Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

After that those in the thread made a far better case for the sexism identified as subconscious and unintentional by consensus of the thread...

I'm not sure where you stand on that but it's complete and utter nonsense. Pseudoscience of the worst kind.

While I don't mind anyone expressing an opinion about how something might be perceived as sexist, thoughtless, insensitive and/or offensive, the idea that something is per se sexist even if there was no ill intent is repugnant.

Just focus on civility and equitable treatment of posters. You'll do fine, otherwise it's just a matter of who is in the in-crowd that gets to decide when someone is being unconsciously offensive. It's a fools errand.

 

[theprestige]

Well, there's a tension, right?

There's the speakers intent (which, realistically, isn't magic), and the listener's perception.

It's completely understandable that a listener might perceive offensive speech, and take offense even where the speaker intended none. And it's completely reasonable for the listener to point this out, and even explain why the speaker should more carefully consider what they say in the future.

This is a normal, healthy social interaction. Where it breaks down is where one or both parties perceive the other to be acting in bad faith.

I don't know whether Eowyn was acting in bad faith, with her gratuitous deconstruction of the limerick, but it certainly looked that way to me. I think it was a dick move, that pooped all over an otherwise inconsequential bit of fun. It pooped on the writer's enjoyment, and it pooped on the subject's enjoyment. It was uncharitable, and unnecessary.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, there's a tension, right?

There's the speakers intent (which, realistically, isn't magic), and the listener's perception.

It's completely understandable that a listener might perceive offensive speech, and take offense even where the speaker intended none. And it's completely reasonable for the listener to point this out, and even explain why the speaker should more carefully consider what they say in the future.

This is a normal, healthy social interaction. Where it breaks down is where one or both parties perceive the other to be acting in bad faith.

I don't think it even necessarily has to be that. Sometimes it's possible to take offence simply because you're wrong. Look at those who have complained about the use of the word "niggardly".

As you say, we can't tell whether Eowyn was knowingly trying to cause trouble by acting in bad faith, or whether her views have caused her to really see offence where none exists.

Point being that it's entirely possible to see offence not due to bad faith, but due to ignorance or bias instead.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think it even necessarily has to be that. Sometimes it's possible to take offence simply because you're wrong. Look at those who have complained about the use of the word "niggardly".

As you say, we can't tell whether Eowyn was knowingly trying to cause trouble by acting in bad faith, or whether her views have caused her to really see offence where none exists.

Point being that it's entirely possible to see offence not due to bad faith, but due to ignorance or bias instead.

One thing that kinda creeps me out about the limerick incident was how nonexistent the offense actually was.

Nobody knows that limericks are inherently sexist. If they did, Eowyn wouldn't have to explain it to them. The only people that know are the ones that have decoded the hidden meaning (or had it decoded for them).

So you have these people running around, not imbuing limericks with sexism (because they didn't know it was possible), and not taking offense at limericks (because they don't know the sexism is there--because it isn't). And then you have Eowyn explaining how the sexism nobody intended and nobody saw was secretly there if you choose to believe in it, and therefore everyone should be offended anyway.

How perverse is that?!

 

[Mr. Scott]

Remember Uncle Billy's razor. All this is superfluous. I once mistakenly called Sun Countess Sun Princess and was accused of infantilizing her. I kid you not. When I said it was accidental I was told 'intent isn't magic.' I think it is based on the way they apply it though. Their inner circle seems to have the ability to always know the intent of others. This authority is based on their extensive experience and 412 level science.

Yes, I remember that. You think there's some knight-errant^WP syndrome at work there, too? Someone who's not the victim rushing inappropriately to defend a victim who doesn't even know he/she is a victim. The purpose? To win SJW cred.

A knight-errant is a figure of medieval chivalric romance literature. The adjective errant (meaning "wandering, roving") indicates how the knight-errant would wander the land in search of adventures to prove his chivalric virtues, either in knightly duels (pas d'armes) or in some other pursuit of courtly love.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One thing that kinda creeps me out about the limerick incident was how nonexistent the offense actually was.

Nobody knows that limericks are inherently sexist. If they did, Eowyn wouldn't have to explain it to them. The only people that know are the ones that have decoded the hidden meaning (or had it decoded for them).

So you have these people running around, not imbuing limericks with sexism (because they didn't know it was possible), and not taking offense at limericks (because they don't know the sexism is there--because it isn't). And then you have Eowyn explaining how the sexism nobody intended and nobody saw was secretly there if you choose to believe in it, and therefore everyone should be offended anyway.

How perverse is that?!

It is actively looking for things to be offended by.

Or, at the very least, it shows a complete lack of critical thinking in that Eowyn might have genuinely been offended due to bias or ignorance, but then everybody else comes baaing along and unilaterally decides that if Eowyn has seen offence in it, then it must necessarily be offensive. There's no applying reason, there's no independent thought, it's simply believing something because someone has said it.

Either that or nobody believed it either, and everybody was just joining in in having a go because that's what passes for entertainment for them, which is even worse.

But you're right, whatever the reasons behind the offence, it's entirely manufactured. It doesn't withstand the slightest amount of critical thought, so people are either choosing not to apply critical thought to it, or they've drunk so much kool-aid that they genuinely cannot apply critical thought to it.

 

[jhunter1163]

One thing that kinda creeps me out about the limerick incident was how nonexistent the offense actually was.

Kinda reminds me of another incident, something about an elevator...

 

[RandFan]

Kinda reminds me of another incident, something about an elevator...

Uh, j, don't do that.

 

[squealpiggy]

Remember Uncle Billy's razor. All this is superfluous. I once mistakenly called Sun Countess Sun Princess and was accused of infantilizing her. I kid you not. When I said it was accidental I was told 'intent isn't magic.' I think it is based on the way they apply it though. Their inner circle seems to have the ability to always know the intent of others. This authority is based on their extensive experience and 412 level science.

I heard that their science level was over 9000!

I don't think it even necessarily has to be that. Sometimes it's possible to take offence simply because you're wrong. Look at those who have complained about the use of the word "niggardly".

I find your use of that word to be offensive. As someone who is reluctant to get my round in, make a charitable donation, or tip anything over the minimum amount I can get away with and not face societal ire, I found it presumptuous and thoughtless.

That is OUR WORD. OUR WORD.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I think it's less common, but I certainly wouldn't say "rarely".

I would say rarely or even never, as a Londoner. Maybe it's different in other parts of the UK, or even London.

 

[squealpiggy]

Uh, j, don't do that.

Don't cross the streams.

 

[RandFan]

I heard that their science level was over 9000!

 

[Krikkiter]

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".

In other words: tl;dr. I checked the cites to see if I approved. I don't.

And as opposed to all the mountains of evidence of "rape culture" "Schrodinger's Rapist" (wow wasn't that a well reference piece that the vast majority of SJW's tout as the basis for their schtick about how nasty men are) and "teh evil patriarchy."

Oh that's right, it's all on the interwebz. Ha ha... yeah.

 

[Stout]

No, that's not true. Eowyn's first post was the one that said it was sexual harassment (as opposed to merely "sexist") and that laid out that it was sexual harassment because a) it contained the words "young lady", and thus had something in common with sexist limericks and b) because it contained the word "wanker", which is necessarily sexual.

It's such a strange argument, saying that something that shares the form of something which is sexist is therefore also sexist. I mean, the A+ forum shares the same form as forums devoted to porn. Does that mean that the A+ forum is sexist?

I'm thinking there was some things missing from that split thread, but yes you're right young lady did come up. I was think more along the lines of Sun Countess's deconstruction later on.

It sure does serve as the perfect example of manufacturing victimhood, the culture of victimization. Even when the "victim" claims she's not felling like a victim, the SJWs do their best to convince her that she was/is.

 

[luchog]

So you have these people running around, not imbuing limericks with sexism (because they didn't know it was possible), and not taking offense at limericks (because they don't know the sexism is there--because it isn't). And then you have Eowyn explaining how the sexism nobody intended and nobody saw was secretly there if you choose to believe in it, and therefore everyone should be offended anyway.

How perverse is that?!

Maybe they believe that if they say it enough times it will magically become true.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Remember Uncle Billy's razor. All this is superfluous. I once mistakenly called Sun Countess Sun Princess and was accused of infantilizing her. I kid you not. When I said it was accidental I was told 'intent isn't magic.' I think it is based on the way they apply it though. Their inner circle seems to have the ability to always know the intent of others. This authority is based on their extensive experience and 412 level science.

I guess none of the geniuses at A+ watched The Love Boat when they were kids*, or are big fans of cruises. I assumed you slip was entirely Freudian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sun_Princess




* Actually, are any of them old enough to have watched TV in the late 70s/early 80s?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Just to reiterate what others have said, there is a difference between inference, implication, assumption and plain putting words in someone's mouth. For instance, when I referred to "traditional societies" people attacked me for being Eurocentric or for making universal claims for all traditional societies. When I said that eating healthily and cheaply were not mutually exclusive or that vegans don't require supplements or expensive, exotic imported foods to survive and posted articles to support my positions, people accused me of either not having the lived experience or having the lived experience from a privileged point of view and expecting everyone else to be able to do the same thing. Mr. Samsa, despite explicitly stating his position numerous time, was judged by the erroneous conclusions others had made about his statements rather than his actual statements.

An example:

B: I like bunnies.
A: Are you saying dogs are unholy monstrosities? Don't do that!
B: No! I said no such thing! I just like bunnies because I think they are cute.
A: Stop bunnysplaining and check your bunny privilege. If you continue you will be banned.
C: **** you, read the ******* 101!
B: But I don't hate dogs!
A: The implications of your post were clear, and many forum members were triggered. You need to step back, apologise, shut up and learn like Token Bunny Lover did.
etc...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I would say rarely or even never, as a Londoner. Maybe it's different in other parts of the UK, or even London.

Well, you certainly can't say never, given that I linked to 3 examples earlier in the thread.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

You know with this level of response to something on A+ you'd be calling it a dogpile

As I said, the words on the forum are the ones I went with. However my understanding of the term wank, one that is reinforced but not proven, with a quick online search (and comments here in thread) is that wanking is something male. Yes I see we can call anyone a wanker, probably even inanimate stuff, but the term, as I understand it, is male.

I would use the word bitch (female dog) as an example. Here in the US it is used to describe people of all genders, however usually along the binary and the meaning when you call a man bitch is very different from the meaning when it is applied to a woman. Men are being weak and effeminate if they are being a bitch, or one of the derivatives. Women are being overly aggressive, assertive or pushy.

So yes, the word can be used on anyone, but it has gendered connotations, nasty ones.

And there we have the essential fallacy of the SJW position. That anything and everything, no matter how innocuous on the surface, and be identified as "sexist", "racist", or whatever -ist is convenient, simply by claiming that it is subconsciously so. Simply by asserting that a particular word may have had a -ist (pronounced "dashist") connotation at some time and place in history, or had been used in a -ist way in some other context, that its use in the current context invariably means that the entire context is inherently sexist, albeit subconsciously and unintentionally. Or worse yet, based on the use of a gendered pronoun common to the language, even when it is used appropriately in context. (Woe to anyone who speaks a Romance language.)

I don't mind your emphasis, but your analysis is off. It's not because something was once used some way at some time. That is silly. It's because something reinforces the problematic aspects of the dominant culture. It's the same idea as removing things like, "In the name of holy god why are you doing that?!" Such a phrase reinforces the religious, read christian, aspect of the dominant culture.

Now if you don't realize the male, racist, gender binary... dashist aspects of our cultures you will see fighting them as silly, but they are documented in sociology and if you accept that A+ wants less of those things then using language to reduce their impact, and make their effects conscious makes sense.

This is woo of the highest order. Not only does it claim to know the innermost thoughts, the very core of a person's being, but to do so based exclusively on... what? A post or two on a web forum? Who needs a degree in Psychology and long-term case studies when an SJW can point out all your personal flaws in just a few seconds?

No, not woo at all. No one is claiming to recognize anyone's thoughts, but they can recognize problematic aspects of the culture, and language that reinforces them. That degree in psychology helps quite a lot actually. It's not about personal flaws, but societal ones.

The worst part is that it's clear that may people who abuse language in this way don't even believe it themselves. It's simply another tool to silence opposition. As evidenced by the stark raving inconsistency with which they apply it to their perceived enemies; while giving a free pass to themselves and their friends to use similarly sexual and ethno-centric language, accusing anyone who calls them on their hypocrisy of "tone policing".

The last bit here is pure hyperbole. You are projecting your bias and not looking at events as they occur, you are also expecting strangers to be treated identically as friends, which is absurd. (If you prefer you may read this as my view of the same events is substantially different from yours.)

I'm not sure where you stand on that but it's complete and utter nonsense. Pseudoscience of the worst kind.

While I don't mind anyone expressing an opinion about how something might be perceived as sexist, thoughtless, insensitive and/or offensive, the idea that something is per se sexist even if there was no ill intent is repugnant.

Just focus on civility and equitable treatment of posters. You'll do fine, otherwise it's just a matter of who is in the in-crowd that gets to decide when someone is being unconsciously offensive. It's a fools errand.

Why do you think something has to have intent to be sexist or racist or what have you? If I start calling people by a word that begins with N am I not being racist? Even if I don't know what it means or the connotation behind it? What if I hold doors for women only? I may be trying to be nice or have been taught chivalry, but am I not reinforcing the idea that women need to be sheltered and protected? What if I think that gay and lesbian are choices that people have made to be contentious and I oppose letting them get married, because I think they are lying? Am I not still a bigot?

Intent is important. It doesn't excuse misbehavior though. If I stretch and bump you, I will apologize. I had no intent to hit you, but you still got hit. Do you think people who yell at the people they bump into to watch where they are going are not being >expletive deleted<s?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Mr. Samsa, despite explicitly stating his position numerous time, was judged by the erroneous conclusions others had made about his statements rather than his actual statements.

Where your example falls down is the bunny-loving and dog-hating are not opposites of each other, whereas the opinions Mr. Samsa was being attacked for were the polar opposite of the opinion he explicitly said he held. So it's more like "I love bunnies", "why do you hate bunnies?", "I don't, I said I love bunnies", "well, when I read your statement of 'I love bunnies' I got the distinct impression that you meant that you hated them. You need to think about why you come across as if you hate bunnies"

Which is what led to the weird situation of the non-disabled Setar yelling at the deaf Mr. Samsa for not taking the feelings of deaf people into account. In fact, it's the same MO which led to a rape victim being banned for saying that he's better off being alive than dead.

If you can infer something from someone's post, then it must be there. If they tell you that that's not what they meant, said, or believe, then it's their fault for the way they communicate, rather than your fault for jumping to conclusions, regardless of whether or not the conclusion you've jumped to is the polar opposite of what they've explicitly said. It's a ridiculous situation in which a group of people have set it up so that they can claim anybody is saying anything they like, and in which they have absolutely no culpability for anything, nor any possibility of being wrong about anything. If they're shown to be wrong, then it's the other person's fault.