The Clique, and other greivances

[Borachio]

^ I agree with a lot of that. I might have written something like it myself. But I didn't.

 

[Gori the Grey]

^^Yeah, +1.

^Or rather, I guess, +2

(Preparing for future post)

 

[Traitorfish]

Some of the main criticisms of the clique are that it is hostile, confrontational, self-righteous, and tends to label its targets as racist bigots regardless of whether or not it fits the bill.

I'm not sure that's true. It seems to me very rare that Masada calls anybody a racist, even the label would be entirely apt. He's usually quite scrupulous about specifying that they have said racist things or are espousing racist views, which is a subtle but important distinction. People may interpret "you said something racist" as "you are a racist", but that's because people are often not very good at adopting the sort of distance from oneself a proper response to that claim requires.

 

[Senethro]

It's just that you seem to have dealt with enough racism that you see racists everywhere, even where they're not, and because you're tired of and disgusted by racism, you tend to use unnecessary roughness in your attacks on suspected racists and other people who bother you. I understand, I'm getting pretty rough with people too, but we can't keep going like this.

Look, I get that theres good intent going on here and that there are very few OTers who actually identify as racists or MRAs. What you've done here though is written a long post that essentially boils down to white person telling a non-white person to stop seeing racism everywhere. You may be tired of hearing about it but imagine how tired folks are of experiencing it. If you're trying to meet someone halfway then the halfway point here is well past putting up with an alertness to or even an expectation of racism, given that its a major problem for someone else and a non-problem for you.

Take also Manfred. He thinks a valid comparison for the responsibility of a drunk women is to compare her to criminals instead of other states of intoxication. He then comes in here and complains about being called a bigot unfairly. Again, I'm sure he doesn't identify as an MRA but he has kind of painted himself into an ideological corner here. I remember from previous threads that he denies that our cultures history currently has (or has ever?) had a negative effect on women and the perception of women. Given this he is completely unwilling to acknowledge that his views may have been influenced negatively and gets really grumpy if words like patriarchy are mentioned, so rather than acknowledge that some of his views are sexist he feels he must double down on rejecting a feminist interpretation of whats going on. He "knows" he is not a sexist, therefore the views he has cannot be sexist. He can even point to obvious sexists elsewhere on the internet who are obviously crazy people. He is nothing like them so he feels safe in his mildly sexist beliefs.

Theres a lot of people on this board looking for the safe halfway, moderate position to occupy. Unfortunately when on the one hand they look at a group of crazy people and on the other a group of people who think we should treat each other equally, the middle point is still way into badness.

Moderator Action: This thread doesn't exist as a platform from which to launch an attack on other posters. The fact that the other poster has already posted in the thread is irrelevant in RD threads; you can't 'opt in' to flaming in an RD thread. Moreover, this post has worked to derail the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Take also Manfred. He thinks a valid comparison for the responsibility of a drunk women is to compare her to criminals instead of other states of intoxication. He then comes in here and complains about being called a bigot unfairly. Again, I'm sure he doesn't identify as an MRA but he has kind of painted himself into an ideological corner here.

This is essentially the attitude I'm talking about. I made a very clear point about why I think any person (of either gender) is more accountable for actions or decisions they take whilst voluntarily intoxicated (such as getting drunk), than they are for actions or decisions whilst involuntarily intoxicated (such as being drugged). I used examples of drink driving and other criminal activities simply because they are some concrete examples of accountability in a legal sense. The context in which I said that should have made that clear.

But what you read was "Manfred hates women and is comparing them to criminals", despite that not being remotely what I said at all. When I repeated my point, you just read exactly the same thing. It's exasperating to talk to someone who simply refuses to engage with the specific point you're making, and instead chooses to take umbrage with more general, and entirely unfounded, inferences they are making about you.

Another example would be the time (and I don't recall who any of the other parties in question were with this one) that I "defended" an anti-abortion stance someone else held, or rather a specific point they were making defending their stance. Someone else criticised this as completely illogical and nonsensical, whereas in my opinion it was entirely self-consistent and logical. My defence was merely for the logic of the statement, and not an announcement that I agreed with the stance or the wider opinion, and I thought I'd made that clear. But I was instantly branded a woman-hater who wanted control over women's bodies, a right-winger, probably religious etc. None of which is true. I tried not to respond to that and merely argued the specific point in question, but to no avail. In the end I baldly stated that I was actually entirely pro-choice (or even pro-abortion), but even that fell on deaf ears. Of course it didn't help that the context of the debate was again rape, but even so...

I don't feel I'm being unreasonable in expecting (or at least hoping) that reasonable, intelligent adults can recognise when a specific point is being argued, and to engage with that point on its own merits, without making assumptions and inferences about the character of the person making the point and going after those instead. And this isn't just about how I feel I've been responded to myself, I've seen it happen to other people and been equally frustrated to see that their point just isn't being heard or engaged with and instead they're just being dismissed because of the box they've been put in.

I don't want to engage with the accusations that I'm sexist because that's not the point of this thread, and since it's RD I'll just let it slide. Be assured I reject the accusation entirely though.

 

[Senethro]

This is essentially the attitude I'm talking about. I made a very clear point about why I think any person (of either gender) is more accountable for actions or decisions they take whilst voluntarily intoxicated (such as getting drunk), than they are for actions or decisions whilst involuntarily intoxicated (such as being drugged). I used examples of drink driving and other criminal activities simply because they are some concrete examples of accountability in a legal sense. The context in which I said that should have made that clear.

But what you read was "Manfred hates women and is comparing them to criminals", despite that not being remotely what I said at all. When I repeated my point, you just read exactly the same thing. It's exasperating to talk to someone who simply refuses to engage with the specific point you're making, and instead chooses to take umbrage with more general, and entirely unfounded, inferences they are making about you.

Another example would be the time (and I don't recall who any of the other parties in question were with this one) that I "defended" an anti-abortion stance someone else held, or rather a specific point they were making defending their stance. Someone else criticised this as completely illogical and nonsensical, whereas in my opinion it was entirely self-consistent and logical. My defence was merely for the logic of the statement, and not an announcement that I agreed with the stance or the wider opinion, and I thought I'd made that clear. But I was instantly branded a woman-hater who wanted control over women's bodies, a right-winger, probably religious etc. None of which is true. I tried not to respond to that and merely argued the specific point in question, but to no avail. In the end I baldly stated that I was actually entirely pro-choice (or even pro-abortion), but even that fell on deaf ears. Of course it didn't help that the context of the debate was again rape, but even so...

I don't feel I'm being unreasonable in expecting (or at least hoping) that reasonable, intelligent adults can recognise when a specific point is being argued, and to engage with that point on its own merits, without making assumptions and inferences about the character of the person making the point and going after those instead. And this isn't just about how I feel I've been responded to myself, I've seen it happen to other people and been equally frustrated to see that their point just isn't being heard or engaged with and instead they're just being dismissed because of the box they've been put in.

I don't want to engage with the accusations that I'm sexist because that's not the point of this thread, and since it's RD I'll just let it slide. Be assured I reject the accusation entirely though.

Nah, the problem is I make a more correct reading of your own words than you are capable of. You made a wrong and silly comparison that doesn't even stand up on its own internal logic. You've taken a situation where society agrees that a persons judgement is impaired and has enacted laws forbidding them from activities that will endanger other people and used it to try and claim that when someones judgement is impaired they should be held responsible for a situation of possible coercion etc where they may be endangered.

My post entirely relevant to the whole clique thing, but on a scale you're not thinking of. What is not cliquey about one bunch of white dudes telling another bunch of (mostly) white dudes that racism/sexism doesn't exist.

Also how about just plain asking a question on a point instead of playing devil's advocate.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Curiously, the easiest way to dismiss anyone is by saying that he's part of "The Clique" or will ignore anything you say because he believes in very narrowly defined categories.

 

[timtofly]

Nah, the problem is I make a more correct reading of your own words than you are capable of. You made a wrong and silly comparison that doesn't even stand up on its own internal logic. You've taken a situation where society agrees that a persons judgement is impaired and has enacted laws forbidding them from activities that will endanger other people and used it to try and claim that when someones judgement is impaired they should be held responsible for a situation of possible coercion etc where they may be endangered.

My post entirely relevant to the whole clique thing, but on a scale you're not thinking of. What is not cliquey about one bunch of white dudes telling another bunch of (mostly) white dudes that racism/sexism doesn't exist.

Also how about just plain asking a question on a point instead of playing devil's advocate.

Are we missing the difference between being intoxicated voluntarily and involuntarily?

 

[Senethro]

Are we missing the difference between being intoxicated voluntarily and involuntarily?

See, this is whats not cool about playing devil's advocate. Its being super facile about issues that don't concern you but if called on it, they dance back saying "I'm only playing devil's advocate!!!".

So, I don't know, are we missing a difference? Why don't you tell us? I don't want to leap down your throat and browbeat you for seemingly implying that people who have began the night drinking voluntarily are somehow "fair game", so why don't you explain your query and point in full?

 

[choxorn]

And you're missing the difference between something you did to hurt others while intoxicated and something another did to hurt you while intoxicated.

 

[timtofly]

See, this is whats not cool about playing devil's advocate. Its being super facile about issues that don't concern you but if called on it, they dance back saying "I'm only playing devil's advocate!!!".

So, I don't know, are we missing a difference? Why don't you tell us? I don't want to leap down your throat and browbeat you for seemingly implying that people who have began the night drinking voluntarily are somehow "fair game", so why don't you explain your query and point in full?

There is a difference from my perspective, but perhaps there are some who do not see a difference, hence I asked. Perhaps some people are ok with loosing all sense of responsibility and in doing so seem to wave their right to being a victim. It would seem to me though that if someone was being pushed past their point of responsibility by some one who knew better, then they would be a victim and the person pushing them is sole responsible for what happens.

The point that was made was not even about women, but someone who gets drunk and rapes someone. Personally, IMO if both parties are drunk enough to have sex involuntarily, then no one is responsible. If one party is still in possession of their wits, then they are the one who should be held responsible.

Proving anything hours or days after the fact, may very well be hard to prove, unless one can prove a pattern of behavior that is ongoing and needs to be stopped.

 

[Senethro]

There is a difference from my perspective, but perhaps there are some who do not see a difference, hence I asked. Perhaps some people are ok with loosing all sense of responsibility and in doing so seem to wave their right to being a victim. It would seem to me though that if someone was being pushed past their point of responsibility by some one who knew better, then they would be a victim and the person pushing them is sole responsible for what happens.

The point that was made was not even about women, but someone who gets drunk and rapes someone. Personally, IMO if both parties are drunk enough to have sex involuntarily, then no one is responsible. If one party is still in possession of their wits, then they are the one who should be held responsible.

Proving anything hours or days after the fact, may very well be hard to prove, unless one can prove a pattern of behavior that is ongoing and needs to be stopped.

Ok, how do other people read this post?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nah, the problem is I make a more correct reading of your own words than you are capable of. You made a wrong and silly comparison that doesn't even stand up on its own internal logic. You've taken a situation where society agrees that a persons judgement is impaired and has enacted laws forbidding them from activities that will endanger other people and used it to try and claim that when someones judgement is impaired they should be held responsible for a situation of possible coercion etc where they may be endangered.

My post entirely relevant to the whole clique thing, but on a scale you're not thinking of. What is not cliquey about one bunch of white dudes telling another bunch of (mostly) white dudes that racism/sexism doesn't exist.

Also how about just plain asking a question on a point instead of playing devil's advocate.

First paragraph - telling me I was saying something that I didn't say. As I've said multiple times now, the point I was making was about voluntary vs Involuntary intoxication. Nothing more. Your first paragraph doesn't even address this, you're just claiming I said something that I never said.

Second paragraph - How is this relevant to anything I am saying in this thread, or in any other thread? I've never said that sexism doesn't exist, not in this thread or anywhere else. PLEASE stop making things up and doing exactly what I described in my very first post in this thread.

Third paragraph/sentence - Which thread are you even talking about with this one? In the other thread I DID ask a question, and in this thread I made a comment in response to the OP question.

Anyway, if you're going to drag all this up again, why not go and do it in the thread in question and stop derailing this thread. I described what my opinion of the supposed "clique" is, that's all. As requested by the OP.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Also... is it not just a TAD egotistical to say, in response to me expressing exasperation at not being listened to or understood properly, "I make a more correct reading of your own words than you are capable of"? I mean... just slightly? You're honestly claiming that you know what I think, feel, and mean by my words better than I do? How is it possible to even engage with this?

Oh well, I suppose I should at least thank you for turning up and giving the most perfect worked example of exactly the mentality I was talking about in my original post. I rest my case.

 

[onejayhawk]

You have a source for this? Seems high.

It's off the cuff--half of the Republican base. Very few self representing Republicans strongly disagree with the Tea Party. When they do, it is often on local issues. The Tea Party is a mile wide and an inch deep.

If you want a more solid number, take talk radio's audience. In his heyday, Limbaugh topped 20 million. Hannity was about 12 and so on down the line. 10%-15% of the population listen to that stuff.

J

 

[Senethro]

Also... is it not just a TAD egotistical to say, in response to me expressing exasperation at not being listened to or understood properly, "I make a more correct reading of your own words than you are capable of"? I mean... just slightly? You're honestly claiming that you know what I think, feel, and mean by my words better than I do? How is it possible to even engage with this?

Oh well, I suppose I should at least thank you for turning up and giving the most perfect worked example of exactly the mentality I was talking about in my original post. I rest my case.

Hey, I'm giving you valuable insight that you unconsciously compare drunk woman to criminals. The comparison obviously doesn't work on any level except that. You should find a way to use this information constructively.

Its like how in the abortion thread the language of punishment and "responsibility" kept cropping up from certain people in regards to women who consented to sex, but not those who didn't.

 

[choxorn]

Are you sure?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13424422#post13424422

My post was directed at Manfred, not you.

 

[jackelgull]

Quite frankly, I am one of those people who believe that alcohol should be avoided like the plague by both man and women. I am a Muslim and I do believe that alcohol is the mother of all evils. So I suppose I am a little less sympathetic than most people would be.

But my thought is this- if you want to get drunk, do it in private. Buy some beers then go to your basement and get wasted. Unless of course you want to get laid, then by all means go to the pub where there are possible partners around. But if you get drunk in private or with friend the chances of regret dwindle. And if you want to go to the pub for social purposes, such as meet with a colleague, how much drink do you need. Seriously, I would support something like the Prohibition if I thought that it would actually work.

Moderator Action: Please don't contribute to thread derailments. In RD threads, it's important that your posts have something to do with the topic of the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Zack]

But my thought is this- if you want to get drunk, do it in private. Buy some beers then go to your basement and get wasted.

Isn't this part of the "how to become an alcoholic" guidebook?

Moderator Action: Please don't engage in derailments. This infraction is for a number of spammy posts you've made in this thread, which aren't directed towards the thread topic, or provide quite minimal value by RD standards.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[jackelgull]

Better to be alcoholic in private than public and better yet to never touch alcohol at all.