“The Feminist”

[Gorbles]

@Zardnaar, so do you. But you never seem to take it well when someone tries to point that out.

I mean, you've just demonstrated how you've skipped the past X posts we (you and I) have had in the thread. I've been illustrating how it's not just "if a man was telling a woman what to do", and it's the same for "if you were a woman". You're not. You'd probably have a different set of opinions on things if you were.

At some point it could have occurred to you I was referring to her interactions with the other posters here, and not our interactions. I'm not feigning neutrality here. I'm not concerned about her hostility. The badgering going on is par for the course.

It did occur to me, though your immediate hostility to me has also been noted (again, ironically). My point was that you're not an observer, plain and simple. You are not in any way observing this thread, her posts, or anything inbetween. You're involved, and you suffer the bias that implicitly comes through that (as do I, and pretty much everyone else).

I just wanted to highlight that, considering you used your apparent status as an "observer" to pass a value judgement on Mary. There was no need to claim to be an observer - you could just have said "demonstrably untrue". But you didn't, you went that step further, to make it look like your (biased) claim had more merit than it did.

 

[Zardnaar]

@Zardnaar, so do you. But you never seem to take it well when someone tries to point that out.

I mean, you've just demonstrated how you've skipped the past X posts we (you and I) have had in the thread. I've been illustrating how it's not just "if a man was telling a woman what to do", and it's the same for "if you were a woman". You're not. You'd probably have a different set of opinions on things if you were.


It did occur to me, though your immediate hostility to me has also been noted (again, ironically). My point was that you're not an observer, plain and simple. You are not in any way observing this thread, her posts, or anything inbetween. You're involved, and you suffer the bias that implicitly comes through that (as do I, and pretty much everyone else).

I just wanted to highlight that, considering you used your apparent status as an "observer" to pass a value judgement on Mary. There was no need to claim to be an observer - you could just have said "demonstrably untrue". But you didn't, you went that step further, to make it look like your (biased) claim had more merit than it did.

I can get away with it though. I'm not trying to change the world and already have the party I prefer in power and a lot of stuff I want in society (universal health care, welfare, sane political system etc). Eventually that party will lose an election probably in 2026.


It's great but to get it you need to appeal to others to support you. If you can't your policies, beliefs etc don't really matter.

 

[Gorbles]

I can get away with it though. I'm not trying to change the world and already have the party I prefer in power and a lot of stuff I want in society (universal health care, welfare, sane political system etc). Eventually that party will lose an election probably in 2026.


It's great but to get it you need to appeal to others to support you. If you can't your policies, beliefs etc don't really matter.

So if you're not trying to change the world, and prefer a lot of things as they are, why are you so annoyed when people call you on your complacency? Just because things are okay for you? That isn't a yardstick for the whole of NZ, nevermind the world!

 

[Rashiminos]

It did occur to me, though your immediate hostility to me has also been noted (again, ironically). My point was that you're not an observer, plain and simple. You are not in any way observing this thread, her posts, or anything inbetween. You're involved, and you suffer the bias that implicitly comes through that (as do I, and pretty much everyone else).

What hostility? Can I not read posts from other posters ?

I just wanted to highlight that, considering you used your apparent status as an "observer" to pass a value judgement on Mary. There was no need to claim to be an observer - you could just have said "demonstrably untrue". But you didn't, you went that step further, to make it look like your (biased) claim had more merit than it did.

I was observing counterfactual statements in posts. You're attempting to claim I did not observe... uh, okay?

 

[Zardnaar]

So if you're not trying to change the world, and prefer a lot of things as they are, why are you so annoyed when people call you on your complacency? Just because things are okay for you? That isn't a yardstick for the whole of NZ, nevermind the world!

Because how we got those things wasn't easy. Some things people want wouldn't fly here let alone in middle America where the election next year will be won or lost.

Scary thing is Trump might win and it could come down to the Democrats snatching defeat from victory.

They're so focused on things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things they may not see the forest for the trees.

Trump needs to go, my concern is he might win because the Dems are fairly stupid.

 

[Gorbles]

What hostility? Can I not read posts from other posters ?

I was observing counterfactual statements in posts. You're attempting to claim I did not observe... uh, okay?

Nobody said you can't. But likewise, yours can also be read.

As for "counterfactual", that's just like, your opinion, man

Because how we got those things wasn't easy. Some things people want wouldn't fly here let alone in middle America where the election next year will be won or lost.

Scary thing is Trump might win and it could come down to the Democrats snatching defeat from victory.

They're so focused on things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things they may not see the forest for the trees.

Trump needs to go, my concern is he might win because the Dems are fairly stupid.

And you have to recognise that other people might have different priorities, or see the fight in a different light to you. You don't have all the answers. There's nothing wrong with not having all the answers. But you need to recognise that you don't, and that other people might have better answers.

(of course, everyone thinks that their answers are generally the best, that goes without saying)

 

[Rashiminos]

Nobody said you can't. But likewise, yours can also be read.

As for "counterfactual", that's just like, your opinion, man

One would hope.

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

 

[Akka]

A bunch of sexist guys tell me to "Sit down, shut up, woman!" and wonder why I refuse to, lol!

Spends several pages telling other guys to "sit down, shut up men, I know better than you what you think".
Manages to still inverts everything and pretend it's others who mansplain to her.

That's... fascinating.
Nearly everytime you complain about something, it's to accuse others of exactly what you're doing. I can't determine if you're deliberately manipulative or if it's a sign of a deeper psychological problem, but you're probably the most toxic poster I've ever seen here, and that's saying something.

 

[MaryKB]

All sexists find feminists "toxic."

 

[caketastydelish]

There are also people who find labels and group thinking (as opposed to individualism), who are against tribalism and identity politics for that matter.

 

[MaryKB]

All politics are identity politics.

 

[Akka]

All sexists find feminists "toxic."

I don't find you toxic because anything related to feminism, I find you toxic because you're an extremely manipulative nutcase. And this thread is a pretty good case in point.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ignoring is also about not actively listening, and trying to stop me from continuing to speak.

No-one is trying to stop you from speaking, and listening doesn't require the listener to immediately and entirely adopt all the views of the speaker in order to prove they were listening. It also has to go both ways or what's the point of engaging in dialogue? I get that from your point of view, women's voices need to be amplified and listened to more, but in any individual interaction you still have to listen to who you're talking to and what their reactions are, even if it's a man you're talking to. And when you're pretty much telling a bunch of men what goes on inside men's minds (and wording it as a bald statement of fact, not just your opinion) and they disagree with you, you do kind of have to listen (and again that doesn't mean you have to agree or adopt their views). It's really coming across as if you're the one not listening.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Take a break for the weekend, everyone.