Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery evil women hypocrisy irony alert misogyny MRA oppressed men reddit the c-word

Men’s Rights Redditors to Rebecca Watson: How dare you say we hate women, you [obscene gender-related slur]

NOTE: Today is Day Two of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.

Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

So the other day, the atheist blogger Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, had this little conversation on Twitter:

Watson, you may recall, got herself onto the Men’s Rights radar a few months back, after a brief comment she made in a podcast — suggesting that perhaps it wasn’t such a good idea for a guy to hit on woman he’s never spoken to before while the two of them are alone in an elevator at 4 AM – somehow turned into a Big Fucking Thing on the Internet, because how dare she say such a thing, it’s creep-shaming, she must hate men, bla bla bla.

So, anyhoo, one Men’s Rights Reddit noticed this little Twitter exchange, and posted it to the Men’s Rights subreddit. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. MRAs hating women? How dare she suggest such a thing!

Here are some of the things that assorted Men’s Rights Redditors posted in response, to remind us all that the Men’s Rights movement isn’t all about shitting on women. Let’s start with this lovely rebuttal, boasting nearly 60 net upvotes:

This comment inspired a long and winding discussion of the word “cunt,” and why it’s like totally ok to use it all the time, because in England the UK people call men “cunts” as well.

Some got a little carried away:

This little exchange came with a side order of irony:

Speaking of fantasy, here’s a strange bit of paranoia, which nonetheless drew upvotes from the very same people who are outraged that Watson was a bit creeped out by a dude she didn’t know asking her to come to his hotel room at 4 AM:

And here’s still more evidence that MRAs, despite their many egregious flaws, do at least have vivid imaginations:

Some other comments, all of which got at least a few upvotes from the MR regulars:

Funny how most of feminism is shitting on men and generally being a cunt under the guise of empowerment and “equality.”

She should do something about that uni-brow.

She’s only in the atheist community to give her a broader audience for her hateful attention whoring.

Let’s end with this eloquent plea for people to not give a shit if MRAs hate women:

The folks in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently debating whether or not to change the subreddit’s slogan, which is currently: “Mens’ Rights: Earning Scorn from Bigoted Feminists and White Knights Since 2008.”

So let me humbly suggest:

Mens’ Rights: Like it’s even relevant if mens rights is anti women in regard to if mens rights is a movement about addressing mens issues.

Or the even punchier:

Men’s Rights: i’m tired of not using the term “cunt”.

MRAs, you’re welcome.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

553 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J U
J U
8 years ago

Rutee Katreya: “Are you illiterate?” I am not English, if you find something wrong with that sentence grammatically, then it’s my bad.

Sharculese: “i dunno man, how can you be so self-centered as to lecture us on a set of customs you admit to knowing nothing about, or to make up bullshit about a woman you’ve never met?” The main problem with this, is that you view this as a lecture. If it as custom for Americans to hit on woman with saying “Don’t take this the wrong way. But I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee.”, or something like that, I accept it. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have an opinion about it: it’s silly to hit on somebody this way. That is why if a woman said this to me, I wouldn’t interpret it as a hit on.

CassandraSays: “Men only hit on women who’re their personal ideal? Well, that flies in the face of everything else that dudes like this believe about men, women, and sex.”

I presume your reply was for this sentence: “I mean how can somebody be so self-centered, to think that she is the ideal of every male on the planet?” That was just an assumption about the woman who accused me of taking photos of her, when I was obviously not. And when I have convinced her that I wasn’t taking pictures of her, he said I am gay, because of not finding her attractive. How is that generalization? You see why she was selfish?

And it was not the first story what I hear, from many other fellows I know, they had very uncomfortable encounters, with foreign woman, just like this. For example here it is a custom to hold a door for a woman at an entrance, and let her go in first. A friend of mine held a door in Washington for a woman, and she accused him of sexual harassment, and threatened to send him into jail.

pillowinhell: “JU you’re seriously going to sit there and tell me I don’t understand the culture I live in, when you know nothing about it yourself?

I don’t say you don’t understand the culture you live in. I just say that it is irrational to say that a women will always identify a hit on. It is as irrational, as saying: men always orientate themselves better in a 3D environment and use maps more easily.

It’s the same stereotype, and just an intuition, some people think that intuitions are reliable, but in reality there is no scientific evidence for that. So to say that “trust a woman to know when she is being hit on”, is illogical.

“That one woman once made one mistake does not mean that women in general cannot decipher social cues, especially where they involve sexual requests by men. Women here don’t often get the luxury of staying niave because we take the blame foir being sexually assaulted.”

I never made a generalization to all woman. I just wanted to say, that intuitions just work, or don’t work. It’s like prayer, if it works it’s proof or God, if doesn’t, then it’s an exception. What one person interpret as A, another can interpret as B, it’s subjective, not objective. Yes, some people think that preparing for the worst is a good policy, because you don’t have unwanted surprises. But that doesn’t mean we should avoid objectivity.

“So I suggest that you take your personal problem of thinking women are self centered idiots and keep it carefully tucked away where no one can see it.”

I don’t have any personal problem related to this. If you take my words out of context, of a single event, what I used to refute your claim that intuition is always right, (and not for attacking woman generally) and turn it into an ad hominem attack, why should I take it seriously?

Could you explain how it is discriminatory towards women, when I say that we couldn’t know for sure, if it was a hit on? And why everybody is saying that this is as attack against Rebecca, did I say anything about her person? Is making false accusations about me (that I think women are idiots, when obviously not, not even mentioned such thing [or when I say about a person, that he is good at the piano, and he happens to be Italian, you would interpret it as if would said: every Italian is good at the piano?]), and dismissing my opinion on the ground of this accusation a valid way to argue (reductio ad Hitlerum)?

cloudiah
8 years ago

That story? About a man holding a door for a women, and she threatens him with jail? Either it is complete fiction, or there is much that you are leaving out…

pillowinhell
8 years ago

BINGO! I just got a troll bingo from JU,s last comment!

Seriously JU, asking a woman to come to your room at 4am over here is definately making a pass. It might not be where you come from, but it is definitely so in North America. Different cultures different customs. Knowing my own cultures customs and drawing a reasonable, straight line conclusion from it does not make me irrational. But nice try on the wimminz be crazy line.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

JU, over here, the guy used a “come for coffee” line to express his interest while at the same time giving him plausible denialbility. At best, this strategy allows both sides to save face because a) he doesn’t have to put his true thoughts or feelings on the line and face complete rejection and b) she can politely refuse the invitation without having to give him a complete rejection even if kindly worded.

Over here, a four am request to come home with someone is definitly a booty call. If he was just interested in a chat, he’d have asked to meet her the next day.

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

A friend of mine held a door in Washington for a woman, and she accused him of sexual harassment, and threatened to send him into jail.

And then after that, he met a woman who totally put her baby in the microwave to dry it off! And then they went for a drive down a secluded road, and there was this guy with a hook for a hand who attacked them! This really happened, you guys! Why don’t you believe me?

J U
J U
8 years ago

As I said before, degrading my entire commen into: “wimminz be crazy”, is just what I have said reductio ad Hitlerum. And actually I don’t understand how could you label me, and ignore that this article calls a women a cunt.

My counter argument was there to prove, that it’s not 100%. If I find one red golfball that doesn’t prove that all golfballs are red, but disproves that all golfballs are white. I hope this example is sufficient enough, to make my point clear.

“That story? About a man holding a door for a women, and she threatens him with jail? Either it is complete fiction, or there is much that you are leaving out…”

Believe what you want, but after reading this site:
http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/
I think it is more than plausible.

Again this does not mean that all women are like this, that is prejudice. It only means that men from a different culture, should be extra careful in foreign places of like the USA. For example I wouldn’t commit the same mistake as he (what is considered to be polite here), I would only make contact with foreign women in the (unlikely) case of they going after me.

Pecunium
8 years ago

J U Americans are a bit strange.

It was an Irishman, and I wonder are you Basque, Finnish, or Hungarian?

But, back to the point, Of course people would find it starnge to do this at 4 am, not because of sexual, but personal issues: if I am obviously go to my room for sleep, it would be inappropriate to make this offer, and illogical too, since I am tired, and a tired person is no good conversationalist.

That is precisely the point Rebecca Watson made. An offer at that point in time is innapropriate. Contextually it implies that conversation is not what’s really being offered (he, after all, could have asked her to have coffee in the bar/hotel restaurant).

Question… why do you care? Why bring it up in a dead thread on a blog you’ve never been to before, more than three months after the post was written, and more than a year after the event.

How can someone be so, “self-centered” that she thinks random men might be taking pictures of her? She might have lots of experience of just that. It might also be you don’t understand what was happening (you were in a foreign country; one which almost certainly has a language from a different family to your non indo-european native tongue), and trust me, as a photographer 1: lots of people don’t like having their pictures taken and 2: lots of men do harrass attractive women by taking pictures of them.

So it might not have been self-centered at all.

But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have an opinion about it: it’s silly to hit on somebody this way. That is why if a woman said this to me, I wouldn’t interpret it as a hit on.

You aren’t expressing an opinion on the events, you are telling us the interpretaion of the person who was there is wrong; because you wouldn’t see it as a sexual advance. For some reason you think it’s a completely non-sexual thing to leave a place where coffee is served, and conversation is being had at a late hour of the evening, and invite a person to one’s hotel room… purely for conversation.

And that anyone who sees the possibility of an ulterior motive is clueless about thier own culture

That’s fucking self-centered.

That was just an assumption about the woman who accused me of taking photos of her, when I was obviously not. And when I have convinced her that I wasn’t taking pictures of her, he said I am gay, because of not finding her attractive.

Dude, that story is so inane. Maybe it happened but it’s awfully convenient. She was all pissed because she thought you were taking pictures of her, and then she was all offended that you didn’t think she was hot… so offended she called you gay; and you understood all this when the conversation was in a foreign language.

Forgive me for doubting your credibility.

I don’t have any personal problem related to this

Then why did you re-open the discussion?

Why did you come here to do it?

Why did you try to discredit the observer’s estimation of what happened (both specifically, by saying in a culture different from hers, that wouldn’t be a come-on [which I, personally, find incredible], and secondarily by telling us a story about some woman who misunderstood, you; and and then abused you for not thinking she was hot/wanting to sleep with her)?

Really, what is your purpose here?

It looks to me as if you thought you had a freebie chance to tell us all how wrong you were and failed to pull it off.

Pecunium
8 years ago

J U And it was not the first story what I hear, from many other fellows I know, they had very uncomfortable encounters, with foreign woman, just like this. For example here it is a custom to hold a door for a woman at an entrance, and let her go in first. A friend of mine held a door in Washington for a woman, and she accused him of sexual harassment, and threatened to send him into jail.

Where are you from again? That you have, “many other fellows” who tell you of the “uncomfortable encounters they have with foreign women” the details of which are amazingly (I mean that, it amazes me to hear this), and conveniently, the same tropes that MRAs and TradCons and other misogynists repeat to prove that women are ball-busting bitches who hate men, just for being men.

Maybe it’s a language thing, and your non indo-european understanding is confusing you, and them.

Or maybe you are making shit up, because that comment (esp. in combination with the rest of what you’ve said) gives the lie to I never made a generalization to all woman.

Sharculese
8 years ago

dude, i know english isn’t your first language, so i’m just gonna say, yes, lecture was the right word to use there. but that goes to my original point- you’re trying to to explain something to us you concede we have more experience with than you, with is just incredibly arrogant.

Bee
Bee
8 years ago

If it as custom for Americans to hit on woman with saying “Don’t take this the wrong way. But I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee.”, or something like that, I accept it.

This doesn’t matter at all, but it’s annoying me. Elevatorgate did not happen in the US, and I don’t know that RW’s said that the guy who invited her to his room was USian.

From her video the guy said: “Don’t take this the wrong way. But I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee.”. You have to strech it a lot to make this look like a hit on. If he really wanted to pick her up, he would just say “I would like to know about you more.”.

“I would like to know about you more” = CLEARLY an attempt to pick up a woman.

“Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more [at 4 a.m., after you’ve said that you are tired and want to go to bed]. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” = ANYTHING but an attempt to pick up a woman. A clear and obvious indication that the speaker IS NOT INTERESTED THANK YOU.

I’m also trying to figure out which “fundamentally different European country” JU lives in where women are invited into strange men’s hotel rooms all the time to give little feminism lessons. With his clue about Indo-European languages, it’s gotta be Finland, Estonia, Hungary, or possibly Turkey. I’d like to know for sure, as I’m planning a trip overseas next year, and it would be lovely to go somewhere without my boyfriend and know that I’m completely safe from harassment! (So long as I avoid people who would like to know about me more, I mean.)

Pecunium
8 years ago

J U: I read that link. I don’t see it making it likely that women, in general, will threaten people who hold doors for them. I also see your claim about that as being about, “all women” insofar as it would have to be a significant number for your friends to have randomly encountered it while on brief visits.

Also, nowhere in that piece does it say to be hostile to all men, at all times. It says the system needs to be changed, and that RadFems will have to do the heavy lifting, because others are ignoring the problem.

Is she hostile to men? Yes. But, as you say, that’s one woman… and you can’t generalise all women from a single example, right?

Pecunium
8 years ago

One more question: Why do you think we care? You admit you don’t know enough about the culture in question to make a real judgement, but you expect us (who are much more familiar with it) to suddenly take your description of your (anonymous) culture, and say… “Wow… that makes so much sense… she was totes wrong, and he wasn’t making a sexual advance towards her. He was leaving the bar, and she’d said she was tired and needed to go to bed, and thought, ‘Hey, maybe she wants some more coffee, and to stay up all night, with me’,” because where you live that would be perfectly normal.

Never mind that it didn’t happen where you live?

What’s your purpose here? What are you trying to prove?

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Dude, the guy who hit on her wasn’t an inanimate object, he chose to use specific word and only the most clueless guy would expect any other assumption. Why do you think he wanted to speak to her alone in his room, he wanted to become his best friend? He had questions about sexism he couldn’t asked in front of people? Come on, let’s be realistic.

Pecunium
8 years ago

J U: My counter argument was there to prove, that it’s not 100%. If I find one red golfball that doesn’t prove that all golfballs are red, but disproves that all golfballs are white. I hope this example is sufficient enough, to make my point clear.

But your argument wasn’t, “There are some red golfballs”, it was, “this golfball must be red”.

1: Rebecca Watson said the guy did a clumsy thing.
2: She said, “when someone says they don’t want to be hit on, don’t hit on them.
3: If you ask someone to your room for coffee, when they just left a social event, to go to bed, that person will think they were being hit on.
4: Don’t do that.

It’s not a general statement about, “all men”. It’s not a discussion about, “intuition”.

It’s a white golf ball. It doesn’t matter how many yellow, green, red, striped, or paislely golf balls there are… this one is white.

J U
J U
8 years ago

The main reson for me to come here is because I have read the story a few days ago. It’s totally fresh for me, and that’s how I use the internet. I don’t care if it was 4 or 10 years ago, if I find the story interesting enough (or what it implies), then I comment on it. Last time I didn’t had a comment on a forum for my reply for 1 year.

But your argument wasn’t, “There are some red golfballs”, it was, “this golfball must be red”.

You totally misinterpreted my example, it wasn’t about the elevator, it was for the accusation, that because I tell two awkward ecounters with women, I am suddenly mysognist??? That story was just there to prove that woman are not always right about their intuitions (what one commenter said).

The link was there also to make examples, that yes do exist women who would find holding a door offensive. So I totally believe my buddy. And not the article was important, but the comment section, an example:

“Even if we killed off 90% of men, the majority of women left over would do their best to keep the oppressive system. I’d dare say we’d have to kill off all the women too and leave the little girls and radfems to create the utopia.”

“Men oppress us, so it’s no good getting annoyed at women for raising boys, although I certainly agree that lowering the male population is important, and I’ll never forget those two midwives who killed every boy baby for decades to prevent the warring between the tribes.That is a hopeful, positive story.”

“they flatly deny that there is any such thing as a female-bodied person. even as they are all taking fucking birth control pills (and in the case of transmen, even taking testosterone, which they do not produce enough of on their own for some reason….now why might that be?) could it be that all this denial and willful ignorance about biological femaleness (and maleness) is precisely because the only solution to womens suffering under patriarchy *is* a biological one? that men are biologically, genetically mentally ill, and the only solution to this is a biological solution, and the last thing they want is for us to solve this problem? the problem of them?”

“Let’s assume instead, correctly, that the majority of humanity being female, we are the “norm”. Our biology is the basis of humanity. Now let’s look at what it is in the male sex that drives them to such deviant aggressive behavior as constant war, hierarchies, and strict domination of women. None of these behaviors are adapted to the needs of our modern world. It’s their androgens, to put it simply. It’s not just testosterone, though men have on the average an astounding 14 times the “norm”, that is, the amount women have. What is the “safe” amount of testosterone a human being with an XY genotype can have without causing unacceptable harm to others due to his abnormal aggressiveness caused by this ancient hormonal adaptation to a hunting environment? I won’t go on, but I think it’s a reasonable question, and the answer would indeed lead to a treatment protocol, and then…oh, I know, this isn’t simple, really, but…I think it could easily be established that men are sick with abnormally high levels of aggressive hormones and they can’t run amok like this any longer now that technology can treat this condition.

Oh, and I don’t think this condition even has a name yet. It’s the Great Unspeakable.”

“The Y chromosome is deteriorating ; it is NOT a stable chromosome. It is doomed to failure. Men will eventually become extinct. It is unavoidable.

This is why I believe in parthenogenesis when it comes to the vision of a new world. I believe it has existed for womyn, and it will exist again someday, in a new womyn-only world.

With Mary Sunshine, last summer I managed to download and share two brilliantly interesting papers on human parthenogenesis & womyn’s culture. So I wanted to say as well, if womyn readers here would be interested in reading those two papers on parthenogenesis that I have, please drop me a comment at the bottom of this page here, and I’ll share them via email with you. It’s a very interesting vision.”

“Thank the gods,my wife and i have a daughter and not a son.And with the help of an syringe and not PIV.
Also we had an midwife and not a man and that felt so good really,no men at all.”

“Yes, this is right Maggie, but bonobo males have much better lives than their patriarchal chimpanzee cousins, and female bonobos love their sons.
Because females are ultimately in charge of reproduction (even though they appear to mate freely) they have been selecting the best natured, most intelligent males for eons.”

“Females don’t have to kill baby boys. Just not nurture them. Females are forced to *birth* baby boys, but beyond that a female’s physical actions are her own.

Males will die without the constant infusion of female energy that they get from our wombs and from our lives. They are perfectly welcome to take the male infants from the hands of the midwife, and what they do with it from that point is *their* decision.

Females need to not be emotionally and intellectually invested in a male future.”

“Stop having sex with men. Stop living with men. Stop talking with men. Stop talking about men. Stop organizing for and with men. Stop engaging with men politically. Stop engaging with men personally. Stop engaging with men professionally. Stop voting for males. Stop buying things made by men. Stop selling things to men. Stop having babies until you can get pregnant without a man involved. Stop doing things for men. Stop using services provided by men. Stop raising boys to become men. Stop being friends with men. Stop listening to men. Stop watching men. Stop reading men. Stop listening to, watching, and reading about what men think, say, and do. Stop disseminating what men say and do. Stop believing that continued engagement of any kind with men will bring about the end of male power.”

“hmm. the not raising male children one is difficult one for me as I have one!! I mean, we need female children and I’m so glad I have a daughter. SHe was my first, perhaps I should have stopped at one, but as I was saying on another thread just now I only had my radical reawakening when I was well into my second pregnancy.”

Is she hostile to men? Yes. But, as you say, that’s one woman… and you can’t generalise all women from a single example, right?

That is what I am talking about I am NOT generalizing, I posted these examples to prove that “trust a woman to know when she is being hit on.”, is false. Women not ALWAYS right about their intutition, they could be, but the not always. As I said before it works like prayer. However it is entirely different if a statement comes from a logical conclusion. For example your point about that, he could have just invite her to the bar for a coffee, I admit that.

———————————————

On the elevator story: I came here because I have found, that from this angle, nobody expressed an opinion, and wanted to share mine. If already some 100 folks, have talked about this, then I wouldn’t comment. But because for me it was a “not sure”, I thought I share it, because this whole story seemed to be ridiculous, even more because I was not sure about the thing what initiated the storm.

And I have found Rebecca’s first video alright, it was her later comment, when she said that this was a sexual objectification, and totally offended her, what threw me over the edge. I mean could people drop a toothpick accidentally in your country without offending someone? That other thing about the UK, when they renamed the spotted dick, because it might offend someone, I laughed my ass off.

Then all I get is accusations of mysogny. When I am the actual opposite. It is sad, that people can only see things this way. One different view on the issue, and you can only jump on in emotionally.

And my name is Jaan Uluots, you know the country now?

pillowinhell
8 years ago

JU, did you have a point? Maybe if you just keep explaining over and over and over and over and over, you might wear us down into thinking the same way you do?

J U
J U
8 years ago

He asked me why I came here I answered. Maybe if you just repeat, and repeat, and repeat, that I make no sense, and I am a mysognist, it becomes true? I repeat because I ecounter ignorance in every comment, willful ignorance to pervert my point of view, from what it is originally. Yes it is a bit pointless to speak to you people. When you just try to argue as creationists, ignore what I have said, say something that vaguely resembles what I have said, then dismiss that.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

There were enough TL;DR threads back when elevatorgate was new. Go read those.

katz
8 years ago

Yes it is a bit pointless to speak to you people.

So how about you go somewhere else where people actually want to talk about this story and talk to them?

J U
J U
8 years ago

I don’t know what are your customs, but here it considered to be rude to not make an answer for someone’s response. Until I have replies, I answer.

By the way read, why I have come here, this story is new to me, and I wanted to make a comment on this, from my point of view, because I saw that from that angle it wasn’t adressed. That is all.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

Dude, your angle was dicussed many a time, in fact, what you’ve had to say so far was predicted based on many other such incidents that commonly happen in womens lives. We are more than a little tired of constantly spoonfeeding people the same information over and over again, only to have those people throw mini tantrums when we tell them that their argument is far from original.

And its not so much that I’ve determined you’re a misogynist as it is that I’ve seen a pattern of problematic thinking and assumptions on your part. All of which have been pointed out to you by several posters.

Also, we aren’t here to “discuss” (read teach feminism 101) we’re here to mock sexist asshats.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

JU, it’s nice that the story is new to you, but in some circles, it’s considered bad form to raise a thread from the dead just because you believe that what you have to say is oh-so-important.

The subject is old, and so are your thoughts.

J U
J U
8 years ago

If you think there is any kind of emotional response involved on my part (such a mini tauntraum), then you are wrong. Rational people don’t let their emotions cloud their judgement. That is what the problem with this World, and that is what the problem with you too. Noby told me that my argument was far from original, the main reason I posted here (as I said before), because I believed that this was not addressed.

Even though I agreed, that my assumption could be wrong, because of cultural differences. You keep pressing the same rhetoric, not going anywhere. If you would have tried to be reasonable, and not spend your energies on trolling, you may have seemed liked an objective person.

But in reality, this kind of think you people demonstrated here only leads, to events such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

But in reality, this kind of think you people demonstrated here only leads, to events such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Not unless wearing a hoodie and being black is usually a sign of needing a gun drawn on you. In other words, false equivalence is false, and some serious fucking bullshit to pull out too

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Oh, a “you have human feelings ergo you’re wrong” troll. Dude, all of you answers and comments so far, we’ve read them at least a hundred times from other people. I don’t see a drop of originality here.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

“telling a troll we’ve heard enough time the same arguments” == “killing unharmed innocent black men”
This is a big leap in logic… Like grand Canyon big.

cloudiah
8 years ago

Confidential message to everyone EXCEPT J U:

I think if we ignore him he will go away. He seems to feel honor bound to reply to every message, to tell us we’re a bunch of creationists who are exactly like the guy who shot Trayvon Martin…

pillowinhell
8 years ago

We don’t agree with your viewpoint, therefore we must be irratIonal. Geez, don’t know where I’ve heard that before.

Let’s see, Martin Treyvon and a comparison to Hitler. I call bullshit. You’re the one being hyperbolic here. You’re also the one using emotionally charged issues (and completely unrelated ones at that) to press your arguments. In order to be irrational or emotional on my part, I’d actually have to feel something more than just a case of slight bordem and annoyance. So, you keep trying to push buttons and let’s see if you can actually elicit some irrationality on my part, hmm?

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

I find it hilariously un-self-aware for someone to complain about other people’s emotionality while using hyperbolic rhetoric (“sexual objectification? what next, toothpicks?”) and bringing up a highly emotionally charged, culturally tender, and completely off-topic issue like the killing of Trayvon Martin.

J U, you admitted that Watson’s statements about sexual objectification sent you over the edge. Take a breath, step back, and stop being an ass.

J U
J U
8 years ago

The example about Martin was to represent, that a man who let his emotions get over him should not decide about such important things as pulling the trigger. How many people would die, if every gunowner would be trigger-happy?

Kyrie: Obvious troll, is obvious, I can say only this. If you think that what I meant is “having human feeling is wrong”. I refuse to believe that you are so ignorant to not see, why it is important to not let our emotions lead our treatment of others.

Yes emotions are important, but to bring them to an argument is manipulative. Most wars justified not because it is the only logical decision, but because it is in the best interest of those few, who plan it, and not the whole. They use emotions such as fear to convince the masses to support them (dehumanizing the “enemy” is one example). And emotions can be very powerful tool, to fire up fanaticism.

Leave emotions to the personal life, and not use them as a deciding factor in other’s lives.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

Also, the chain of events that led to Trayvon Martin’s death was heavily influenced by what is increasingly clearly George Zimmerman’s racism. So kindly back the fuck off of cultural issues you know nothing about and go stuff your pompous pronouncements about making sure that no anger ever wrinkles one’s forehead while discussing something.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

Uh JU, you do realize that rationality is a mix of logic and emotion right? And that a great number of psychological studies show that literally everything people do has some basis in emotion.

So unless you’re about to tell us you’re Vulcan, get off the wimminz be batshit line. And if you are Vulcan, the only logical thing to do is find some other blog to amuse yourself on.

J U
J U
8 years ago

Over the edge, and emotionally if you consider finding something laughable an emotion. It is clear to me now, that refuse to be objective, and interpret my examples from a subjective viewpoint, what leads to nowhere.

“We don’t agree with your viewpoint, therefore we must be irratIonal. Geez, don’t know where I’ve heard that before.”

If you ever though I was about the you agree with me, then I wasted my time here. You are not irrational, because you don’t agree with me, but because you fail to understand, or just don’t want to, what is objectivity.

For example that statement of yours entirely proves that: you reduce my views to something that ridiculous: “We don’t agree with your viewpoint, therefore we must be irratIonal.”, and dismiss it on this belief (without even trying to see what I am really about). Now that is what creationista do all the time.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

But we just don’t understand JU’s geniuuuuus guys!

I’m reducing your arguments to oversimplifications because it amuses me to mock you. Keep dancing troll!

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

I’m definitely going to be taking lessons in objectivity from someone who was sent over the edge by Rebecca Watson saying sexual objectification is kind of a bad thing.

J U
J U
8 years ago

“Also, the chain of events that led to Trayvon Martin’s death was heavily influenced by what is increasingly clearly George Zimmerman’s racism. So kindly back the fuck off of cultural issues you know nothing about and go stuff your pompous pronouncements about making sure that no anger ever wrinkles one’s forehead while discussing something.”

Is racism not originated in emotional ignorance, that prevents to actully know more about those people, and ecentually realise, that the basis of that racism is irrational?

“Uh JU, you do realize that rationality is a mix of logic and emotion right?”

“if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias”

“And that a great number of psychological studies show that literally everything people do has some basis in emotion.”

If every people would believe that the Earth is flat, would they be right? Argumentum ad populum.

“So unless you’re about to tell us you’re Vulcan, get off the wimminz be batshit line. And if you are Vulcan, the only logical thing to do is find some other blog to amuse yourself on.”

That line clearly shows, how destructive emotions could be. You label me a mysognist, and you think that is sufficient to dismiss every word of mine. Even if were one (wich I am not), that doesn’t mean that could be used to dismiss my views.

Amusement? Quite the contrary, I find it a bit disappointing, that people could be this biased. And also think that bias should lead the World.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

“And that a great number of psychological studies show that literally everything people do has some basis in emotion.”

If every people would believe that the Earth is flat, would they be right? Argumentum ad populum.

Good lord, you’re dense.

katz
8 years ago

Or we could make him explode by all posting things that absolutely require a response.

Hey JU, are religious people all inherently irrational?

J U
J U
8 years ago

“I’m definitely going to be taking lessons in objectivity from someone who was sent over the edge by Rebecca Watson saying sexual objectification is kind of a bad thing.”

That is completely the opposite, what I have written. I didn’t say sexual objectification isn’t bad. I have said that the actual event (elevatorgate or something you call it), had to be quite streched to be considered a sexual objectification.

“I’m reducing your arguments to oversimplifications because it amuses me to mock you. Keep dancing troll!”

No, it only makes you look like an ignoramus. You are like that one fellow, I once met, who asked me, how could they measure the size of the Galaxy, if they never were there?

cloudiah
8 years ago

How’s the weather in Estonia?

cloudiah
8 years ago

J U, how do you measure the size of the Galaxy?

pillowinhell
8 years ago

And of course JU hasn’t been influenced by the slightest thing! He was sprung fully formed and has had no contact with anything culture or experience wise that might bias him in some fashion! Why can we all just stand in awe of his supreme objectivity like we’re supposed to!!

J U
J U
8 years ago

Religious people couldn’t be inherently irrational, since religion is not something they inherit.

They could be irrational involving that said religion, but that doesn’t mean they are irrational at large.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

That is completely the opposite, what I have written. I didn’t say sexual objectification isn’t bad. I have said that the actual event (elevatorgate or something you call it), had to be quite streched to be considered a sexual objectification.

Fair enough. However, you also characterized her as “totally offended,” which she was not by any stretch of the imagination. If her statements about it sent you “over the edge,” I suggest you check yourself, Mr. Objectivity.

cloudiah
8 years ago

JU, What did the fisherman say to the card magician?

pillowinhell
8 years ago

So exactly how did you come by the assumption that I’m a creationist JU? I find it amusing since I have no particular belief in any deity.

J U
J U
8 years ago

A bit rainy, with little wind, but rather colder than used to be in this season. Though I don’t know if the weather is the same on the other side of the country. You could go to just another village 15 km away, on the other side of the mountain, and there could be almost entirely different.

cloudiah
8 years ago

J U, what do wicked hens lay?

katz
8 years ago

JU, is religion inherently irrational?

And do you think “inherent” means “inherited?” Because this will have a large impact on the meaning of your answers.

cloudiah
8 years ago

JU, who can shave 25 times a day and still have a beard?