How to be reasonable

[Manfred Belheim]

That isn't sexism though.

Sexism would be if you had said "Men are better than women overall, because they are generally stronger"

Pointing out existing differences between the genders isn't sexism and/or shouldn't be. Context and intent are important.

Unless you support the idea that interests and behaviours are influenced by difference in sex of course, in which course you're a disgusting misogynist dinosaur. Only men's and women's bodies are different, not their hopes and dreams and desires and minds... which are kind of emergent properties of the brain which is... part of the body and measurably different and subject to the influence of hormones which are also present in different amounts during development and the entire life and.... well whatever it's just sexist!!

 

[Kyriakos]

.. on the forum.

• Interpolate less, be literal more.
• Make sure to read and understand the lines as they are written before trying to read between the lines.
• aka Actually read what the other person wrote.
• Ask more questions, make fewer assumptions.
• It takes more work to comprehend the pieces and the whole than synthesizing an approximation, but the ladder is frequently polluted by misunderstanding and bias.
• When you don't know for sure but go out on a limb, leave your emotional attachment behind.
• Actually read what the other person wrote.
• When going out on a limb, provide citation.
• Something being emotionally correct my feel logically correct, but that doesn't mean it is.
• Liberally defer to others
• When you feel your argument is insufficiently persuasive,
• Let facts and figures do the talking.
• Don't quote war
• Actually read what the other person wrote.

Lets add to the list! These are just the ones I felt like writing down right now.

Hmm...

Maybe:

* Keep in mind that you are restructuring what the other person posted, in your own way of thinking
* At least bother to close the other web window where you watch stuff about rotting corpses
* Sometimes things you say will sound wrong

 

[metatron]

I am a racist, in certain ways.
I am a sexist, in certain ways.
I am an agist, in certain ways.

Basically, if something is backed by scientific evidence, I am willing to believe it, even if it leads to beliefs that are not politically correct. However, I strive to treat all people well and fairly and not pre-judge individuals based on the averages of their race, sex, or age.

I think the whole stigma against racism, sexism, agism, etc are silly. It's obvious that races and sexes are different based on a purely biological level. It's common that they are different, based on the way society conditions them differently (this is regrettable). Instead of trying to purge the mind of racist or sexist beliefs, against scientific evidence, its best to just strive towards not letting information about averages affect our attitudes towards individuals. This is for the good of society.

To counter my own statements, using Merriam Webster's definitions:

rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

sex·ism noun \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\
: unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women

age·ism noun \ˈā-(&#716ji-zəm\
: unfair treatment of old people

With these definitions, i would be racist, in some ways. But not sexist or ageist, since they are only based on treatment of other people. This definition implies there is no such thing as a "sexist belief" since sexism is based strictly on treatment of other people.

Or maybe those definitions are bad and Webster's dictionary sucks.

Anyway, Zack's point remains. The usage of the term "because" in those definitions suggests that the treatment is not accidental, you were to do it in part based on some belief, thought or attitude.
This believe thought or attitude persists and has existed before you commited the racist, sexist, whatever act.
As i said, however possible it may be in rare cases the act and the belief are usually connected and in some rational congruence.
Certain beliefs, thoughts and attitudes usually don't turn into acts by accident (i like strawberries therefore -> i ensure blue kittens be present at the courthouse at all times).
So what are we to make of that?

Anyway, these definitions are curious (by which i mean: horse manure) for another reason if you give it a closer reading:
"Poor" is very much not the same as "unfair".
Fairness is just, and arguably in a blind way, regardless of the characteristic in question.
Not "poor" can mean unequal but (supposedly) benevolent very much in explicit or implicit recognition of the characteristic.
Out of this difference you can spin yourself a justification for race-based affimative action. Or apartheid.


For completeness' sake, here are the definitions wiktionary has to offer:

1. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2. The belief that one race is superior to all others.
3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

1. The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender.
2. Different treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender.
3. Disadvantage or unequal opportunity arising from the cultural dominance of one gender over the other.
4. Promotion or expectation or assumption of people to behave in accordance with or deviate from a gender role.

1. The treating of a person or people differently from others based on assumptions or stereotypes relating to their age.

Obviously ageism is different by design. Cause aging is virtually universal to the human condition.

 

[Hygro]

okay metatron, I will call you "a sexist" if that's what you want.

Hmm...

Maybe:

* Keep in mind that you are restructuring what the other person posted, in your own way of thinking
* At least bother to close the other web window where you watch stuff about rotting corpses
* Sometimes things you say will sound wrong

I like these.

 

[metatron]

okay metatron, I will call you "a sexist" if that's what you want.

Ignoring the fact that that's not what i want there still is a tiny problem:

I'd have to be allowed to return the favor.

 

[Hygro]

Ignoring the fact that that's not what i want there still is a tiny problem:

I'd have to be allowed to return the favor.

I don't see why. Here's what I'm getting out of your posts, feel free to correct:

It's not fair that posters can call people sexist/racist/etc under the guise of calling their argument sexist/racist/etc and thus skirting forum rules of civility.

So far so good?

 

[metatron]

I don't see why. Here's what I'm getting out of your posts, feel free to correct:

It's not fair that posters can call people sexist/racist/etc under the guise of calling their argument sexist/racist/etc and thus skirting forum rules of civility.

So far so good?

Rather roughly.
I wouldn't bring "fairness" into it.
My point is that the ditinction you care so much about (which has merit in other circumstances) is not just less relevant on this board but outright phony, because people abuse this distinction all the time to get around the forum rules and insult each other.

 

[Hygro]

Rather roughly.
I wouldn't bring "fairness" into it.
My point is that the ditinction you care so much about (which has merit in other circumstances) is not just less relevant on this board but outright phony, because people abuse this distinction all the time to get around the forum rules and insult each other.

As someone who will call someone's argument sexist/racist/etc. I have not seen much evidence to make your case. I think if someone can call your argument sexist/racist/etc then they are reasonable to do so. I don't think it's reasonable to not only take it personally, but then put it back on them like they caused some kind of incivility. I think sexism isn't particularly civil.

I also don't find the forum rules to be particularly relevant for what constitutes reasonable.

Distinguishing an attack an on argument vs an attack on a person is pretty necessary. To not means taking what is an argument of ideas and bemoaning personal offense, effectively shutting down the debate of ideas. That to me is not reasonable. An effective political tactic, but not a reasonable debate one.

 

[metatron]

Look, you dis belief in certain economic theories, i am an all-around flamer of religion, people say things like "Democrats are stupid" etc. all the time.

The thing is: Usually some expectation can be held that not any individual member of the insulted class, in that given thread is meant to be attacked personally.
A member of such class can still hold the belief that the insulter will make a tentative exception for them and debate them in good (-ish) faith and hear them out.

But once one has reacted highly agitated on a personal level in a debate numerous times, has already engaged in ad hominem attacks that are legal vis a vis the forum rules numerous times and is engaged in what is commonly called a "quote war" - all in the same thread mind you - and one then quotes something and claims "that's sexist and racist and also: bronies are pedophiles", that expectation of good faith doesn't exist any more.
People can asume with all reason that one intended to insult and to do so with impunity vis a vis the forum rules. If people are wrong about that (unlikely) that's frankly sort of the suspected insulters own fault.
You know, context matters.

 

[metatron]

Sorry for dp. Want to avoid ninja edit.

I think if someone can call your argument sexist/racist/etc then they are reasonable to do so. I don't think it's reasonable to not only take it personally, but then put it back on them like they caused some kind of incivility. I think sexism isn't particularly civil.

Also:
There's a fundamental problem with that statement. That is, you have to make your case first and you have to do so in somewhat orderly debate.
If you fail to do that you are no better than the people who say:
"Obama is a Nazi. I don't care if saying that is uncivil. Nazism is uncivil. I have in fact a moral duty to call Obama a Nazi."

This goes back to what we talked about on fiftychat:
You don't get to call me a sexist because Quackers (or whoever) lost some argument in 2007.

 

[Harv]

A fanatic is somebody who CAN'T change his mind and WON'T change the subject.

-Winston Churchill

 

[Hygro]

@metatron, see, here's where you lose me. "The insulter". Someone can feel insulted by that doesn't make there be an insulter. If someone posts something bogus about economics, using your example about me, I'd very much rather not insult them as I address their post. I will tear their argument down if I am in the mood, but if they feel hurt that they were wrong or unpersuasive, that's their fault. They may be insulted that I don't regard them as informed, but that doesn't mean I lobbed any insults. It's not victim blaming when there's no offense committed in the first place, even if offense is taken.

Your Obama/Nazi argument is missing a few steps.

This goes back to what we talked about on fiftychat:
You don't get to call me a sexist because Quackers (or whoever) lost some argument in 2007.

I strongly agree with this and is part of why I made this thread. More specifically, it was people misunderstanding Brennan's posts because they associate him with being on the "anti-feminism side" and when people disregard some of Quackers's pieces on the good parts that came out of the real MRA movement (there are some). Brennan said recently something along the lines of "just because I said something is a certain way doesn't mean I believe it should be".

 

[metatron]

@metatron, see, here's where you lose me. "The insulter". Someone can feel insulted by that doesn't make there be an insulter. If someone posts something bogus about economics, using your example about me, I'd very much rather not insult them as I address their post. I will tear their argument down if I am in the mood, but if they feel hurt that they were wrong or unpersuasive, that's their fault. They may be insulted that I don't regard them as informed, but that doesn't mean I lobbed any insults. It's not victim blaming when there's no offense committed in the first place, even if offense is taken.

As i said it depends on the circumstances.
The point remains. you have to make a case that something is stupid or racist before calling it that.

Your Obama/Nazi argument is missing a few steps.

Not really.

I strongly agree with this and is part of why I made this thread. More specifically, it was people misunderstanding Brennan's posts because they associate him with being on the "anti-feminism side" and when people disregard some of Quackers's pieces on the good parts that came out of the real MRA movement (there are some). Brennan said recently something along the lines of "just because I said something is a certain way doesn't mean I believe it should be".

Yeah sure, i suggested things that are the status quo in central European countries at the top of the list in terms of gender equality (instead of rank 38 or whatever like the US and UK), that are the status quo because female middle ages MRA's made it so in the 70s...
... and got called all sorts of names for it.
We call these female middle aged MRA's feminists. But, heck, what do we know?

Still, intended or not, due to tone and ommision of examples like the one you just made you are incidentally in apology of trollish behavior of certain other posters with this series of "let me tell you people how to post" threads of yours...

 

[warpus]

Unless you support the idea that interests and behaviours are influenced by difference in sex of course, in which course you're a disgusting misogynist dinosaur. Only men's and women's bodies are different, not their hopes and dreams and desires and minds... which are kind of emergent properties of the brain which is... part of the body and measurably different and subject to the influence of hormones which are also present in different amounts during development and the entire life and.... well whatever it's just sexist!!

... Completely depends on how you frame what you're saying and how you say it.

Of course men and women are driven by slightly different biology, nobody sane is going to dispute that (I hope). What you've got to be careful about is what exactly you are trying to get at and whether what you're saying has actual scientific backing.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

In line of what Hygro is saying - "thou shalt be able to hate the sin, but to love the sinner"

 

[Smote]

Of course men and women are driven by slightly different biology, nobody sane is going to dispute that (I hope)..

Exactly. And yet many people do. Races are similar... for instance many Tibetans have a gene that makes it easier for them to function in high altitudes. And yet people say that "all races are the same" and close their eyes to any evidence to the contrary.

People seem to frequently take what someone said, and then associate it to something else, and then argue against that. I would stress that this is a problem. It is probably because of how our brains work - ideas are associated to other ideas. To one person, arguing against some civil rights thing seems logical and sensible. To another, they have experienced a past incident of a similar (but not identical) argument which led to terrible things. Responding to the second instead of the first is faulty reasoning, though it may seem emotionally correct.

Additionally, different words mean different things to different people. This is known as "semantic noise" in communications. Misinterpretations based on actual words are common - especially with loaded words that are filled with associations.

So I implore everyone to try to minimize semantic noise and to not strongly hold opinions that are based on "reading between the lines," or even "reading the words themselves," until it is clear what the original poster meant. This forum is actually very good about this, as far as I can tell. But it is something we should always be striving towards.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

... Completely depends on how you frame what you're saying and how you say it.

Of course men and women are driven by slightly different biology, nobody sane is going to dispute that (I hope). What you've got to be careful about is what exactly you are trying to get at and whether what you're saying has actual scientific backing.

All very well in principle, but it seems there must be a lot of insane people in practice then.

 

[warpus]

Exactly. And yet many people do. Races are similar... for instance many Tibetans have a gene that makes it easier for them to function in high altitudes. And yet people say that "all races are the same" and close their eyes to any evidence to the contrary.

Sane people say that all races (assuming that they exist) are the same in terms of the rights and obligations they have as human beings.

All very well in principle, but it seems there must be a lot of insane people in practice then.

Without seeing specific examples, I can't really comment on that. But yes, there are a lot of crazy people out there. That much is clear.

 

[Traitorfish]

This one's more about forum mechanics than argumentative style, but I've found great value in liberal use of the "ignore" feature. If you find that certain posters have a habit of leading you to post in an aggressive, rude or otherwise unreasonable manner, remove them from your forum-going experience. You don't owe them your attention, but you do owe the rest of the forum your good behaviour.

 

[Harv]

There are a lot of people out there who only parrot their ideologies' talking points, and nothing else. But I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that what I'm reading isn't a talking point. Once it turns into it, I shake my fist and throw something out my window and stop reading.

This sounds like you are distinguishing between crazy people and stupid people. Crazy people make stuff up and post it on the internet. At least it is original and possibly amusing.

The other category cuts and pastes talking points to look smart for a moment on the internet. So when you realize you just read a talking point, it is like drinking hot water after the person who made coffee forgot to put the coffee grounds into the filter, so the hot water went straight through.

You did not mention hit and run. They post a talking point, then don't hang around to talk about it.