So The Independent recently ran a piece by Catherine Murphy of Amnesty International, explaining why the organization is calling for the decriminalization of sex work.
In the comments, someone calling themselves THEMISHMISHEH offers a unique take on the issue.
And by “unique” I mean “seemingly from another planet.”
Shades of Tom Martin, huh?
@Smithshadow
Your reply is a breath of fresh air.
Its nice to read a comment that is so well mannered, comprehensive and eloquent. You seem to have an appreciation for the importance and power of good manners in debate. It is an effective way to have a people who disagree with you listen to and entertain what you have to say and treat you in kind.
in your reply you provide an interesting overview that gave me a history of mockery that was lacking a rational counter argument. Let me elaborate by asking you the following question:
Are you, for example, saying that mockery does not act like censorship by dismissing what people who disagree with you have to say without addressing what they have to say and showing it to be lacking? what is your rationale for this? That Astrophanes the Greek comedian (emphasis on the word comedian) used mockery in his comedy? Additionally, are you referring to that same Astrophanes who’s works were, and I quote, ‘serious’ when it came to issues of politics and war? this same Astrophanes who described his methods as follows:
“The butts of the most savage jokes are opportunists who prey on the gullibility of their fellow citizens”?
This is your rationale for mockery as a positive form of communication?
I think it is important to stop here and define mockery before I carry on any further. In the Webster’s Dictionary, mockery is defined as 1. scornful derision or ridicule 2. A specific action of derision or ridicule 3. An object of scorn or ridicule 4. A false, derisive, or impudent imitation 5. Something ludicrously unstable or futile. You come across like a rational person. Tell me (and please be fair) do these words sound like labels for a positive form of communication? would you enjoy having what you stand for be subjected to such behaviours? would you entertain ridicule or derision? would you entertain impudent imitation? would you entertain communication that is ludicrously unstable and futile (emphasis on the word futile)?
You also seem to have an affinity for philosophy (which is rare and admirable) to which you made a reference in regards to mockery. Philosophy is an informed guide for behaviour. So, lets have a look at what philosophers have to say about mockery. It is a subject area that is scarcely entertained in philosophy. Nonetheless there are some works on mockery and vitriol but these are extremely (extremely being an understatement) diverse and contrary. Some views portray mockery as a negative. Such are the views of philosophers like Spinoza, Hume and Schopenhauer. Others hold a somewhat positive view of it but that it should only be used with constraints or be good natured. Such are the views of Shaftesbury and Nietzsche.
Baruch Spinoza totally rejects the idea of mockery. In his Political Treatise he declares that:
“Mockery and ridicule rest on a false opinion and indicate an imperfection in he who mocks and ridicules.”
On the other end of the spectrum we have Shaftesbury (a philosopher hostile to religion) who has the following opinion of mockery:
“one of the true principle lights that truth should bear is the exposure to mockery. If an opinion cannot stand mockery then it will be revealed to be ridiculous’ It is important to note here that his definition of mockery is not that of Webster’s but rather one that he defines as ‘hilaritas’ or ‘good natured’, which is far from the nature of mockery on this website.
David Hume, a philosopher who was also hostile to religion, one who succeeded Shaftesbury, had this to say about his predecessor’s views on mockery:
“mockery does not lead people from god unless the scientific project offers a more compelling explanation for the phenomena” This is how atheist philosophy came to lay the foundations for a scientific theory (evolution) to disprove god rather than mockery, which was the practice at the time.
Additionally, Nietzsche, who supports mockery had this to say about mockery and its conditions. Quoting Descartes, he writes:
“As for mockery, which constructively admonishes vices by making them appear ridiculous, but in which one does not laugh at them oneself or express any hatred against anyone, it is not a passion but a quality of a cultivated man”. Importantly, Descartes defines mockery in this context “as a kind of joy that is derived from that WHICH ONE RECOGNISES AS INCAPABLE OF BEING INURED BY THE MALICE THAT HAS EXCITED AN INDIGNATION”. The emphasis here is on the capitalised portion of his definition for derision, which ‘one recognises as incapable of being injured by the malice’ (of the act of mockery), which again, is far from the nature of mockery on this site.
So no matter how you look at it, whether you do that through the eyes of philosophers for or against mockery or by taking its english definition, mockery as it is on this website is negative and destructive.
@Kat
Protesting physical and sexual abuse of females by physically and sexually abusing males makes a lot more sense now that you have put it into context.
It is an example. If I were (for example) writing about the history of vivisection in Europe. I might need to make a reference to this. Referencing a people does not mean I support their ideologies. I knew this was going to come up in regards to 4Chan so i made sure that i was careful in what I wrote about that issue so as not come across sounding like I support these behaviours and when i referenced them I made sure to annotate what they did.
This is the same Ms. Magazine who’s editor Robin Morgan wrote that:
“I feel that man-hating is an honourable and viable political act”?
You claimed that there are feminist groups out there who disapprove of nudity. So my question was that these are ‘political activists’ so why aren’t they protesting feminist nudity if they are against it? what conclusion can you draw from this? Assuming that they are against nudity that would make them blind to the wrongs of their own …and that leads to the second argument. I am not sure what your issue was with these two paragraphs. Perhaps you need to give it a little more thought.
@Paradoxical Intention
What a nonsensical question. You follow a gendered ’ideology’ that believes that women are victimised. You have campaigns for the removal of tax on ‘feminine hygiene products’ based on the idea that tax policy in that regard obstructs WOMAN’S equality. Your question implies otherwise? if you believe that tax is not an issue victimising women then stop believing in feminism and join the egalitarian movement, which fights for the rights and liberation of everyone from subjugation, without favouritism for one gender or the other; A movement which doesn’t do liberation for
but everyone, nor does it believe that
A movement that believes that both genders suffer equally. A movement which does not endorse
on one gender and ignoring the other.
If you have a problem with tax, if you believe that tax is not right the way it is, and its not just feminine hygiene products that are affected by this issue then dont choose gendered slogans for your protest. If you believe that the feminist issue with tampon tax is not one that is only about women’s products then don’t demand that people who don’t have uteruses not be allowed an opinion. This level of irrational nonsense that you threw at me in your argument is shocking but not surprising.
If there is a problem with tax, which based on what you have said, affects everyone and everything, and you choose to come out and protest against that one thing that affects women and demand that others be disallowed an opinion in the matter based on their gender, then you are sexist.
What your argument essentially comes out as is: “I don’t think people with vaginas should have access to specific hygiene products tax free (or free) because I wouldn’t get something tax free too!”
Yes, pretty much. I am an egalitarian. I want to live in a society where everyone regardless of their gender is treated equally. No-one should have special treatment based on their gender. If tax for hygiene products is an issue than it shouldn’t be gendered. The titles of the protest should be no tax on hygiene products as apposed to no tax on tampons and genders who don’t have uteruses should not be allowed a say. When you demand things for yourself that you deny others that is called demanding special treatment and when that is based on gender it is called sexism.
…
You are comparing two issues that are not even remotely related. One is a matter of paying for ‘services’ where the issue is you not wanting to pay for those ‘services’. The other is a matter of a ‘service’ that is paid for and the issue is sexual exploitation…
No? Scroll back to page 5.
Snowberry:
if we accepted the classification sex as an absolute “need” then… it’s exploitative to provide it to those who are in need of it?
THEMISHMISHEH:
To address this part of your comment I am going to start off by defining the word ‘need’. The Oxford Dictionary defines this word as a requirement that is essential (emphasis on the word essential). The dictionary goes on to explain that a ‘need’ is something that is NOT just desirable. Sex does not qualify as a ‘need’. It is something that is desirable but not essential. As a human being I can live without sex but I cannot live without food. Hence why, food is a need whilst sex is not.
Reading not your forte, is it?
I think this is an important question.
People who seek out prostitution or drugs, for example, are often seeking these things out as a result of health problems such as addictions to sex or an escape from a problem in their life; People with family problems, people sexually abused as children, people who face domestic violence and people who are addicted to sex. Often those who have problems in life seek out ways to forget their pains and these escapes can take the form of drugs or prostitution and other destructive habits that do not address their problems but rather provide temporary relief. It is a destructive way to forget their troubles. Such problems and addictions require medical attention, which as we discussed earlier, is an absolute need and therefore a right. Prostitution, exploits such addictions and problems in people. It worsens such problems.
On which page is this question? Elaborate. What is this question in reference to? sex between a husband and a wife? free sex with a prostitute? forced sex/rape of someone?
I am unwilling to hear what any of you have to say? How much thought did you put into that comment, which is riddled with emotion and lacking in reason? My replies to each and every single one of you entertain everything you write so long as it is respectful. My replies are hundreds of words long, this one perhaps exceeds a couple thousand and you are telling me that I am unwilling to entertain what you have to say? What an unfair, groundless accusation. If you are making this accusation in regards to those who chose to troll this comment thread chatting about skittles or others who insulted me then perhaps you are implying that I should entertain such people? If a person called you a donkey would you argue with them over the fact that you are human? let me give you an example of what happens when you entertain such people:
Go to page 9 and read EJ’s comment. The one that starts with
Then scroll down and read my reply. The one that starts with:
Now scroll down to his reply and see the outcome of entertaining such disrespectful people with reason and respect. His reply starts with:
This leads me to the following:
I am discussing whether mockery is right or wrong and having a debate with those who are willing to listen. This article was written about a comment that I had left on an article on a newspaper’s website and I am here defending myself against something that I disagree with.
That is your prerogative as an individual. I will let it speak for what you stand for and I will let my conduct speak for what I stand for. I also notice that you keep referring to yourself as ‘we’ when self talking throughout your comments. Might I suggest you stop doing that, as you do not speak for everyone on here. There a minority of you who have refrained from resorting to such futile tactics.
Is this space one of inquiry or of dogmatic following of uncritical agreement? If you think it is a space of enquiry carry on engaging. If you are tired however, of hearing it, might I suggest you take up your own advice, stop replying and take your leave. It is that simple.
This is very subjective. To some people writing about Sweets and Skittles is showing ideas to be lacking to others it is not.
I can just as easily throw this same comment back at you and say I have explained several times how you are wrong and you ignored me.
I have only ignored those of you who have resorted to vituperation and trolling. Everyone else got a reply to everything. I am here arguing with 15-20 of you (?), yet I have continually given comprehensive replies, often to comments filled with anger, hate, pettiness, trolling and insults. If I were to entertain every petty insult I would be here all day and all night to no end and if you are offended by ‘ignoring’ then might I suggest you direct your advice to each and every reply that I have had so far with the exception of a couple.
That is based on your assessment, on your opinion my friend. From a you, this demeaning comment comes as praise. This sentence will pass right over your head. I do not think you have the capacity to understand or appreciate it, but this is the internet and these comments are not just for those whom we reply to but for everyone who reads them.
As part of “everyone who reads them”, I’ve got this to say : you’re still full of shit.
Congrats to everyone who’s had the patience to deal with this guy so far. Whether you “seem to have an appreciation for the importance and power of good manners in debate”, that’s the kind of effort that deserves a dozen different medals. I got a headache after the first ten lines of his last post, and I’m pretty sure that’s got nothing to do with being slightly drunk.
Tips to CAPMSHLOCKSHM : quoting philosophers all over the place is something you’d get penalised over in my philosophy classes, and I live in goddamn France. Your suave Smarter-Than-Thou tone ? Also something that annoys the heck out of even my French ass, and I was born in the country that regularly goes to war with Britain over who does it the most annoyingly. Your repeated use of “Let me point out where you wrong, then I’ll go over it all while completely missing the point, and tell you how I’m so much better than you.” ? Also something we pretty much invented, and then we followed suit and colonized half a continent based on it.
In short, I am not impressed. No one is, really. ‘cept your ego, which is, well, I guess, fine, I guess ?
Pineapple skittles sound delicious.
Can we ban the rambler now?
I attempted to count troll’s post because I sure as hell wasn’t going to attempt to read it. I got bored and stopped when I got to 1954 and saw there was still quite a ways to go.
Dude.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Long comments are fine if they’re interesting and well written. But mishmash’s are not.
Troll,
All you had to do is say “as an egalitarian, I believe that inequality doesn’t exist and doesn’t need to be addressed.”
Then someone could have posted this
http://www.relatably.com/q/img/desmond-tutu-quotes/059fdbae85098f6107c07f6890d0c4e0.jpg
And we all could have gone on our merry ways. We’ve all heard the “we don’t need feminism because egalitarianism” arguments millions of times. Quoting the dictionary and whining about mockery isn’t going to change any hearts and minds.
Why are you even here? We’re not going to stop mocking misogyny just because you don’t like it. Better trolls than you have come here and been surprised that a mocking blog contains mockery.
Be concise, be entertaining or gtfo.
@IP
David hasn’t banned anyone since the suicide thread iirc. I think we’re getting into a more conservative phase for bans (posts stopped before being let thru notwithstanding). Or he’s ninja banning in the shadows and we don’t even know. Alternatively, he’s just not paying attention to this old ass thread. Also possible
Axecalibur, I haven’t yet caught up with this thread. In general, the best and fastest way to alert me to someone who might need a ban is to email me.
I’m leaving out the links in what follows because that seems to be a problem in posting this comment. I’m also not going to use the quote format.
@CAPSLOCKGUY
The behaviour of these feminists doesn’t offend you? it is fair in your eyes?
On the contrary. I think that these feminists’ tactics are a bad idea.
On the other hand, here, have some context:
Tens of thousands of women took to the streets in Mar Del Plata, Argentina, on Monday to protest the high incidences of gender violence and femicide in the country. The march was a part of the National Women’s Encounter, a yearly meeting of women in Argentina, where approximately 65,000 women spoke out against the culture of misogyny and violence towards women. Around 1,800 Argentine women have been the victims of femicide (defined as the killing of women because of their gender) between 2008 and 2014, and the government has done very little to intervene for women’s safety.
[Link omitted here; see my previous comment for the link.]
Protesting physical and sexual abuse of females by physically and sexually abusing males makes a lot more sense now that you have put it into context.
Yes, the context being that almost one woman a day dies in Argentina for the crime of being female.
I don’t condone violence. But I can understand how a group under siege might resort to it.
What’s up with you parroting 4chan — a cesspool of foul language and vile thought — but protesting our rudeness on this website?
By this logic if I support and reference the banning of vivisection by the Nazis, then I am Nazi.
If you support banning vivisection, that doesn’t make you a Nazi.
If you use the Nazis as your reference — yuck! Why would you do that if you’re not a Nazi?
If I love dogs or think that eating healthy food is a good idea, I’m sure as hell not going to refer to Adolf Hitler to make my argument.
Nor would I show up at a Halloween party dressed as Eva Braun.
Provocateur much, CAPSLOCK?
It is an example. If I were (for example) writing about the history of vivisection in Europe. I might need to make a reference to this. Referencing a people does not mean I support their ideologies. I knew this was going to come up in regards to 4Chan so i made sure that i was careful in what I wrote about that issue so as not come across sounding like I support these behaviours and when i referenced them I made sure to annotate what they did.
Quoting 4chan is like quoting a Ku Klux Klan newsletter. Or a kidnapper’s ransom note.
Are you testifying at a trial? Then quoting any of the above makes sense.
Are you explaining how your philosophy intersects with the philosophy of 4chan commenters? Then you are admitting that your philosophy is bankrupt – it is based on hatred.
We are not “you people”; we do not follow anything blindly. There is no cult. And no, there is not a massive amount of writing by feminists supporting vile methods of protest. The most cursory look at, say, Ms. magazine or the writings of Gloria Steinem — both widely read in the USA and also read internationally — would tell you that.
This is the same Ms. Magazine who’s editor Robin Morgan wrote that:
“I feel that man-hating is an honourable and viable political act”?
Here, have some more context:
I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
PS: Robin Morgan has never murdered a man.
You claimed that there are feminist groups out there who disapprove of nudity. So my question was that these are ‘political activists’ so why aren’t they protesting feminist nudity if they are against it? what conclusion can you draw from this? Assuming that they are against nudity that would make them blind to the wrongs of their own …and that leads to the second argument. I am not sure what your issue was with these two paragraphs. Perhaps you need to give it a little more thought.
Yeah, thanks, I’ve given it a little more thought. I misread what you said the first time around. Now I see that you’re asking why the women’s rights groups that I mentioned who don’t protest in the nude or give men black eyes – such as the National Organization for Women, the American Association of University Women, or the League of Women Voters – don’t conduct counterprotests against violent nude women.
Because political action doesn’t work that way. Most women’s rights groups are allies. If they disagree, it’s probably done in private. I’m sure that antifeminists would really enjoy it if feminist protests attracted feminist counterprotests. Sorry, that’s not likely to happen.
Make of that what you will.
Because I’m focused on the real issue: Three hundred women a year die in Argentina because they are women.
I think I’ve figured out MISHMASH’s strategy:
Baffle them with tedious, pompous bullshit.
Go on & on about your pet theories.
Talk down to your victims — er, readers.
Show up on a website that mocks misogynists. Tell your readers that you abhor mockery. Then mock them.
Demand that your readers police other feminists. Insist that they counterprotest any protest that you find objectionable.
Exhibit not the slightest bit of perspective. Public nudity is unacceptable, young lady! As is violence! Ignore the murder of 300 women per year in Argentina for the crime of being women.
Capslock, please read the FAQ.
That is all.
Unless someone wants to talk about origami. I think it was schildfreja who mentioned folding starburst wrappers, which I totally do all the time. My wife loves starbursts, but I can’t stand them, so she gets the candy, and I get to fold a flower for her from the wrappers 🙂
Ooh, and someone mentioned folding paper dragons up thread. If that person is still reading, what’s your preferred design? The only dragon fold I know is somewhat two-dimensional.
And claim to be an egalitarian while complaining about women doing something that men are allowed to do legally (i.e. be topless in public).
I ended up having to review some white papers for submission to a journal over the past few days. Not the first time I’ve done it – the wall between academia and the journals is pretty darn thin, obviously. It looks like I have another one to review here.
You make many of the same mistakes that the bad papers do, MISHMISHEH. You shotgun references into your work (in the wrong places might I add) in the hopes that the reader will see the name and the quote without actually understanding the context from which they arise.
Oh, and you also lead in with a dictionary definition. That’s the biggest red flag. Don’t cite definitions of common words, or even uncommon words. It’s amateurish and condescending to the audience. I’ll come back to that later. Just, don’t.
Your references are poorly chosen. You do order them in chronological order in order, beginning with a counterfactual before refuting it – that’s good, that’s the right thing to do.
Your refutations, however, are incomplete and misleading. You make the mistake of trying to apply an existential as a universal. Your quotes talk specifically about the use of mockery as a rhetorical tool to try to convince someone who is religious that they should not be religious. This is true. However, it cannot be extended to the universal of “all mockery is ineffectual and destructive.” This has yet to be shown.
While the specific case is true, there are two problems. The first is that this website is not dedicated to convincing misogynists the error of their ways. It is dedicated to using mockery to point out the evils and ridiculousness of misogyny, so that relatively neutral third parties might be convinced. Your quotes do not approach this context.
Second, mockery has a long history of efficacy and quality which you will be sorely pressed to approach. Consider that Johnathan Swift’s A Decent Proposal is still widely cited as a masterful work of art for its mockery of social views in England at the time.
Finally, to return to your citation of a dictionary definition of mockery as your first argument – this is condescending to your audience, and is itself mocking the intelligence of your audience. Your argument is therefore self-defeating. You include an incidence of mockery in your argument that mockery is destructive and ineffective, meaning that either you have sabotaged your own argument, or you are so unaware of your own writing that you could not see the contradiction.
I must recommend that this paper be rejected for publication. The authors must review their basic premises and establish a coherent argument before it should be considered.
http://i42.tinypic.com/rw2hyv.jpg
@Scildfreja
This a thousand thousand times.
:3
@schildfreja: epic smackdown.
Plus, Mr Egalitarian has as far as I can tell (maybe it’s buried in the tl;dr) not acknowledged that tax relief for menstrual hygiene products would not be for women only. A trans man would not be charged a man tax first tampons. A cis man picking up a box of panty liners at the grocery store because his wife put it on the list and it’s his turn to shop would not be a charged a higher price than his wife would when she’s the one doing the shopping.
Mishmash troll has not even made an argument about why they should be taxed. He’s just pissed off that a group isn’t centering his own needs and issues.
Not very egalitarian!
@joekster
I’m the dragon origamist! This is what my little ones look like:
http://65.media.tumblr.com/0c8079961b5e1e6bbb06a6b4273ff7aa/tumblr_inline_nftj879epc1re0fce.jpg
It’s a modified crane base, I bastardized a much more complicated dragon origami design I had in a book. I can probably put together some instructions for them if you’re interested.
Damm, I wasn’t paying attention to the recent comments, but I looked over and what do I see but one of the most tedious trolls on the internet.
@Catalpa: OK, that’s cool. I think I can sort of figure out how you did it, but instructions are always appreciated ? It’s creative.
Full disclosure: one of my aunts gave me an old origami book for a birthday gift when I was in second grade, and I’ve been folding ever since. I may be the only person in the history of my grade school to get detention for folding up my homework in class. ‘Course, I’m also the only person in the history of my middle school to get detention for reading fiction in English class ? What can I say? I’m trouble.
Okay, I have no drawing ability whatsoever so you don’t get the nice, easy to follow origami diagrams. Have some pictures instead, and hopefully I can kind of explain this. Start with a bird base and valley-fold the skinnier parts (the ones that become the wings and head of a crane) at a 90 degree angle. Like so:
http://66.media.tumblr.com/bb7b1330f993f1b0be759da0854935ca/tumblr_oce7hkn4Hs1s3rve5o1_400.jpg
Then flip up one of the unfolded parts, and fold both of the edges of it in half lengthwise, towards you. Then cut through only one “layer” (folded together section) of each of the sections outlined in red here:
http://67.media.tumblr.com/f57adea5d9a80b0c1b6210878d879e7d/tumblr_oce7hkn4Hs1s3rve5o2_500.jpg
Unfold the top head flaps, fold the edges of the middle pentagon-shaped section together in halfs, and tuck the two middle cut through sections into the “pocket” formed by the folded down wings. Should look like this:
http://65.media.tumblr.com/688cfa4c449e158f5c5de5dbc6773934/tumblr_oce7hkn4Hs1s3rve5o3_500.jpg
Turn the piece over and cut yourself some tail and neck spikes, like so:
http://66.media.tumblr.com/b37a48eded5fb9ca3e59cdec3540e147/tumblr_oce7hkn4Hs1s3rve5o4_500.jpg
Fold both edges of the tail into the middle, keeping the tail spikes out of the fold:
http://66.media.tumblr.com/182c1856d1ae62ef4447f82afe61b5a6/tumblr_oce7hkn4Hs1s3rve5o5_400.jpg
Fold the entire piece in half towards you, bend the legs halfway up, mountain fold the tail, and fold the head down. You’ll probably have a long “snout” on your dragon that you can trim off or fold up inside the “head”:
http://67.media.tumblr.com/51fd14f72d9da9668b383d75bf11e5a9/tumblr_oce7hkn4Hs1s3rve5o6_400.jpg
@catalpa: thank you for taking the time to work the photos in. Now I have to dig out some paper and give it a go, but this looks like a fun fold to add to my repertoire. Much thanks.
That’s amazing, Catalpa. Thanks for posting it! Now I am seized by the desire to learn to origami.
Re: folding stuff
It’s generally accepted now that it’s a myth that Betsy Ross came up with the U.S. Flag. One thing she demonstrably could do though was to fold a piece of cloth in a way you could make a five pointed star with just one cut. I’ve seen it done and it is pretty impressive.