LKL wrote:
First, ad-hominem; the fact that it came from an AA studies professor does not make it less valid.
Did I say "this is invalid because of the source"? All I did was express my lack of surprise, as it's the kind of idea that I ascribe to that field, which has a lot of racial politics positions that I vehemently disagree with. Also, I have explained my own reasoning in rejecting that positions numerous times in multiple threads, many of which you've participated in, so a false ad hominem claim here really does no damage to my greater argument, and I'm not sure why you'd even make it except as some sort of point scoring exercise.
LKL wrote:
In some circles, it would be seen as more valid for that source.
Some circles? Really?
I'm sure groping and catcalling are considered compliments in 'some circles' as well, do you find that a persuasive argument in their favor? How about if we changed 'circles' to 'cultures', like "FGM is considered beneficial in some cultures", doing anything for you?
LKL wrote:
Second, dictionaries are not the only places that words are defined.
At the risk of getting overly pedantic, you're the one who claimed that "traditional definitions" of bigotries included the power to enforce them, I challenged that claim, and you've yet to really back up the original assertion, instead side tracking with tangents, derailing, to borrow a term.
LKL wrote:
Third, I'm not emotionally invested in the specific word that one uses; do you agree, though, that it is useful to distinguish between bias where one has the sociological power to enforce one's prejudices, and bias where one does not?
I don't agree actually, I don't see much value in treating various isms as better or worse depending upon which way the power dynamic is oriented, that reeks of double standards and only leads to further animosity, in my opinion. In my view, the long game is to reduce these attitudes as much as possible, and a lot of them spring from resentment, which is reinforced when you treat discrimination differently depending upon who is being discriminated against, in itself a form of discrimination.
LKL wrote:
It wasn't just WP that I was steering clear of. I've been adjusting to a new work schedule, and I've been spending a lot more out-of-work time simply asleep (or trying to sleep). Also trying to steer clear of extra stressors in general for a little while.
Ahh, I'd been wondering at the suddenness of your exit, glad to here it was just stress and a new schedule and not something more serious. Probably a good time to take a break from WP, too, it got a bit tense in here for a bit.
LKL wrote:
It's a useful word, but it's not exclusive to echo chambers and it's not exclusive to insular groups. For example:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePageOh, I'm well aware of the meaning, TV Tropes is one of my time sink sites, I'd just been looking for a word that wasn't too overtly derisive that still conveyed the sense that these are canned ideas, and 'trope' fits the bill perfectly. You have to understand, I'm not opposed to feminism
per se, but I often find myself at loggerheads with feminists over things I find endemic to the group, such as the over-application of these tropes, a certain kind of group think, poor arguing skills from spending too much time in an ideological bubble, hypocrisy regarding the men's rights movement, etc, but am frustrated at how often simply arguing with feminists draws the 'sexist' or 'misogynist' insinuations, if not outright accusations, hence why I wanted a more nuanced term.
LKL wrote:
It's not just *my* personal experience. It's also the personal experience of pretty much every woman I have ever talked to, except the non-verbal folks who don't go out of the house. And at least two of them have told me that they were sexually assaulted by relatives anyway (in case you haven't touched on it, there are a couple of self-described non-verbal types here on WP who do not speak out loud but use perfectly acceptable written English).
Again, I can follow you anecdote for anecdote, since as I mentioned before, the vast majority of men I've come into contact with during my life not only don't catcall or engage in similar harassing behavior, but are actively embarrassed and puzzled by those who do, strongly implying that it's a vocal minority doing it. With the exception of one former coworker, the only times I've ever even seen it have been race related, when I've been out with a black girlfriend and had black men yell at one or both of us, and even that has only happened a couple of times over the years.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
06 Oct 2014, 3:05 pm
) She doesn't want no guy who just wants to sleep with her for one night, and dump her the next day like a used napkin. She wants a serious and understanding relationship and that is fine. Everyone has standards for type of woman they want in life.( I want a woman who is down to earth, but, loves to have fun every once in a while.) I may not been on the website, but, people can post some weird stuff on the inter webs. specificity on dating sites were the integrity of people's lives outside the computer is put into question.
