splaining
Xe got the banhammer
 
zooterkin said:
What do they mean by 'trolling' in this context?
Click to expand...

It seems that they mean voting for the proposition they agree with. Which doesn't fit any definition of the word "trolling" that I've ever heard of, but then they do like to give words their own unique definition.
 
Oh, and...

squealpiggy said:
5. SJW says that all limericks are offensive because limericks are by their nature and invention sexualised and misogynist
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the invention of the limerick, but they were certainly popularised as nonsense poems for kids by Edward Lear. So the opposite is actually true.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It seems that they mean voting for the proposition they agree with. Which doesn't fit any definition of the word "trolling" that I've ever heard of, but then they do like to give words their own unique definition.
Click to expand...

oh, i forgot. trolling on a+ means holding a differing opinion. darn!
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Steps 3, 5 and 9 all occurred simultaneously in the 3rd post in the thread, and the first not by the OP.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction!

s_pepys said:
so, actually trolling, is encouraged at a+. as long as its them that are doing it.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4097

what a bunch of hypocrits!!
Click to expand...

The OP in that thread:

So the CBC in its infinite wisdom has decided to put up a poll about whether or not religious schools that accept government money should be given exemptions to the anti-bullying legislation - basically, they're polling for whether or not religious schools should be given carte blanche to make their school as toxic and hostile to GBLTQ students as possible.

... I don't normally try to troll polls, but this one? You bet your ass I will.

Why? Well, leaving aside that GBLTQ students' rights shouldn't be left to popular *********** vote, I grew up a bi kid in a rural, highly religious area. My school might've become religious in order to take advantage of such an exemption, as evidenced by:
Click to expand...

The CBC is the Canadian public broadcaster. It has no legislative power or ability. This is another online poll.

Furthermore the CBC is pretty left wing. It's not like SunTV or Fox News producing this poll.

One last point: Hand wringing about how you are losing the poll is silly when you consider that the probable reason for this is that there is a special interest group deliberately voting against you for the same reasons you are suggesting everyone goes to vote your way.

It's also worthy of mention that if the poll added a third choice "Polls are gay" then that third option would win by a landslide because the internet.
 
ApostateltsopA said:
<snip>

2, Very briefly on the limerick and that other word. The words in the limerick were gendered, the other word (That gets used a lot) isn't. That is a meaningful distinction. After that those in the thread made a far better case for the sexism, identified as subconscious and unintentional by consensus of the thread) than I can, I was learning while reading. Glob got the banhammer for the contentious way xie conducted themself afterword, see the capricious thread. Which also fielded several comments on use of the aforementioned pejorative.
<snip>
Click to expand...

I don’t want to pile on here, but there’s something I just don’t understand about the claim that ‘wanker’ (or any of several other terms) is sexist. Others have (rightly) noted how ‘wanker’ isn’t a gendered insult, however even if we allow for the purposes of discussion that it is, I don’t see how it makes the leap from ‘gendered’ to ‘sexist’. Unless we water down the definition of ‘sexist’ to where it covers anything which merely recognizes (without judging or ranking) application to one sex only, simply using a term (with no other context) does not make that leap. If the term is not being used in such a way as to imply all members of that sex have some negative quality, or that simply being that sex is itself negative, it’s not a sexist term.

Take, for example, the gendered insults ‘dick’ and [c-word]. When you call a person one of those two, the insult isn’t that they have the named body part. You’re not saying “when posting on this message board, try not to post as if you are inherently a bad person because you have a penis”. You’re saying “when posting on this message board, try not to be a dick”. Simply having a penis doesn’t make you a dick. Acting in an offensive manner is what makes you a dick.

For reasons that belong in their own thread, society has hung all sorts of negative connotations on certain body parts, or at least the waste elimination part of what they do. That, and their excessive use has moved things to where the words have taken on new meanings as simply insults in themselves, no other connotations needed. So even if we allow that ‘wanker’ is always and unarguably a masculine insult (which I don’t, but again just for discussion), that still does not rise to the level of sexism, as it in no way implies that ‘wankery’ is a trait both universally undesirable and present in each and every male on the planet. All wood burns (all wankers are male), but not everything that burns is wood (not all males are wankers). Calling someone a wanker implies something negative about them, beyond and independent of the fact that they must also be male.

If anything they’d have had a better case for saying ‘you shouldn’t use “wanker” like that because that’s sex-shaming. Masturbation is a healthy expression of sexuality, so don’t turn it into an insult’. That’d still have been seriously overboard language policing in my opinion, but at least the foundation of the argument would have had some sense to it.
 
Joe Random said:
So even if we allow that ‘wanker’ is always and unarguably a masculine insult (which I don’t, but again just for discussion), that still does not rise to the level of sexism, as it in no way implies that ‘wankery’ is a trait both universally undesirable and present in each and every male on the planet.
Click to expand...

There's only two types of men in the world. Wankers. And liars.
 
Luchog, I hope you feel better. No hurry on responding to this.

This
Anti-vaccination and AIDS/HIV Denialism In Sub-Saharan Africa
Click to expand...
Does not equal this
luchog said:
the violently xenophobic racism of the southern African cultures, which believe that anything brought by the "white devils" is inherently evil and aimed at their destruction, and opposes vaccinations and treatments for diseases that are killing hundreds of thousands of people every year.
Click to expand...

Imams in Nigeria have mounted horrifically destructive anti-vaccination campaigns. So have imams in Pakistan. President Mbeki's AIDS denialism was similarly horrible. But the article you cite lists his inspiration as "Peter Duesberg from Berkeley, California." President Zuma, who can be criticized on a number of issues, has not continued Mbeki's denalism.


the subtle, self-important, patronizing racism that creates a culture of victimhood, teaches that minorities cannot survive in their culture without the handouts and favoritism that are the White Man's Burden
Click to expand...

The article you cite on the "culture of victimhood" appears to be a bunch of unwarranted assertions from an article by an psychologist 20 years ago which heavily cites a ranty book written by a radio talk show host. In addition, it doesn't even point to "racism" as the source of this "culture of victimhood".
 
From what I read in that discussion, the only people who were actually "offended" (not simply concerned that people might take offense) all took offense to the term "young lady" and/or the offensiveness of offensive limericks starting with "there was a young lady from..."
Not that that makes more sense, but I'm fairly certain it's more true.
 
Last edited:
On trolling polls.... whatever "trolling" means in that respect...

Guys, be fair. We've loaded the results of pollls from various threads her on these forums. I'm not sure how easy it is to vote early/vote often on that one, but internet polls are a joke, anyway. Everyone knows how to get around the security on any public poll.

I'd lighten up on the hypocrisy accusations. There's enough that one can disagree with about A+ without manufacturing issues.
 
H'ethetheth said:
From what I read in that discussion, the only people who were actually "offended" (not simply concerned that people might take offense) all took offense to the term "young lady" and/or the offensiveness of offensive limericks starting with "there was a young lady from..."
Not that that makes more sense, but I'm fairly certain it's more true.
Click to expand...

All was fine with the limerick until one of the Illuminati came in and fired off a "that's sexist" comment which cued the subsequent social justice analysis, hivemind and pile on. The young lady thing came in at the end, sort of a last kick at the corpse, just to make it seem extra offensive.
 
Foolmewunz said:
On trolling polls.... whatever "trolling" means in that respect...

Guys, be fair. We've loaded the results of pollls from various threads her on these forums. I'm not sure how easy it is to vote early/vote often on that one, but internet polls are a joke, anyway. Everyone knows how to get around the security on any public poll.

I'd lighten up on the hypocrisy accusations. There's enough that one can disagree with about A+ without manufacturing issues.
Click to expand...

With those CBC polls, all you need do is vote, clear your cookies and then you can vote again. In an hour you can put in about 250 votes.

Hey, it's not like I have a fast cookie cleaner or ever done this. Oh no,,, I read it somewhere on the internet. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom