Quit bossing me around.
Degrees of Misogyny
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
mtf said:
You think you could manage to be anything other than a detriment to whatever discussion you touch?
Seriously, you could try addressing the issues. So far your only contribution to this thread is to advocate sexual harassment, even so far as to include rape. You know, competitive strategies; throw her off her game to get what you want.
And, really, your best response to these questions is proselytizing Buddhism?
Like I said, quit changing the subject.
You obviously can post in it - I quoted you, first the one sentence, then the contrasting one, laying the "dichotomy" out in your own words. You posted those two sentences - whether they represent thought or not I guess I couldn't say, but they are at least proof of typing.mtf said:
Here, try again:
-> That is: are you opposed, or are you not opposed, to societal measures against street robbery in the absence of a complete societal solution to the problem of human violence in general?
Because the matter is muddled in your posts. This indicates support for "treating symptoms", by calling it necessary:
This indicates opposition to "treating symptoms", by describing it as meaningless:mtf said:
mtf said:
When They Cry
Hey, Ophiolite, how about this:
Whatever it takes to call people "a nasty piece of work", I guess.
Tell me, though, Ophiolite: Do you feel better for having done so?
So here's a hint: When you want to pitch a temper tantrum↱ on behalf of a person "no longer in a position to defend themselves", so that you might denounce a "rather despicable act of a bully and a coward", it would probably help you look a bit less ridiculous if your complaint was true. For instance, if that person can answer for herself, but does not want to, and receives adjudication aiming to fulfill her wish, it is absolutely bogus to try and pass that off as "a person who is no longer in a position to defend themselves".
You don't get to feel bullied. Not when self-righteous, bullying dishonesty is your gig.
Think of it this way, Ophiolite: Have you ever watched a politician or pundit put on such a bad show that even though you don't like them you are writhing in vicarious embarrassment? And what do you do about that? To the one, this political opponent is an asshole; to the other, he's also a human being, and on that level basic human sympathy, being sympathetic, can often only find vicarious embarrassment as a compassionate connection.
Think of it this way: If you wish to commiserate with mtf, do you really think you would be able to construe those posts as useful? Are you really so naïve that a con artist can walk in the door, attempt the same swindle you threw out of your shop yesterday, bawl about how mean you are when you turn him away, and reasonably expect he might win their sympathy?
There is a block of three posts from earlier this week; I would refer you to these:
You might notice, such as we see with mtf, that presented with direct issues and inquiries, our neighbor simply cannot be bothered to acknowledge those aspects.
In the two-part reply to Billvon, I document and explain the problem with simply ignoring the evidence in favor of an appeal to base conspiracism.
In either case, both apply.
What you're covering, Ophiolite, is the silencing of women. They tell us what the problem is, others tell them why they are wrong about their own experiences. To wit, disrupting a woman in order to hit on her. Women say stop. DaveC says this is her obligation. Bowser says it's enough if she catches his fancy. Schmelzer outlines the rules for properly rejecting. By the time we get to that, the invalidation is clear; what happens when women reject such advances is exactly irrelevant to these chauvinists' argument. Even you, Ophiolite↱, are in on it: "In each instance I have the option to ignore them completely, tell them to ****-off, give a polite yet non-committal reply, or seek to extend the conversation further." Women tell us what's wrong, and you tell women what to think. You know, because you know, don't you? Better than they do? When it comes to any given woman's existential condition and living experience, you know her life better than she does, don't you?
Our neighbor mtf goes even further, arguing that sexual harassment is a competitive strategy, even endorsing bullying a woman into consent.
So it's true: As you sit here advocating for bullies, you do not get to cry about feeling bullied.
Something about a nasty piece of work goes here.
Ophiolite said:
Hey, Ophiolite, how about this:
• Angry member writes judgmental post based including insulting demand that one not give a detailed response.
• Other member accommodates.
• Angry member dashes off angry PM to call the other names.
↳ The judgmental post in point one is based on assertion of falsehood.
• Other member accommodates.
• Angry member dashes off angry PM to call the other names.
↳ The judgmental post in point one is based on assertion of falsehood.
Whatever it takes to call people "a nasty piece of work", I guess.
Tell me, though, Ophiolite: Do you feel better for having done so?
So here's a hint: When you want to pitch a temper tantrum↱ on behalf of a person "no longer in a position to defend themselves", so that you might denounce a "rather despicable act of a bully and a coward", it would probably help you look a bit less ridiculous if your complaint was true. For instance, if that person can answer for herself, but does not want to, and receives adjudication aiming to fulfill her wish, it is absolutely bogus to try and pass that off as "a person who is no longer in a position to defend themselves".
You don't get to feel bullied. Not when self-righteous, bullying dishonesty is your gig.
†
Think of it this way, Ophiolite: Have you ever watched a politician or pundit put on such a bad show that even though you don't like them you are writhing in vicarious embarrassment? And what do you do about that? To the one, this political opponent is an asshole; to the other, he's also a human being, and on that level basic human sympathy, being sympathetic, can often only find vicarious embarrassment as a compassionate connection.
Think of it this way: If you wish to commiserate with mtf, do you really think you would be able to construe those posts as useful? Are you really so naïve that a con artist can walk in the door, attempt the same swindle you threw out of your shop yesterday, bawl about how mean you are when you turn him away, and reasonably expect he might win their sympathy?
There is a block of three posts from earlier this week; I would refer you to these:
You might notice, such as we see with mtf, that presented with direct issues and inquiries, our neighbor simply cannot be bothered to acknowledge those aspects.
In the two-part reply to Billvon, I document and explain the problem with simply ignoring the evidence in favor of an appeal to base conspiracism.
In either case, both apply.
What you're covering, Ophiolite, is the silencing of women. They tell us what the problem is, others tell them why they are wrong about their own experiences. To wit, disrupting a woman in order to hit on her. Women say stop. DaveC says this is her obligation. Bowser says it's enough if she catches his fancy. Schmelzer outlines the rules for properly rejecting. By the time we get to that, the invalidation is clear; what happens when women reject such advances is exactly irrelevant to these chauvinists' argument. Even you, Ophiolite↱, are in on it: "In each instance I have the option to ignore them completely, tell them to ****-off, give a polite yet non-committal reply, or seek to extend the conversation further." Women tell us what's wrong, and you tell women what to think. You know, because you know, don't you? Better than they do? When it comes to any given woman's existential condition and living experience, you know her life better than she does, don't you?
Our neighbor mtf goes even further, arguing that sexual harassment is a competitive strategy, even endorsing bullying a woman into consent.
So it's true: As you sit here advocating for bullies, you do not get to cry about feeling bullied.
Something about a nasty piece of work goes here.
And if, in your mind, you are unable to understand how one can and should simultaneously work both on the microlevel and the macrolevel, then ... then I don't know what to say.
Maybe someday you will take your head out of your romantic ass.
Your issue isn't with me; it's with the nature of romantic love.
mtf said:
Are you even capable of following this thread from post to post? I admit, I had considered your non sequitur style deliberate, but I really do owe you the courtesy of considering whether or not there is some disability I ought to be accommodating.
It's well enough to strike romance from fancy. After all, even still, your only contribution to this thread so far is to advocate sexual harassment, even so far as to include rape. You know, competitive strategies; throw her off her game to get what you want. And in a really perverse way, it actually is good to know that trusting, loving, romantic relationships just aren't on your menu. It's a helpful thing to know about people in some circumstances.
I wonder how many posts before you actually try to answer the issue?
Not that anyone will really bother counting; the outcome is pretty squarely expected.
So surprise us.
Bells
Staff member
Then stop posting utter rubbish that you allegedly do not mean.
No, really, you think we are imaging you saying these things? You keep posting them and trying to change the subject in the process. We don't know you. We can only go by what you actually post. To wit, we can only go by the words you type or post. You might know in your head that you do not mean that, but we aren't in your head.
I'll repeat..
We can only go by the words you put down in your post and hit "post". That is all we know of you.
So when you post from a man hater and declare him to be a "spiritually superior man", we take that to assume you agree with the guy who thinks that women are worth nothing and should not have any rights whatsoever. Because that is all you said about it. We asked if you agreed with what you quoted.. No clear response or position on the matter was received from you.. All we got was you trying to change the subject.
Understand now?
This is why numerous people in this and other threads, keep asking you to clearly state what you actually mean. Because this issue of you not being clear, is not just a problem in this thread, but in other threads you are participating in as well.
We aren't imagining you saying these things. We are openly quoting you and asking you to be clear and we are attributing your posts to you. It's not as if we are making up posts and quotes and attributing them to you, then you might have a point. But we are literally quoting the words you post and questioning you about it and your response is to say that you are not going to defend what we imagine you said..
Three members of staff, one of whom is an admin, and countless other posters (in this thread alone - other members have also requested you state your position clearly on other subjects in other threads - which you refused to do there too) have asked you to please state your position clearly. You refused to do so. We repeatedly asked you to stop changing the subject. You refused to do so.
And repeating this:
I
AM
NOT GOING
TO DEFEND
THINGS
YOU
MERELY
IMAGINE
I
SAID.
AM
NOT GOING
TO DEFEND
THINGS
YOU
MERELY
IMAGINE
I
SAID.
Over and over again is not going to help you.
You need to state your position clearly.
That means you don't say one thing and then declare you are actually for something else, and then accuse all and sundry for expecting you to defend your words that you deny saying, when you actually posted them. That's not how it works. We can only go by what you actually say. We don't know what is going on in your head. We can only go by the words you use in your arguments. If you don't mean those words, then in future, stop saying them. If you are unable to state your case clearly, that is on you and no one else.
You mean you don't have the will to respond?
Bowser said:
Bells said:
Is there a difference between street harassment and a compliment?
Depends on the situation. Often, the person offering the comment thinks it is a compliment, and the person receiving it sees it as harassment.
Those two posts are on exactly the same logical level. They indicate a contradiction in your thinking, at the level of "treating symptoms" (a common - in fact the most common - way in which the wise and enlightened handle disease and disorder).mtf said:
Tell you what: I'll call you on the phone a few times a day at random, text and email you at intervals, show up at your job daily, hang out by your front door and your kids's playground sometimes, stop you occasionally on the sidewalk and in the grocery aisle, and so forth,godot said:
for years,
to give you compliments. And they will be well-phrased, politely worded compliments - such as how nice you look when you smile, and how much better things could be if you smiled more. Nothing like the catcalls under discussion above, the outright abuse.
Then you tell me.
A compliment is a polite expression of praise or admiration. When is it impolite to compliment someone on their appearance?
What you're describing is stalking and harassment. What Bells' is describing is a simple onetime compliment.