The Legendary Guest
What are you talking about, Rumble? What "yes all women" thing?
I forget when it started or why it started, but there was a twitter hashtag that was popular a while back that was "yes all women"...which was women posting their stories about being sexually harassed or assaulted. This led to the "not all men" hashtag....I thought you were aware of this, so that's my bad for assuming.
Quote:
Uh huh...which is
not what Cecilia and I were talking about....
...He didn't respond to what you BOTH said...he responded to something Cecilia said....
Quote:
Not "shat on". How is our pointing out that it ignored the OP's issues and only focusing on the generalization then the two of us discussing the similarity to "not all men" in response to rape victims being shat on? Elaborate. Please explain thoroughly exactly how his "having a point" relates to his ignoring everything else about the OP's post.
Because IT WAS A GENERALIZATION. And the person who was pointing that out got criticized for doing so and not for a solid reason. You didn't address his argument...you addressed him. And when Lucky pointed out that the "similarity" between the "not all men" thing is a false equivocation....HE got shat on as well...and unjustly so.
Quote:
I am only talking about this thread. I have no ******** clue what other "one" you are talking about. Who is supposed to be ignoring the "blatant generalization" again, or under the impression that ignoring it makes it "disappear"? Who is claiming this type of thing?
The "other one" is the "not all men" argument...which is the hashtag that I mentioned earlier that both Cecilia and Lucky seemed to be referencing.
Quote:
She did explain how she felt about perceived exclusivity from Wiccans via a website. I would imagine that counted as an experience of some sort.
Which only discusses wiccan groups...not ALL religious groups.
Quote:
What. Are. You. Talking. About?
I already explained it, but I'll also take the time to point out that, after looking through the rest of the comments, Cecilia was talking about the hashtag thing I thought she was...
Quote:
Hold up. If I am reading this right, you are literally supporting the "not all (___)" response to someone who's been a victim of agression. Is that correct?
It depends on the tone they take....like Lucky said, if their tone is "the reason I hate men," then yes, I will point that out...because hating the collective for the actions of an individual is idiotic. However, that's why the two (this thread and the #yesallwomen/#notallmen thing) are being falsely equivocated...the two aren't the same (or, at least, were not initially the same).
Quote:
Are you asserting that a women who makes a sweeping generalization about men after being a victim of male aggression is somehow not able to remember any men on the face of the Earth who did not rape or harrass her?
No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. And maybe if you'd just ask me to explain instead of attempting to fill out my stance for me, you'd understand why I'm taking the position that I am.
Quote:
That she needs a man to remind her?
That isn't what I said or even implied.
Quote:
I stated
clearly that I was talking about
sweeping societal issues, such as rape of women by men. Not individuals.
Men as a collective are not rapists...INDIVIDUALS ARE! Including women. Bringing gender into it is irrelevant, as its a terrible thing whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman.
Quote:
Lucky could also not make such a persistent habit of posting single sentences with little substance, then following the responses with questions and emoticons. This is the ED, after all.
Unfortunately, you don't get to dictate what others can or cannot post...well, you can, but they're under no obligation to listen.
Quote:
Are you so sure? I seem to recall going for pages at a time with Lucky just to get a straight answer. I am not the only regular who has similar experiences with his MO. This leaves me in the position of being less inclined to ask what he means - which I
did, by the way, and got a snark response about words having "meanings" combined with the obligatory emoticon - and more inclined to think "Well s**t, here we go again with this nonsense".
You started with an equally vague comment and an emoticon as well. I think he was just returning the sentiment. Also, again, you mentioned not understanding what his point was...and instead of asking him to explain, you criticized him for "tone policing" (which he wasn't doing).
Quote:
It is
not my job to pry a proper answer from someone, it is
their job to communicate effectively or explain that they're having difficulty doing so.
True...however, that doesn't always happen, as communication is a two-way street. I mean, I only have to remind you of conversations with Leon to demonstrate how even an accurately communicated message from one individual can not be received from another. The point is, if you didn't understand his point, you should have asked him to elaborate (insert Captain Hindsight reference).
Quote:
I assure you it did not to me. We were addressing someone's specific behavior with respect to societal patterns.
And he was pointing out why it was a false equivocation, since Cecilia was relating it to this topic and a comment someone else had made in regard to it.
Quote:
Does he have to, with a username like Young King under Heaven, an avatar with a halo and an admission that he's a Christian, who is known for posting
ONLY what applies to his religion in any thread he enters? Really? Or is it safe to say by now that we're dealing with a privileged person? In your estimation is is necessary that he refer to his religious group every time he posts for us to notice we're dealing with person from a privileged majority?
Which, again, I'm not saying don't call him out on being a hypocrite...however, it's an ad hominem fallacy to focus your rebuttal solely on who he is instead of his argument. I mean, if I had made that comment, would you have objected? If your answer is no, then the argument is irrelevant.
Quote:
And NOBODY is claiming it is! The fact that everybody is belaboring that strawman right there is ********
disgusting. We did
NOT say that, at any time.
Ever. What we did was point out that only speaking to the generalization without acknowledging the problems of the OP was typical of a recurrent problem that arises when a privileged person is confronted with an oppressed minority member who is upset for some reason.
And yet, you did so only by focusing on the fact that the person is part of this "privileged" class. And that's not a straw man...that is a summation of your argument. OP opened with a generalization of religious groups...someone called them out on the generalization. Being a member of the "oppressed" class does mean the person is beyond reproach when they speak bullshit...no matter where the opposition to that bullshit comes from.
Quote:
It might be, if that's what we did, but we did not.
Your sole objection is that he is a member of this "privileged" class and that you don't think he should be allowed to speak on it because of that...That IS an ad hominem fallacy.
Quote:
ABSOLUTELY NOT, BUDDY For
anybody to need to focus on that generalization without addressing the issues behind it is a way to shift the focus of the discussion.
What the #yesallwomen thing became was an opportunity for the "feminists" (I put it in quotations because, though the specific people I'm talking about claim their feminists, they're clearly sexists, as they aren't interested in the equality of the sexes, which makes them different from actual feminists) to spout man hate, mostly insinuating that all men are rapists. It became a sweeping generalization of men, which spawned the #notallmen thing...which was almost dismissed outright by these same "feminists," because their generalizations were being called out on. I admit that there is a ton of behavioral and societal issues relating to how women are treated that there should be a conversation taking place. However, 1) twitter is not that place. and 2) generalizations and gender shaming do not belong in that conversation.
Quote:
No s**t, Rumble. Like, I know that, even though I've been through religious oppression - and also domestic violence and rape. I am not making sweeping generalizations because I have recovery behind me. Not everybody is so lucky. A simple study of the statistics would indicate that it would not be unusual to come across a person who had recently experienced aggression of some type due to their minority status, whatever that may be.
A person not being "over" a traumatic event does not mean they get to speak freely without being criticized.
Quote:
It implies that how? I am not implying s**t.
Your objection to members of a "privileged" group (we'll ignore the fact that "male privilege" doesn't really exist anymore in American society...the only real privileged groups left are the religious and rich) pointing out clear generalizations on the sole grounds that they are members of the group being generalized implies that that's what your argument would be, if you were being logically consistent.
Quote:
I am telling you for a fact that for a man to stroll in where a woman is talking about the experience of being victimized by men and she uses the word "men" instead of taking the time to qualify it in a manner that reminds the
MEN present that
SHE KNOWS not
ALL of them are that way and his response is "not all men" that's [******** up and
wrong and [******** him for implying that the necessity of making sure that she does not speak in a manner that might include him without granting her the common decency of expressing her legitimate feelings before indicating that she does, indeed, know that "not all men" are the problem because, you know, that implies that she's a ******** idiot.
...Again, she wasn't raped by "men"...she was raped by "A man"...an individual. Your appeal to emotions does nothing to validate the use of generalizations by a person who suffered a traumatic event...because, as a man, it's an insult to be treated like I'm going to rape someone just because I'm a man...which is why there are people who object to that generalization.
Quote:
Let another survivor speak to her about it.
How about no...being in a traumatic event doesn't make a person beyond reproach. If you speak bullshit, and you get called out on that bullshit, playing the victim card does nothing to validate that bullshit.
There are men who are rape survivors, too.
Quote:
RIGHT BACK AT YOU - hold the sorry.
We could around and around with this "I know you are, but what am I routine"...however, I'd prefer to stick to the actual arguments...
Quote:
Not irrelevant - part of a societal problem that affects me personally and that, my friend, is not irrelevent.
It was irrelevant to the discussion. Or, in case this was too vague (though, I explained WHY it was irrelevant in the next part), your objection over who it was who made the argument is irrelevant to the validity of the argument...as arguments stand and fall on their own. His was valid...hypocritical...but valid.
Quote:
Is a single statement an argument now?
Yes...it might not be a well defined argument, but yes...it can be an argument.
Quote:
Did I claim his statement was not valid?
No, you focused simply on an ad hominem attack instead...which doesn't invalidate his argument, nor does it address his argument.
Quote:
It did within the scope of the exchange I was holding with Cecilia, when the rest of you were not involved.
No it didn't, because if anyone not affiliated with a religious group, would you have said anything?
Quote:
You still aren't, actually.
Actually I am. If I weren't involved, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are, so I am.
Quote:
It damn sure is and I do make a habit of pointing that out, regardless who does not find it pleasant.
And I'm fine with pointing that out. But rejecting his argument completely, especially when it's valid, is silly. You can point out that he's probably the last person who has a right to be pointing out that generalization and still admit that his point was valid.
Quote:
What was said was that it was not addressing the OP's topic. Mind talking about what
I actually said? That's been my problem from the beginning. Continuing to beat this dead horse I never rode in on makes no sense whatsoever.
It wasn't addressing the topic...but it WAS addressing the title...which is PART of the topic...it's also an irrelevant part...they could have easily named it something else, and avoided this whole thing.
100
200
100
100
200
200
