Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I remember one of the bloggers in an earlier drama using this bizarre rationalisation for the term. It was hilarious then, but it is just sad now. And, of course, there is the requisite accusation of 'splaining.

Heck, I personally think many vulgarities are simply childish bodyshaming. There are quite a few specifically for males body parts. I wonder how they feel about that?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Or because the former two are already insults, whereas the latter isn't.

I don't see why you think that coining a new usage for a term wouldn't be Newspeak, whereas using a widely-used term how it's commonly used is. Or, indeed, how using a term how it's commonly used is speaking in code, whereas coining a neologism wouldn't be. That seems arse-backwards to me.

Errr, I know it's not used and I'm not really promoting a coinage. (BTW, is that use of "coinage" now acceptable? I'll have to look it up. Language nazis used to berate people for it. I've always used it that way, too.) I was just making an example that didn't have gender association but had the ick factor going.

@Mr. Scott - 201s is a dig at them for their constant belittling of neophytes as 101s, or to be more accurate to their repetition that "this isn't a place to discuss 101 level stuff - read the basket o' links"). 101 is the designation of courses in college which are generally Introduction To.... (Psychology, Archaeology, Music Theory, Whatever).

201 level courses are really not that much better than some of the intro courses and frankly, their "expertise" and experience in Social Justice, seems to be right about at that level. They know a little more than the beginners and they flaunt it and like to think they're experts when in reality they're making it up as they go along.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You need to be in full cognitive dissonance to think "douche" is not sexist, since it literally refers to a disgusting excretion of women.

No it doesn't.

 

[Diogenes]

...I wonder how they feel about that?

They felt perfectly fine with "Don't be a dick." for a few months.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Errr, I know it's not used and I'm not really promoting a coinage. (BTW, is that use of "coinage" now acceptable? I'll have to look it up. Language nazis used to berate people for it. I've always used it that way, too.) I was just making an example that didn't have gender association but had the ick factor going.

So you can understand why they use it, then, and how it's not speaking in code or Newspeak.

 

[Stout]

Yeah, apparently it is not cool to object to an article and sentiments which burn cops in general as thuggish nazi soldiers worthy of our scorn collectively, because if you do object then... well, you're stepping on someone's bad experiences with cops. How is this different from objecting to irrational hate by someone, who's been robbed or beaten by a black man, bandies together with other's who share their experience and scream bloody murder against black people in general??

Darn, I said "black people", should've been "brown people" no?

And then it got really weird.

Setar comes in with not only a full on nazi comparison (not that interesting one they'd used in the article he linked to ) that culminated in his comparing anybody who thinks not all cops are bad to Holocaust deniers and racists.

Kaissaine pipes in with an accusation of police brutality when she had an epileptic seizure in public and accuses Cornelius of gaslighting.

Cops are bad mmmmmmmkay. Yes, a skeptic and critical thinker tends to avoid those types of generalizations.

There's one other bit of interesting stupid on that thread too, where the chemgeek says that parents don't tell their children to go find a cop if they're in trouble because those parents are distrustful of the police. That's false, she just made that up. The reality is that, in this day and age, children are never more than 50 meters from an adult so are very unlikely to find themselves alone and in need of assistance.

Recess at school is supervised, as is lunch play time. children have to be signed out of class at the end of the day by a parent. There's no just going out and wandering around in public like there was when *we* were kids. Couple that with the fact that it would be difficult for a lost child to even find a cop as they no longer walk a beat and usually,m if a child is old enough to be out alone, then chances are they have a cellphone anyway, so just call mommy or daddy. There's no need to give that advice to a child anymore, it's not the '80s anymore.

 

[Mr. Scott]

No it doesn't.

What does it, then? How about douche bag? When someone says "you're a douche" or "you're a douche bag" what images understandably come to mind?

Or, are you refuting the full bore cognitive dissonance that denies douche is sexist?

 

[Stout]

I follow the arguments, but I think it's promoting Newspeak. Poor Zeitguest reacted like most of the population would react if you were to use the term... think it's a little smutty and quite a lot comparing the person to a feminine hygiene treatment/product. Why douche or douchebag instead of enema? Because the former has gender connotations, I feel.

Douchebag rolls off the tongue quite nicely as opposed to, say ennemabag, which is clunky and awkward.

The other SJ forum I read and have read for years has outlawed the term based on it being a gendered insult. Zeitguest appears to be a seasoned SJW and I wonder if he realizes he's in amongst noobs.

Speaking of....that other SJW board got trolled in the worst way possible last night. Kiddie porn. Link is safe to click, it goes to the forum thread on it and, contrary to the Aplussers opinions on the police ( come to think of it also contrary to their opinions of the police) ..actually called the cops.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What does it, then? How about douche bag? When someone says "you're a douche" or "you're a douche bag" what images understandably come to mind?

The image that comes to mind when somebody uses the word "douche" is of a douche. A douche is not, as you asserted, "a disgusting excretion of women".

Or, are you refuting the full bore cognitive dissonance that denies douche is sexist?

You'll have to do more than simply assert that it is sexist if you want to convince me that it is.

 

[Diogenes]

...

You'll have to do more than simply assert that it is sexist if you want to convince me that it is.

I don't know from sexist but I don't see how any insult/ad hominem is particularly useful for any kind of legitimate discussion. Just seems like part of the overall out-group identification where the in-group needs to dehumanize the out-group. (not a sociologist so might be getting that wrong) Dehumanization through "privilege-shaming" is already de rigueur there as is the use of "misogyny".

(Yeah, they probably won't recognize their use of privilege as "privilege-shaming" but that's what it looks like to me.)

 

[Mr. Scott]

The image that comes to mind when somebody uses the word "douche" is of a douche. A douche is not, as you asserted, "a disgusting excretion of women".



You'll have to do more than simply assert that it is sexist if you want to convince me that it is.

OK, so a quick google search of douche comes up with this:

A stream of water, often containing medicinal or cleansing agents, that is applied to a body part or cavity for hygienic or therapeutic purposes.

Now, tell me how it's disparaging to suggest someone is a stream of cleansing water.

 

[qwints]

Kaissaine pipes in with an accusation of police brutality when she had an epileptic seizure in public and accuses Cornelius of gaslighting.

Cops are bad mmmmmmmkay. Yes, a skeptic and critical thinker tends to avoid those types of generalizations.

Kassiane's experience isn't unique. "Arrested for Epilepsy" There's nothing unskeptical about noticing and analyzing systemic patterns. While I'd certainly disagree with the claim that all police officers are evil monster, I do believe that elements of the institution repeatedly lead to bad outcomes in the US. I think there's good evidence that police officers are reluctant to police each other, that they use violence more often than necessary, and that police people of different wealth and race differently.

That's false, she just made that up.

How do you know that? I certainly know parents that teach their children to assert their rights in involuntary encounters with police officers.

There's no just going out and wandering around in public like there was when *we* were kids.

A blog you might enjoy: http://www.freerangekids.com/.

 

[Diogenes]

...
There's one other bit of interesting stupid on that thread too, where the chemgeek says that parents don't tell their children to go find a cop if they're in trouble because those parents are distrustful of the police. That's false, she just made that up...

...
How do you know that? I certainly know parents that teach their children to assert their rights in involuntary encounters with police officers....

That's not the same thing as "parents don't tell their children to go find a cop if they're in trouble because those parents are distrustful of the police". I think you know that though, hence the slight-of-hand, as the claim is obviously spurious.

Which parents? Which study was that? We are certainly not teaching our children that.

 

[Stout]

Kassiane's experience isn't unique. "Arrested for Epilepsy" There's nothing unskeptical about noticing and analyzing systemic patterns. While I'd certainly disagree with the claim that all police officers are evil monster, I do believe that elements of the institution repeatedly lead to bad outcomes in the US. I think there's good evidence that police officers are reluctant to police each other, that they use violence more often than necessary, and that police people of different wealth and race differently.

Thanks for the link and no, Kaissaine's story isn't unique but according to the link it's pretty rare, a dozen cases documented in the past decade. I don't disagree that there are problems with the system either, that police are reluctant to police themselves and often use violence when it isn't warranted.

Granted, a lot of the use of force decisions have to be made on the spot and sometimes that 20/20 hindsight analysis may demonstrate that other means could have been used. We have no way of knowing just what was going through an officer's mind when that decision was made to use force.

The issue here was more how Cornelius was treated by a moderator who posted something over the top that it was nigh on impossible to rationally respond to. Yes, the post was acknowledged as being read but that wasn't enough to avoid the obvious revenge banning from the thread.

The only people I see treating police as "the enemy" are criminals.

How do you know that? I certainly know parents that teach their children to assert their rights in involuntary encounters with police officers.

If a child is old enough to be cognizant of their rights and assert them then that child is old enough to not need to find a police officer should they find themselves in trouble...ie lost or separated from their parents. It's te ages younger than that that are instructed to find a cop. 4 to 10 year olds, say, it all depends on the child. Once the parent(s) judge the child has developed enough self reliance to find his/her way home then the "need" to find a police officer becomes moot.

A blog you might enjoy: http://www.freerangekids.com/.

Thanks for the link. it's a common topic among parents, especially older parents ( I'm 50 and have a 7 year old ) about how things aren't like when we were kids. When I was my son's age, in the "60s it was on the bike and gone. If I let my child behave like I did when i was his age I'd end up on the front page of the newspaper.

Funny thing is...I spend 2 months every year in a third world country and they laugh at such overprotective measures as well as laughing at the over diagnosis of ADHD and the rush to psychiatric intervention. Old school is sometimes better IMO

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Okay, granted, there are no otters, but doesn't Matt and Trey deserve Randi's million $ for predicting a schism in atheism?

it's a joke

It happens to all -isms eventually. One group of nutters invariably splits off because the rest of the group isn't doing that -ism correctly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

OK, so a quick google search of douche comes up with this:



Now, tell me how it's disparaging to suggest someone is a stream of cleansing water.

If your intent is to demonstrate that your definition of "douche" as "a disgusting excretion of women" is correct, then you would do better to find a dictionary which defines it as such, rather than an unspecified source which defines it as something else. You've also not posted your reasoning as to why you believe it to be sexist.

 

[Jono]

The only people I see treating police as "the enemy" are criminals.

And... the Aplussers, as according to them anyone who doesn't is a nazi sympathiser and gaslighter.

 

[Jono]

I do believe that elements of the institution repeatedly lead to bad outcomes in the US. I think there's good evidence that police officers are reluctant to police each other, that they use violence more often than necessary, and that police people of different wealth and race differently.

I agree, and I've not seen anyone here or on A+ who've negated that. So, that distinction is a non-issue. More related to the given issue, do you think it is fair to call most muslims evil, or most cops, or most... (well, you get the drift) based on what a notable minority thereof does? On A+, the irrational mode of critique they condemn islamophobes, racists and misogynists for is what they themselves are guilty of with regards to, in this case, cops. The only thing missing was the icing on the cake; "go away cop-lover!".

Would you call that reason, qwints?

 

[Mr. Scott]

If your intent is to demonstrate that your definition of "douche" as "a disgusting excretion of women" is correct, then you would do better to find a dictionary which defines it as such, rather than an unspecified source which defines it as something else. You've also not posted your reasoning as to why you believe it to be sexist.

At this point it strikes me as stating the obvious.

How about if, instead of bland disagreement, you explain your interpretation of the word, and we can move forward from there?

What do you think was the original meaning of the word "douche," and why it's a disparagement?

I recommend Montagu's "The Anatomy of Swearing." It explains a lot about the etymology of such expressions.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If your intent is to demonstrate that your definition of "douche" as "a disgusting excretion of women" is correct, then you would do better to find a dictionary which defines it as such, rather than an unspecified source which defines it as something else. You've also not posted your reasoning as to why you believe it to be sexist.

Or you could just go by the A+ explanation for why it is NOT a gender-based insult.

Their thinking goes along the same lines. Douching (for women) is a product of the patriarchy because it assumes that a woman's vagina is dirty and smelly and needs to be cleaned. So the A+ crew are saying "We throw this back in your face! It's not dirty and smelly and it's none of your damned business, even if it is because it's natural and it's mine and you can go ram a diseased porcupine up your rectum." (I paraphrase, of course.) Mr. Scott was repeating one of the elements from their own arguments about Teh Patriarchy.

And if you do not think that the vast majority of people think of douching as the process that women apply, then you are mistaken.

Why would you want to insist on a dictionary definition when the discussion is around A+ and whether they consider THEIR INTERPRETATION to be a gender-based insult?