05 Jun 2013, 4:56 am
Shatbat wrote:
Dox original statement on what was wrong with L&D brought a point that I hadn't considered, up to then I figured the worst part of it was all the guys who kept complaining on how much their life sucked and how all women liked jerks as opposed to them who are oh so nice, and that gets old quickly. They're annoying.
Oh don't get me wrong, the constant negativity is soul crushing as well, but I really don't have any ideas on "fixing"that one, where as the battle of the sexes problem seems more surmountable. I'd hope that officially changing the L&D forum guidelines to reflect it's role as a support forum and limiting feedback to the positive type a la the Haven would have an effect on those posters as well, but I don't think it would be a panacea.
Shatbat wrote:
So Dox, on that one, if it was mere venting then I could see your point, but if they actively attack other people then I believe stopping them is the right thing.
Oh, I've been pretty emphatic from the start that aggressive behavior shouldn't be tolerated, I just happen to think that it should be handled by the mods and not by attempted forum vigilantism, which just tends to make things worse. My own criteria down in PPR is that I'll immediately report things like physical threats or naked personal attacks ("you f*cking piece of sh*t!" as opposed to "that opinion is moronic), while evaluating anything else for context and intensity. I also occasionally point out threads that have the potential to get nasty, members with history circling each other or topics that perennially bring out the death threats (animal rights, uggh) and suggest that a mod participate in them in order to stop trouble before it starts, and I don't see why a similar approach couldn't work in L&D.
Shatbat wrote:
However, Dox pointed out something important: there are better ways to deal with it than attacking the offender right away. If people perceive they are being attacked, the default response is to go on the defrnsive, and if they are in the defensive they are unlikely to change their view, in fact, they will strengthen them because they will feel commited to them. It's not the best of attitudes, but it is a very common one. And this is the part where XFilesGeek will hate me 
. I ask you: when you react to sexism, what is your goal? And would your reaction be the best way to accomplish that goal?
. I ask you: when you react to sexism, what is your goal? And would your reaction be the best way to accomplish that goal?http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt230277.html
From a thread I started a while back in PPR:
Dox47 wrote:
Letting the truth get in the way of what your want. I put this one first for a reason, because it's the mistake that I probably see the most often, and the one that I think is the most destructive. I'll give an example. Take a poor white person who's struggling to get along, and tell them that they not only have it easy compared to whatever minority group you're representing, but that they're actively contributing to oppression by virtue of their white privilege, even though they're not consciously doing so. Do you think that person is going to be particularly receptive to your message, even if it happens to be true? (I'm not going to argue whether it's true either way) How about a man being told he's a part of "rape culture" or "the patriarchy" and complicit in the oppression of women, again, absent any conscious action on his part? Think he's going to leap up and support feminism if approached that way? I sure wouldn't, and I happen to agree with most of the stated goals of feminism. There is a reason that the word Feminazi found such wide and instantaneous acceptance, as most everyone has been exposed someone who's taken it too far and alienated far more people than they've educated.
Even better, if anyone of a gender, race, class, etc that you consider to be privileged ever complains about being discriminated against, loudly mock and denigrate them, "poor little white boy" perhaps summing it up most succinctly; that'll really win people over to your point of view...
"But Dox", you say, "group X really does contribute to oppression merely by accepting the status quo", to which I answer "so what?". Is your goal simply to loudly air your grievances about justifiably infuriating inequities, or do you actually want to sway opinion and foment change? If it's the former, go ahead and stick to "the truth" at all costs, even as it erodes your support by alienating the very people that you need to persuade in order to make progress towards you ideal society; if it's that latter, perhaps you should consider a more nuanced approach, more honey and less vinegar. Most people are in favor of equality, most people are in favor of fairness, but getting in people's faces and painting them personally as the oppressors of society is a certain path to defensiveness and having your message shut out by cognitive dissonance.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for civility here, f*ck civility, but for effectiveness over point scoring.
Even better, if anyone of a gender, race, class, etc that you consider to be privileged ever complains about being discriminated against, loudly mock and denigrate them, "poor little white boy" perhaps summing it up most succinctly; that'll really win people over to your point of view...
"But Dox", you say, "group X really does contribute to oppression merely by accepting the status quo", to which I answer "so what?". Is your goal simply to loudly air your grievances about justifiably infuriating inequities, or do you actually want to sway opinion and foment change? If it's the former, go ahead and stick to "the truth" at all costs, even as it erodes your support by alienating the very people that you need to persuade in order to make progress towards you ideal society; if it's that latter, perhaps you should consider a more nuanced approach, more honey and less vinegar. Most people are in favor of equality, most people are in favor of fairness, but getting in people's faces and painting them personally as the oppressors of society is a certain path to defensiveness and having your message shut out by cognitive dissonance.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for civility here, f*ck civility, but for effectiveness over point scoring.
One of my favorite observations about the follies of this approach to advocacy was something to the effect of "how many guys have had to google "rape culture" or "the patriarchy" after having been accused of being part of them?", which really calls into the question the value of making those accusations in the first place.
05 Jun 2013, 5:00 am
05 Jun 2013, 5:11 am
05 Jun 2013, 5:14 am
05 Jun 2013, 8:32 am
Shatbat wrote:
Fair enough, but the general "men can't be experts of sexism" statement carries a lot of unfortunate implications, while in your case it is only about an specific situation, where gender seems more of a situational thing (I don't know, but it is likely that most of the people who tell you the way you should react to sexism happen to be men. But if a woman did that it would be just as bad, so gender ultimately doesn't play a factor)
Yes. Absolutely.
Quote:
Also, now that I'm officially into this, it is as good a time as any other to talk about L&D. First, let's remember our ultimate goal: to find out what is wrong with it, and if we ever agree on it, it would be nice to try and find possible solutions. Something we can probably agree in is that it comes from continuous bickering between some men and some women, plus the fact that people in the spectrum as a whole tend to have negative dating experiences because of difficulty socializing and/or other factors, and some of that negativity is bound to show up there.
Dox original statement on what was wrong with L&D brought a point that I hadn't considered, up to then I figured the worst part of it was all the guys who kept complaining on how much their life sucked and how all women liked jerks as opposed to them who are oh so nice, and that gets old quickly. They're annoying. But the post made me wonder whether it is possible to be too hard on them, and too quick to jump at their throats. After all, they are victims of the circumstances and of the way they were shaped at the word. However, they are also to blame; I remember at least one case where a promising member was driven off WP because of negative comments posted by men like them. And I've already have had discussions where the conclusion was that many women didn't like to post their problems there because their threads tend to be filled up by men who complain about how lucky they are that at least they get dates, being belittling and dismissive towards women in general. That goes beyond mere complaining, and I believe that should not be tolerated. So Dox, on that one, if it was mere venting then I could see your point, but if they actively attack other people then I believe stopping them is the right thing.
Dox original statement on what was wrong with L&D brought a point that I hadn't considered, up to then I figured the worst part of it was all the guys who kept complaining on how much their life sucked and how all women liked jerks as opposed to them who are oh so nice, and that gets old quickly. They're annoying. But the post made me wonder whether it is possible to be too hard on them, and too quick to jump at their throats. After all, they are victims of the circumstances and of the way they were shaped at the word. However, they are also to blame; I remember at least one case where a promising member was driven off WP because of negative comments posted by men like them. And I've already have had discussions where the conclusion was that many women didn't like to post their problems there because their threads tend to be filled up by men who complain about how lucky they are that at least they get dates, being belittling and dismissive towards women in general. That goes beyond mere complaining, and I believe that should not be tolerated. So Dox, on that one, if it was mere venting then I could see your point, but if they actively attack other people then I believe stopping them is the right thing.
Oh, there are a few hyper-sensitive women in there too, and, from what I've seen, it's usually just a very vocal few men who give the rest a bad name (they're just really loud). The problem is this minority is making everyone else miserable.
Quote:
Now, on calling out sexism. Sexism is not right, that much is true. The point of debate here seems to be, what is the right way to deal with sexism? Just ignore it, attack it viciously, or something in between? As it has been said, sexism can't just be ignored. However, Dox pointed out something important: there are better ways to deal with it than attacking the offender right away. If people perceive they are being attacked, the default response is to go on the defrnsive, and if they are in the defensive they are unlikely to change their view, in fact, they will strengthen them because they will feel commited to them. It's not the best of attitudes, but it is a very common one. And this is the part where XFilesGeek will hate me . I ask you: when you react to sexism, what is your goal? And would your reaction be the best way to accomplish that goal?
. I ask you: when you react to sexism, what is your goal? And would your reaction be the best way to accomplish that goal?Actually, I appreciate the fact that you ASKED me about my goals instead of assuming what they are. Thank you for that.
First, I'd like to point out that I've never used the "s-word" when debating anything in L&D. I addressed whatever points of contention there were, and proceeded like I would with any other debate on whatever topic was at issue.
Secondly, my goal was address fallacious logic, not to win hearts and minds. My opponents may not have appreciated it, but I received many PMs thanking me for my support, so, I apparently made some WP ladies a little more comfortable participating in the forum.
Third, there seems to be a wide range of opinions on what constitutes "attacking." Personally, I don't believe addressing another person's statements on a forum and refuting their line of reasoning is "attacking."
05 Jun 2013, 8:47 am
05 Jun 2013, 9:13 am
Shatbat wrote:
AScomposer13413 wrote:
That's part of the reason I avoid that forum. Have no idea if I'm going to go back, but in the state of things, I don't know.
Hi! Now that I've got hold of you, why did you live the AAI forum?
Snared
PM me about it!
Shatbat
Veteran
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet
05 Jun 2013, 11:06 am
05 Jun 2013, 12:13 pm
bcousins
Veteran
Joined: 1 May 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 809
Location: On a failed Tangara set at Blacktown
05 Jun 2013, 6:52 pm
05 Jun 2013, 7:46 pm
Shatbat
Veteran
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet
05 Jun 2013, 9:14 pm
06 Jun 2013, 10:23 am
Shatbat wrote:
That sounds fair. From your discussion with Dox on that topic you gave off the impression that you'd automatically say someone who says something sexist once would be sexist without taking the context into account, but that last thing you wrote, again, is perfectly reasonable and shows otherwise. Which makes me wonder what are you two exactly arguing about.
I think it's a matter of two people who spend entirely too much time in PPR.
06 Jun 2013, 12:57 pm
06 Jun 2013, 4:24 pm
07 Jun 2013, 9:03 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Reasons why I am way stupider than I want |
29 Aug 2024, 9:21 pm |
| Join my Spotify Jam if you like 80s music and have Spotify |
22 Oct 2024, 3:12 pm |
| Why do people recommend working in IT/Computers for Aspies? |
21 Nov 2024, 10:26 am |
