Randwolf
Here, we'll start with a point that apparently confuses you:
First, I'll stop with it when you stop with the disingenuous bullshit. As to where it comes from? It's easy enough: the concept is called
good faith, which is fairly easily defined as "honesty or lawfulness of purpose".
Quite simply, I don't see your purpose as being particularly honest.
For instance, we might take as an example a portion of our exchange so far:
Randwolf: These 51 points certainly seem like femtroll material to me. Anyone have comments?
Tiassa: Why is it that I've never heard of this "femtroll" except from angry boys like yourself?
Here you go.
Recommended reading (for ABS, too), from Feminism 101:
Randwolf: Your logic sucks, Tiassa. You never bothered to ask me if I believe in the feminist movement. Equal pay for equal work, etc. Absolutely, I agree. I also think that some people take things to the extreme. I have a problem with that. You can go play with your "Recommended reading". These are real issues, affecting everyone. I live in the real world, not an ivory tower.
Tiassa: It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in equal pay for equal work. In your topic post, you wrote, "These 51 points certainly seem like femtroll material to me." In other words, you took one list, allegedly written by a feminist—described by the website you got the list from as "a 34 year old cumdumpster from Ohio"—and attributed it to feminism ("femtroll material"). Hence, the two links discussing the fact that one feminist does not represent feminism, and cannot be automatically presumed to represent another feminist.
Whether or not you think you believe in the feminist movement is a separate question entirely. I would suggest you turn your critical eye toward your own logic, but with one difference: try doing it honestly.
Randwolf: Look, Tiassa, you know as well as I that I picked this topic up from another Sciforums thread that you closed, based on plagiarism. All I did with these links was try to trace it back.
Your two
responses—"Your logic sucks ...," and "Look, Tiassa, you know as well as I ...," are
both dishonest. As I pointed out: it doesn't matter whether or not you "believe in the feminist movement". The question at hand was your transference of
one feminist's perspective to the entire movement. And, furthermore, the topic you picked this up from is its own issue. You made an assertion at the end of your topic post—
"These 51 points certainly seem like femtroll material to me."
—and now try to duck its implications by attempting to change the subject. This is not reflective of an honest purpose in the discussion.
Furthermore, since you decided to raise the issue of the closed topic—
" It would seem that it is the leftist, panty waist, liberal, feminist, do gooders that get angry over this topic. I imagine you will soon lock this thread, just like the other ....
.... Offends your sensibilities, doesn't it?"
—you've opened that perspective to consideration. Now, are we supposed to believe you're illiterate? Hardly. You've demonstrated at least a functional literacy in reading words, and your posts suggest you know how to construct sentences. Illiteracy, then, does not explain your transformation of a plagiarism concern (see
Section 7 of "Forum Rules, Regulations and Recommendations - - Version 2.3" for more information) into a matter of political sentiment and personal taste. Indeed, your expression to Angrybellsprout—"
Any view that does not agree with the establishment is immediately condemned to purgatory. I'm amazed this thread is still open. Especially with the way some
moderators are..."—suggests that you either legitimately can't tell the difference, or don't want to.
So, let us put the question directly to you:
Are you really unable to discern such a basic difference?
Is that your plea, then, Randwolf? That you are too ignorant to understand the issues you're addressing?
Fine. If that's the case, then that's how it goes, and we'll do what we can to accommodate your handicap. Make sure you list your learning disabilities, so we know what it is we're dealing with. Dyslexia? Borderline mental retardation? Severe emotional conflict? A psychiatric or congenital neurological disorder? There are plenty of reasons one might have trouble grasping and processing the information at hand, but unless people know what they need to accommodate, it is generally considered rude to simply
presume such a situation.
Rather, people tend to presume that you are, in some way, intelligent. And this leads to the other alternative. Are you making a conscious effort to misrepresent things? At the heart of it, the question of your honesty is established by your conduct.
Maybe in Rand City, the capital of Sciforums Bizarro World, good faith is a sign of weakness, but for the rest of us, it is essential to understanding one another. Certainly, we make room for sarcasm and humor, but if you look around, those who are so persistent in such forms tend to irritate their neighbors. Eventually, people will wonder whether they are supposed to take you seriously.
We'll take one more example in order to come back to the top of your post:
Are you really asserting that since you posted the topic thread, you have no obligation whatsoever to pay attention to the context of the posts you respond to?
Indeed, your post at #32—the one in which you missed the point consistently and thoroughly—focuses so exclusively on
me that one might confuse your purpose. Of the five sections between quoted material, all address me primarily and not the alleged subject of the discussion.
Considering how deeply warped your arguments tend to be, it is easy enough to simply clarify the point about what makes a point invalid. It is not at all an assertion that any particular argument is invalidated, but rather that one, in objecting to any of these criteria for what constitutes a rapist ought to consider that at one time or another, a rapist somewhere has included the argument in his defense, and there are plenty of men out there who sincerely believe that they've never committed an act of sexual violence who would agree with some of these points. That an argument has been used as grounds to excuse a rape is the reason such a question exists. Certainly there are many of us who know well that just because you're married to a woman doesn't mean it is impossible to rape her, but—believe it or not—there are some men out there who don't understand such a point. She was drunk? I was drunk? We both were drunk? Doesn't change the fact that what happened was rape. Now, I personally think a woman has every right to get drunk and go out in search of a shag, but none of that changes the fact of a rape if rape is what happens.
Why thank you, but as I noted, I don't actually care. After all—
—you are so willing to provide evidence of your lack of good faith. Tell us, Randwolf, why
did you post this topic? Is it because you have a legitimate question for discussion about its alleged subject matter, or were you trying to posture yourself as some sort of rebel who scores a moral victory for providing a source link?
Well, if that's what you want to discuss, you should probably focus on that at the outset.
If you don't want something addressed, you should probably consider whether or not it is wise to make a point of calling someone out specifically.
Yawn. You're complaining about
ad hom. There's a surprise.
As to where people get off saying all men are rapists? Perhaps this is one of those context things. We have, somewhere around here, at least one example. Oh, right.
You provided it. You know, the one spoken by a fictional character in the book?
Let's revisit that one:
They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.
(McKinnon, qtd. in Byron)
Well, right there you have a context for what the phrase means. Men "undress" women with their eyes, and our laws and social codes are often set up in a manner that (coincidentally?) oppresses women.
We have discussed some of these behaviors, laws, and customs in other topics around Sciforums. Indeed, this deficit of human respect is the hole into which the feminist foundation is poured and molded. How we regard the structure built up from that foundation is, indeed, a question of our era.
Even the source you provide is particularly conflicted over the phrase:
... a quick internet search for the phrase reveals that it is currently mostly used by critics of feminism and by feminist pages with a "not" in front ....
.... Nevertheless I want to use this phrase as an example of the endemic anti-male sexism within the feminist movement.
(
Byron)
So even Mr. Byron admits that he sees the argument more from anti-feminists. Yet that doesn't stop him from making that point a scurrilous accusation against feminism, comparing it to racism. Which makes for a convenient circular argument:
• Accuse, accuse, accuse.
• Response.
• Transform response into accusation.
Thus, like we see here: anyone here can reiterate that not all men are rapists, but there's always a misogynist somewhere willing to transform that reiteration—offered for the comfort of angry misogynists—into yet another reason to complain about feminism.
This is an
old political game. And while it's a thin ruse and easy enough to see through, it's always amazing how many people will try to run it. This might have to do with their outlook and political positions and lack of any real support for their arguments, but I'm generally not surprised when I see it.
I mean, it's not like people are saying, "Not all men are rapists, except that they are". This sort of argument would better fit Byron's point, but it is a point too subtle for some of our members here at Sciforums. You know, the kind who say, that they don't advocate rape, except that ______, when what goes in the blank amounts to a defense of a rapist and a condemnation of the victim. Or those who say they're not transferring the responsibility for other people's conduct onto a woman, but then spend their time asking people to list out the precautions a woman should take.
Which leads us back to Byron's page for a moment. It's a curious point:
Now, here at Sciforums, we recently had a nifty row over this concept. Let's isolate a point for contention: "
'All men are rapists' is taking one of the worst crimes recognized and saying it represents the universal nature of men. It is saying men are evil. It is also saying women are universal victims who should fear men."
We should be upset at such "bigotry", yet as recent threads have discussed, women have an obligation to take precautions against rape, which necessitates the calculation that any man is a potential rapist.
So do you agree with Byron, then? Would it be bigoted to presume all men are potential rapists? Because that's
exactly what you encourage with your open-ended precaution theory.
Another example of you missing the point. Except that it seems deliberate, which at least hints toward dishonesty.
So where do you think the fifty-one point list comes from? Is it drawn out of thin air? Do those points correspond to any real circumstance? Do they correspond to some evil, feminist victimization of a poor, innocent male whose only "crime" was to see an unconscious woman and decide to fuck her? Which, of course, leads us to:
So what part do you not understand? We come back, on the one hand, to the question of where the list comes from. Is it just some perverse invention of a crazy woman? And, to the other, we come back to your disingenuous presentation:
It seems you're just trying to avoid the subject. You ask for links to verify what you already know is true, but act as if you cannot connect tab A to slot B.
See, yet another example: Why did you bother wasting your time with such a weak attempt at a point or a joke.
Something about context. Something about sarcasm. And yet another something about your disingenuous self-righteousness. Really, it would be easy for people to simply accept that you're making a big, fucked up joke that is somehow funny to you, except that you at least pretend to be attempting a serious conversation. The problem with that pretense, though, goes back to the earlier consideration of the honesty of your purpose.
What it ends up looking like is contempt. Inchoate anger seeping up to further poison the fertility of your intellect. On the one hand, it's kind of sad to see. To the other, though, it's your right to hurt yourself like that. In the end, it is enough to deal with you as you present yourself.
Quite obviously, you can cycle back to the beginning of this post.
Ooh. Scary, scary.
Are you afraid of the answer or the logical question in might bring?
The key word there is
intelligent. Certain questions are already answered, and it requires a paradigm shift of considerable magnitude before they become valid again.
A problem with this, of course, is the rise of cynicism as a means of asserting individualism. Cynicism should be rational, sir, and not based so blatantly in self-interest.
To view the list in this light, there is a lot of it that seems self-evident. If a man has trouble with the concept, he should just picture another man trying to have homosexual intercourse with him under the same circumstances. The reason some people feel compelled to include such boneheaded criteria on a list like this is because somewhere they have encountered—so they know there are more out there—a person who doesn't understand or accept the point.
(
Three days and three hundred posts later ....)
No, seriously, dude, take your time.
Oh, poor you.
While the question of spending nine years in any forum community is its own, I long ago took the note about just how unproductive such laughable, teenybopper façades as yours really are. Look, dude, maybe all of this serves some obscure point that is important to
you, but if you intend to use this community as a proving ground for such juvenilia, you should expect to run into at least a few people who won't show you the infinite patience and adoration you seem to expect. There's no future in your brand of pathetic individualism and fake intellect.
Put the issues first, and give them genuine consideration. Don't use them to hide behind while shouting for a pissing contest.
____________________
Notes:
"good faith." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Viewed July 7, 2008 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good faith
Byron, David. "All Men Are Rapists". Sex War. Viewed July 7, 2008. http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id51.htm
) and yes if she wanted to have me charged over it she could have and i would have plead guilty because she would have been right. That being said she wouldnt and didnt and so it was forgoten. The only reason i brought it up was in the context of the law changes in NSW's