Categories
Uncategorized

“How would you feel if we started policing makeup,” extremely irate Redditor asks in epic rant

Mr. Furious from Mystery Men. Getting really mad is not actually a superpower.
Mr. Furious from Mystery Men. Getting really mad is not actually a superpower.

So an angry dude wandered into the S**t Reddit Says subreddit recently — one of the few feminist-friendly, largely manbaby-free hideouts on Reddit — and left a pretty amazing rant, attacking the SRSers as, well, see for yourself.

I’m not even going to bother fisking this one. I think it’s probably best experienced in its original wall-of-text form.

You're the most fucked up group of people currently alive (self.ShitRedditSays) submitted 1 day ago by LewisExMachina I'm sure you're gonna devour this account too, but whatever. I've resigned myself to the fact that every time I call you out my account gets spammed and your cronies try to doxx me, but I can't let you keep doing what you're doing. The harassment you put people through on a daily basis is way worse than anything /fatpeoplehate was ever accused of. Who knows how many men you've driven to suicide just because they have something between their legs. But you don't fucking care, because they made a rape joke and that makes them worse than Nazis. I guess rape is worse than murder now. And since men can't be raped any man who says he was raped has to deal with it while a female who says she was raped is instantly believed and rewarded for her bravery. And you think women have it worse? Fuck off, women are treated like little princesses while men are treated like shit. Maybe you have a point with the catcalling thing, but everything else you say is bullshit and based on lies meant to devalue men and increase the value of women. Soon you'll force the government to add the ability to make more money (27% more) by just checking off a "I'm a woman" box on a job sheet. Us men will just say that we're transwomen (since that's also something you support) and get that money too, so you'll be back to square 1 where men and women make the same salaries. If you want to make the same money then don't take maternity leave, dipshits. And what's with all the hate on video games? You don't even like video games, and we do. Why is that a problem. If something makes a group of people happy and it doesn't inherently hurt anyone else then why is that such a bad thing? Women don't want to play video games, they just want to police the development of video games and its community. !??!?!? Seriously just fuck off. Go fight for unisex bathrooms or showing your tits or something I can get behind rather than video games that you don't even play. All of the girlfriends I had wanted nothing to do with video games and that was okay. How would you feel if we started policing makeup, saying that makeup led to violence and should be banned? You'd hate it, because it's a stupid baseless accusation meant only to hurt one gender. Which is exactly what the attack on video games is. I don't know what to say here other then you probably all need to get laid, then you'll calm down.
Someone needs a nap!

In case that image is hard to read, here’s the text:

You’re the most f**ked up group of people currently alive (self.S**tRedditSays)

submitted 1 day ago by LewisExMachina

I’m sure you’re gonna devour this account too, but whatever. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that every time I call you out my account gets spammed and your cronies try to doxx me, but I can’t let you keep doing what you’re doing. The harassment you put people through on a daily basis is way worse than anything /fatpeoplehate was ever accused of. Who knows how many men you’ve driven to suicide just because they have something between their legs. But you don’t fucking care, because they made a rape joke and that makes them worse than Nazis. I guess rape is worse than murder now. And since men can’t be raped any man who says he was raped has to deal with it while a female who says she was raped is instantly believed and rewarded for her bravery. And you think women have it worse? Fuck off, women are treated like little princesses while men are treated like shit. Maybe you have a point with the catcalling thing, but everything else you say is bullshit and based on lies meant to devalue men and increase the value of women. Soon you’ll force the government to add the ability to make more money (27% more) by just checking off a “I’m a woman” box on a job sheet. Us men will just say that we’re transwomen (since that’s also something you support) and get that money too, so you’ll be back to square 1 where men and women make the same salaries. If you want to make the same money then don’t take maternity leave, dipshits.

And what’s with all the hate on video games? You don’t even like video games, and we do. Why is that a problem. If something makes a group of people happy and it doesn’t inherently hurt anyone else then why is that such a bad thing? Women don’t want to play video games, they just want to police the development of video games and its community. !??!?!? Seriously just fuck off. Go fight for unisex bathrooms or showing your tits or something I can get behind rather than video games that you don’t even play. All of the girlfriends I had wanted nothing to do with video games and that was okay. How would you feel if we started policing makeup, saying that makeup led to violence and should be banned? You’d hate it, because it’s a stupid baseless accusation meant only to hurt one gender. Which is exactly what the attack on video games is.

I don’t know what to say here other then you probably all need to get laid, then you’ll calm down.

Indeed, a thing of beauty.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

257 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
arash
arash
5 years ago

@Imaginary Petal

Religion will never end or be eradicated, unless we can somehow make all people be perfectly rational at all times, as well as always interpreting all facts of reality entirely correctly. Which we can’t. So let’s move on to something more productive.

Related: if you go to Dawkins’ website, you’ll be subjected to one of his catch phrases regarding religion – “together we can find the cure”. What an idiot.

sadly you’re right and and i said it too

i don’t consider it possible

but i’m not a perfectionist and my (well not truly mine!) solution is very practical.
i said before, i’m no fan of him(which probably nobody believed), new atheists lack philosophical knowledge and don’t notice how religious their scientism and atheism is.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

Sorry, but I also have to object to the implication that religion is both irrational and incorrect. That’s a huge assumption right there.

arash
arash
5 years ago

@kupo

Sorry, but I also have to object to the implication that religion is both irrational and incorrect. That’s a huge assumption right there.

ok, would you care to say what you mean by religion, rationality and correctness?maybe we can agree on something.
also i’m more critical of religious thinking rather than religion itself.

Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
5 years ago

@kupo

In my definition of religion I include faith in some supernatural entity or effect, without verifiable evidence. That necessarily entails at least irrational thinking, although of course the conclusions could be correct by random chance. But the “incorrect” part should be viewed as my opinion, or rather my conclusion based on the available evidence, keeping in mind that I could also be wrong but it’s unlikely. :p

J Star
J Star
5 years ago

Debunking this crazyrant would be giving it too much credit. I agree with the synopsis that OP needs a diaper change and a nap. Poor thing, he’s so ANGRY.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

I see Arash is trying to stir shit up again.

What, does he just lurk, waiting for the topic of atheism to come up?

Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
5 years ago

@wwth

Didn’t he promise not to spill over into other threads? Or was that the other identical guy.

arash
arash
5 years ago

@WeirwoodTreeHugger

What, does he just lurk, waiting for the topic of atheism to come up?

is there something wrong with that?! or maybe it’s against some rules that i can’t see.

arash
arash
5 years ago

@Imaginary Petal

Didn’t he promise not to spill over into other threads? Or was that the other identical guy.

come on, don’t be mean
http://mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dr.-Who.gif

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

*flicks paint at Road Rash until he shuts up*

Newt
Newt
5 years ago

Didn’t he promise not to spill over into other threads? Or was that the other identical guy.

That was One True Dingleberry. arash has made some non-tedious comments, not related to religion/atheism, in other threads recently (such as arguing with the troll in last week’s “gotcha” memeday thread). I’ve also not noticed them using the argument “you’re wrong because [youtube link]“.

guy
guy
5 years ago

@SFHC

Here’s a very important piece of context for what littlethinker is talking about.

Well, one day I came home and the secret service was there waiting. They told me I’d made a list of atheist bloggers to be “dealt with” and were there to take down my blogs for my own protection. But “If you’re not going to be careful, we can’t protect you.”

He is discussing movement atheism worldwide, not just in the West, as he repeatedly makes clear. Atheism is not the exclusive province of cishet white men, and not everyone who wants to promote it does so out of bigotry.

arash
arash
5 years ago

i think another illusion is that the problem of religion in the west is “solved”. well it’s subdued but not “gone” and the only reason is that people stand against its advances.
it doesn’t stop, it doesn’t vanish, it doesn’t “go away”, it’s just in every human soul and if people forget how dangerous it is, if they let it thrive in public domain and if there is no organized force to restrain it, it will take over the society.
when there is a constant danger there is a need for unrelenting watchers.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

“You’re a fascist, Rashy.” – Hagrid, probably.

David N-T
David N-T
5 years ago

How does one identify as “not with” the “Dawkins/Maher branch” of atheism? Say, “No, I’m not an atheist. I am an Atheist+?”

You can just say that you’re an atheist and if clarification is needed, then provide it.

Would you deny that when people self-identify as atheists, that they have to explain that they are not Dawkinsites?

I’ve lived as an atheist for a good long time now and that has come up exactly never. Maybe it’s happened to other people, but frankly, because atheism is so low on my list of how I define myself, it honestly wouldn’t bother me in the slightest to have to clarify it to someone. *shrugs*

That is entirely analogous to Muslims constantly having to explain that they are not like their worst actors, even if their worst actors are numerous. It is entirely analogous to Muslims saying, “please stop saying that these theocratic bigots are the voice of Islam,” for atheists to say, “please stop saying that Richard Dawkins is the voice of atheism.”

I think we’re talking past each other here. If there’s a context in which Dawkins is somehow the atheist equivalent of, say, Bin Laden, then you have a point. However, apart from the fact that they’re public figures, I view these contexts as so different that any comparison will be deeply flawed.

It is entirely analogous to progressive Muslims wanting to reform their religion, even in parts of the world where it looks impossible right now.

See, that’s where I differ. Some theocratic regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia are propped up over here. Over there, they enjoy little popular support. In other cases, US intervention was a contributor to the rise of theocracy, like Iran and Irak, for instance. The problem with religious extremism in these countries can partly be traced back to western intervention. Doesn’t absolve the criminal acts of anyone, but it does suggest a course of action.

The problem with letting the Richard Dawkinses of the world remain the voice of “movement atheism” unchallenged is that most people, and especially most journalists in mainstream media, don’t make that distinction. Outside of our bubble, Dawkins, Harris, and Maher aren’t seen as the voice of “movement atheism”; they are seen as the voice of atheism.

Which is why I argued for branching off rather than remaining on the same boat as them. The Dawkins, Harris and Maher branch have become or are in the process of becoming immune to reason and evidence: they won’t change their mind and there is no point being affiliated with them.

You disagree that the world would be a better place if religion disappeared overnight. Reasonable people can disagree on this. I happen to fall somewhere in the middle on that argument. At my heart, I am a co-exister. But I do believe that the world would be a more peaceful place with less religion, especially less patriarchal religion.

See, the distinction I make is between orthodoxy, dogmatism and rigid fundamentalism. These things are hardly unique to religion, nor are they inherently part of it, and I also think that what makes fundamentalism, be it religious or non-religious, appealing on a broad scale is largely a combination of social, political, and economic factors.

And I also recognize that the fact that my atheism is unimportant to me is something that does indeed come from a place of privilege.

I don’t know about that: Dawkins, Harris and Maher all come from a place of privilege and yet, there they are.

That bit I wrote about the ex-Muslim woman that you dismissed?

I dismissed it because it had nothing to do with anything I wrote, and it still has nothing to do with anything I wrote, so no, I don’t feel compelled to address it.

It is a fact that many people would continue to be assholes without religion. But for many people, especially women and sexual minorities, religion is indeed the yoke of their oppression.

The thing is, movement atheism isn’t exactly friendly to women and sexual minorities, nor can you paint religion with such a broad stroke.

The women who get stoned or shot for adultery, or have acid thrown in their faces for going to school? That can’t just be chalked up to colonialism, can it? The women who want to escape a culture in which they are required to put bonnets on their heads and can’t protest when their husbands talk about “breeding them” again — surely, we can’t say they are just victims of socioeconomic forces, can we?

Congratulations, you killed that strawman dead. What I actually argued is that what makes a religion benign or toxic is a broader set of circumstances and that changing these circumstances is more likely to have a greater impact than promoting atheism. They are not mutually exclusive options, but it does suggest something about how much effort should be directed where.

Here many of us (but nowhere near all) have the privilege of attending pleasantly liberal houses of worship, or leaving the religion of our birth if it is too oppressive. But for those who feel their only choice is to speak out or shut up and take it, I think we could do better than to say that “making it the focus of one’s strategy to a better world [is] misguided at best”.

The thing is, you can have religion with or without oppression and oppression with or without religion, so I’m fairly convinced that making atheism the lynchpin of one’s strategy to fight oppression can’t find anything but limited success.

What organizations do you propose they form? Ones that don’t promote atheism? Because you disagree that they should want to promote it?

It’s context dependent. In places where atheists have to struggle for their rights, something more activist. In places where they don’t, it’d be more like a social club or support group. Doesn’t necessarily mean that those in comfortable situations can’t lend a hand to those in dire circumstances, but you get the point, I hope.

There just seems to be a lot of this idea going around that “wanting to promote atheism as an alternative and a counter to patriarchal religions necessarily means declaring that all religion is bad and contributes to human suffering, throwing your lot in with Dawkins and Harris, and rejecting third-wave / intersectional feminism and social justice”; and it makes me uneasy.

Eh, I’ll throw my lot in with the movements you mentionned before atheism any day of the week.

arash
arash
5 years ago

@David N-T

The thing is, you can have religion with or without oppression and oppression with or without religion, so I’m fairly convinced that making atheism the lynchpin of one’s strategy to fight oppression can’t find anything but limited success.

how do you define religion?and do you think unrestrained religion is not oppressive?

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

Timothy Cardinal Dolan a Catholic asshole who is the Archbishop of New York. He has ~400k google hits. Bill Donohue is a Catholic asshole who goes on FOX News a lot. He has ~800k google hits. If I were a Catholic thinking about leaving that church, I think I would be much more concerned about Dolan than Donohue.

EJ,

It seems like you are or have been “in deeper” with movement atheism than I have, so you may have a clearer sense of the facts on the ground than I do. I think there’s an important difference between a face and a leader, and that a bad leader is often a good reason to leave a group, but a bad face or rarely a good reason to give up a label. I have the impression that Dawkins specifically is more a face than a leader.

A leader gets their power from the group or movement they lead. They may or may not be well known outside the group, but they’re effective because they can ask for and receive money and labor, because they have authority in group institutions, or because they set behavioral norms for the group.

One of the biggest atheist events there is is the American Atheists’ annual convention. The director of American Atheists is a man most people have never heard of, named David Silverman. I can ask David Silverman not to invite Dawkins to the next conference, but I can’t ask him not to invite himself, nor can I ask Dawkins not to invite Silverman. If I buy a ticket, Silverman and not Dawkins will decide what my money is supporting.

A face relies on followers for advertising more than for labor and draws power from both inside and outside the group. Dawkins is wildly popular among atheists, but in some ways he doesn’t even need atheists any more. If every atheist in the world rejected him overnight, he could probably work as an atheist spokesman on TV for the rest of his life because he’s the atheist people have heard of.

I’m not 100% sure what you actually mean when you say “stay” or “leave,” but I don’t think being less active or less visible can do much to weaken the presumption that Dawkins speaks for you.

Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
5 years ago

If a guy tried to take my makeup away from me, I would either punch him or laugh in his face, and then continue to apply it.

Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
5 years ago

If a guy tried to take my makeup away from me, I would either punch him or laugh in his face, and then continue to apply it. Especially the new foundation I just got-L’Oreal True Match Lumi Cushion, where the foundation’s in a little sponge in the compact and you push the little puff (like a powder puff but not as thick) down on the sponge and tap the foundation on your face.

David, please delete my previous comment-it was an incomplete thought and I don’t want it up there.

Rhuu
Rhuu
5 years ago

@Falconer: Thank you for all the recs! I will peruse those. :DDD

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

I like how Orion just ignored everyone but EJ there. I guess those of us who haven’t read the sacred texts aren’t worthy of a reply.

@Imaginary Petal
To clarify my earlier post, I just get tired of people using rationality as an instrument to bludgeon others (not that I think you were doing that). For a lot of people, religion is about how they feel, and people are often told they’re being irrational for having feelings of any kind. To say that the only rational choice is atheism of some kind is pretty insulting to anyone who is religious.

I don’t think you see religious people as irrational, deluded people or anything, I just get tired of hearing fellow athiests treat religious people like they’re inferior and this was starting to souls a lot like that. It probably comes from hanging out in a lot of atheist spaces before, where the racist, sexist douche-fedoras would attack anything and everything they disagreed with as being irrational, illogical, and objectively wrong, regardless of any actual facts.

Falconer
Falconer
5 years ago

@Rhuu: I guess it all boils down to, “You know the modern editions? You’re going to run into the problems they were designed to fix.”

It can be fun, but stay on your toes. Be prepared to accept that things sometimes don’t make sense. The more philosophical grognards might explain that, of course it doesn’t make sense, the dungeon is a place where the safe logic of the towns does not pertain.

EDIT: Oh! And if you have a little money and want to check out some of the earlier stuff, all of the rule books and a good selection of adventures are available at dmsguild.com.

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

Kupo, dhag, SFHC,

I made an ill-considered and inappropriate comment. I’m sorry for that. In the future I will make sure to refrain from personal attacks.

Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
5 years ago

I’ll state my atheism credentials just in case.

– Read The God Delusion
– Read The Moral Landscape
– Read God Is Not Great
– Met my wife on Atheist Nexus
– Watched The Atheist Experience for 6-7 years
– Was a regular on the old JREF message boards
– Watched every Dawkins/Hitchens video on youtube up until a few years ago
– Read Pharyngula regularly for years
– Played Minecraft with PZ Myers
– Helped organizing an atheist Meetup group together with my wife
– Attended the American Atheists national convention
– Attended a Richard Dawkins lecture in NYC in 2010

Am I allowed to have an opinion yet, or should I go on?

EDIT: Didn’t see Orion’s latest comment before I posted this.

Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
5 years ago

@kupo

I do believe that religious thought is irrational, and that faith is irrational. But in my mind that doesn’t amount to saying religious people are all irrational or stupid. I recognize that all people have the capacity for irrational thought, and not having faith only means you aren’t irrational in that one respect. Atheists can be irrational elsewhere, including myself.

However, I don’t conflate having human emotions with irrationality. There’s nothing irrational about feeling things.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

Maybe the word should be nonrationality, not irrationality.

Not everything in the world can be approached from a strictly rational point of view.

Intuition and emotion play a big role in our thinking.

When I make a decision, I usually use my emotion and intuition first. If my thinking backs up those first two, then I’ve probably made a good decision. If it doesn’t, then I usually start again.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
5 years ago

Imaginary Petal, that’s very well put. It’s a pity some of the most prominent (as in, vociferous/rich/famous) mostly white male atheists are blind to the various beams in their own eyes (sexism, white supremacy, glibertarian worship of the so-called “free market” etc. etc.).
Personally, as an atheist I identify very much with what you said.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Orion:

It is my considered opinion that there is strength in numbers, especially when it comes to political movements; and to me movement atheism is exactly that. One lone individual getting angry is easy to dismiss; a hundred individuals getting angry together in an organised fashion can actually change things.

I’m not after a community. I’m fortunate that I have a lot of friends and I feel welcome in many places, and so I’m not after a group of people to not-worship with or anything like that. If I wanted to, I could sit quietly at home not-believing and that would be fine. I do not feel oppressed. I acknowledge my privilege in being able to say this.

What I’m looking for is a movement which wants to confront priests and churches over the abuse of their powers, and to prevent society from looking away deferentially when they see those abuses. I believe that peaceful coexistence is at present impossible, and I want to be part of a movement which acknowledges that.

I also believe that you’re known by the company you keep. If someone is willing to keep company with child abusers (Bernard Law, for example) it tells me that they’ve looked at the abusers and then looked at the victims, and decided to alienate the latter rather than the former. Likewise, if someone is willing to keep company with rapists (Michael Shermer, for example) it tells me that they’ve chosen to exclude that rapist’s victims in order to keep the rapist as a friend.

Therefore, when I say “in or out” I mean “do I want to remain as a politically active member of a movement which is happy to throw Rebecca Watson under the bus in order to keep Richard Dawkins happy, bearing in mind that if I remain then I have essentially consented to that underbussing?” The answer to that is obviously no.

However, it also means “do I want to leave and therefore weaken the only movement which, as far as I know, is serious about holding churches to scrutiny and willing to risk the social backlash that occurs every time they do so?”

This is why I asked kupo about Humanism: if that’s a movement which is willing to be sufficiently hardline then I’ll become a member in a heartbeat.

occasional reader
occasional reader
5 years ago

Hello.

“The Makeup is a lie !” (not to say the cake, i guess) says the guy who splash himself everyday with Axe (the perfume, not the lumberjack tool) in hope it has the same effects it has in commercial adds.

Permadeath videogames are goods. Even online ones : i used to play Battle Royale games (old CGI/Perl script browser games… ah, nostalgia) where you have to recreate your character each week and where you can day the first day, implying you have to wait a full week till the next session. This kind of game may be quickly turn down by GGers nowaday.
On traditionnal ones, i am times to times playing ZAngband.

About TRPG and board games, i had and continue to play a lot (less TRPG, alas, more board games). Maybe i have never been in the good places, but there has been almost no women in the groups i have play with (at most, one, but not the same for each group). But that does not mean they are not playing. Sadly to say too is that, at least in the major part of the groups i have played with, when a male player plays a female character, you can choke to the amount of stereotypes that are used…
I know there are tools like Rolisteam to play TRPG online, but i never had the occasion to try it. If someone want to try it one day…
And for non-heroic RPG, let go a Call of Cthulhu, to remember how frail our characters are…

Have a nice day.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Kat:
In my experience, intuition is the process of rational thought happening very quickly that it’s subconscious. When I make an intuitive leap then it’s normally because I’ve done that particular type of thinking so often that the pattern-matching parts of my brain have begun to recognise problems of that type and can fill in the blanks for me. To me this happens a lot with maths, simply because of the amount of it I’ve done.

As such, I agree with you that intuition and conscious thought should back one another up, but I don’t see them as separate.

(This isn’t to say that intuition is always right, of course: just like logical reasoning, if the assumptions underlying it are wrong then the outcome will be wrong too.)

Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
5 years ago

@Kat

When it comes to emotions, I’ve never understood why they have been portrayed as conflicting with rationality. I’m not even sure I agree that emotions are non-rational. Emotions aren’t imaginary, but actually exist in our heads as a matter of fact. When we act, we keep other facts of life in mind, so why shouldn’t we also take into account our emotions and the feelings of others. This just seems utterly rational to me.

@opposablethumbs

I don’t know who said it first, but I’ve always been fond of telling smug atheists something to the effect of: Congratulations! You’ve figured out the answer to the easiest question in the world. Now move on to something more difficult.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@EJ (The Other One)

In my experience, intuition is the process of rational thought happening very quickly that it’s subconscious.

I’ve had that experience too, and it’s pretty amazing.

But I’ve also had experiences where I just couldn’t have known something via rational means. I chalk it up to intuition but YMMV.

And then there are emotions, which are wonderful things that give life meaning. That said, sometimes I have to overrule them and go with what my brain says.

I prefer the term “nonrational” to “irrational” because the latter can be a pejorative term.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Kat & EJ

I spend a fair bit of time explaining that there’s nothing irrational or supernatural about intuition.

The best definition I’ve heard, and the one I’ve stolen is “The unconscious processing of subliminal clues”

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Kat:
I like your use of “nonrational”, although I suspect that that’s simply both of us using a euphemism treadmill.

I don’t see leaps of intuition as irrational either. Irrational, after all, has a strict definition: “Cannot be expressed in the form m/n for integer m, n.” Since human minds don’t work in floating-point, everything we do is rational, right?

@Alan:
That’s a good definition. I’m stealing it too. Who did you steal it off?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ EJ

Unfortunately I can’t remember (otherwise I would give credit). It was from some psychologist or psychiatrist I was once talking to.

On the word thing, how about arational? That’s pretty neutral.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
5 years ago

kupo says:

I brushed it off with, “Pfft, I don’t wear makeup!” and I don’t plan on pushing any further on it.

Next time a guy tries that tell him he should have worn make up. Sound as sincere as possible. Then say it could help reduce the overlarge size his nose seems to acquire as he goes around sticking it into other people’s business.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@Imaginary Petal
I think that plenty of people see being rational as relying on verifiable facts alone, not emotion or intuition. As though anything but verifiable facts were suspect in some way.

I believe that this is because they are not well acquainted with their own emotion or intuition.

And of course when they do use their own emotion or intuition, it’s different. Then it’s rational.

These are people who are infatuated with their own thoughts and so could never find a flaw in them.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@EJ (The Other One)
Now you’ve gotten into higher math. I’ll have to take your word on that!

@Alan
“Arational”–why not! It’s not in my Webster’s but that’s okay.

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

Alan, you don’t happen to be friends with Mihaly Czikszentmihali do you?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Orion

I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage. Who’s that?

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

Emotions are definitely rational. Fear helps keep ourselves safe. Anger can too. Happier emotions help us with prosocial bonds. Which also keeps us safe as it allows us to work together and protect each other.

It’s not like I think about emotions on those terms while I’m experiencing them. I just don’t see the smug douchebro position of emotions being useless and a sign of weakness as being quite as rational as they think it is.

That attitudes also contributes to the negative stereotype of atheists not having feelings.

guy
guy
5 years ago

Emotions aren’t rational, they’re heuristics. It takes a while to reason through why standing there while an elephant is charging you is a bad idea, but it takes very little time to be scared and get out of the way. Very useful. But then bigotry comes from emotions making people believe things that aren’t true, because emotions are fast rather than accurate.

But my position on people who claim to be purely rational is much like my opinion on people who claim to use pure logic. All humans have emotions (except maybe a couple instances of brain damage) and claiming not to have them just means they’re ignoring their effect. And sometimes their arguments also seem to pretend that other people’s emotions don’t exist, and that’s definitely irrational.

And if you find yourself charged by an elephant, it is not the time to ignore your emotions because they aren’t rational, it is time to run for your life.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

Next time a guy tries that tell him he should have worn make up. Sound as sincere as possible. Then say it could help reduce the overlarge size his nose seems to acquire as he goes around sticking it into other people’s business.

I briefly entertained the fantasy of buying some nice, garish eyeshadow, wrapping it up with a note inside that says, “I know how much you like makeup. I thought this shade would look great on you!” and handing it to him, but I’m not that mean. He’s actually a nice guy and he looks up to me as a mentor and I don’t want to hurt that relationship for a passive-aggressive dig. But it’s fun to fantasize.

Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
Imaginary Petal (formerly dhag85, trying out pronouns - they/their)
5 years ago

@guy

I wouldn’t say emotions = rational, but enotions are REAL, and the rational thing to do is acknowledge this reality and take it into account.

guy
guy
5 years ago

@Kupo

Speaking as a guy, I think that while that’s going a bit too far, making a joke about how you don’t wear makeup but could get him some would probably have resulted in him laughing and apologizing. Assuming he is someone you’d want to be friends with, he probably wouldn’t have said it if he thought it would upset you. Either it was a joke he didn’t realize you wouldn’t laugh at, or he thought you were wearing makeup and it wasn’t having the result you thought.

I’ve been on this site long enough to know that it’s not always so easy for women to just speak up, but when you feel you can, do so. Because many men really don’t realize it’s hard for women to speak up, and when they wonder if something is offensive they’ll glance at the women in the room and figure that they’re not upset so it’s fine. Then when they hear about women they don’t know getting offended, they’ll figure those women must be oversensitive because it doesn’t (look to them like it does) offend the women they do know.

@IP

Yeah, exactly.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@WWTH, guy:
My Rogue Trader party have chosen to call the cannons on their spacecraft “Powerful Arguments.” That way when they meet space pirates, they can overcome them with powerful arguments instead of having to admit that they’re resorting to mere violence.

This is what I see a lot of smug dudebros do as well: they name their emotions “rationality” and “objectivity”, and then they can claim that they’re dealing with everything using rationality and objectivity instead of having to admit that they’re resorting to mere emotions.

It’s a childish gambit, and it’s sad to see people deluding themselves so childishly. I suspect it may be because, for whatever reason, they’ve persuaded themselves that having emotions is bad and therefore it’s important to pretend that they don’t have them. Goodness knows why.

@kupo:
This might be a good learning opportunity for him, then. If it’s you saying it rather than someone else then it might get through to him more effectively and cause him to reexamine the way he treats women.

You are, of course, not obliged to do so; but it might be an opportunity.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ EJ

Some of my associates refer to what they do as “percussive diplomacy”.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

Speaking as a guy, I think that while that’s going a bit too far, making a joke about how you don’t wear makeup but could get him some would probably have resulted in him laughing and apologizing. Assuming he is someone you’d want to be friends with, he probably wouldn’t have said it if he thought it would upset you. Either it was a joke he didn’t realize you wouldn’t laugh at, or he thought you were wearing makeup and it wasn’t having the result you thought.

I’m fully aware of this. It doesn’t need to be explained to me. It’s also not my job to teach men not to be sexist assholes.

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

Alan,

Mihaly Czikszentmihali (he tells English-speaking audiences it’s “me high, chick sent me hi”) is a psychologist known for studying a phenomenon he calls “Flow,” which he described for the public in a book of the same name. Flow, he says, is a state of mind that skilled people in a variety of fields experience while applying their skill, and also one of the most satisfying human experiences.

The basic idea is that at any given time you’re either in a “reflective” mode where you are stopping and consciously thinking about what to do, or an “experiential” mode, where you’re just reacting immediately and automatically to stimuli as they come in. Fear or anger can force you into a very unpleasant experiential mode, but experiential mode is usually very pleasant. Part of why people like walking or like driving is that they can be active without having to think too hard. Reflective mode can be pleasant, such as sitting and reading a good book, but it can be very unpleasant if it’s forced by anxiety, and most people prefer not to be in reflective mode for a long time without a break.

When you try something new like skiing or driving or playing League of Legends, or you run into a new problem in a familiar field, you’re forced into reflective mode; you have to think about every action. This is bad because most people don’t like it, and it cripples you performance. If you have to think about every action before you act, you can’t react quickly to surprises and you cant do more than one thing at a time.

Once you’re experienced, you no longer have to stop and think. You’ll do the routine steps automatically and even when there’s an unexpected problem, it’s a familiar problem, and you immediately know how to correct. You can “flow” your way through normal tasks in experiential mode. If you’re very, very good you can even perform at a high level under intense pressure and stay experiential, but sometimes people “choke” under pressure because they start to think about the stakes. Once you start thinking, you stop flowing, and you’re forced to think about how to act instead of just acting.

In addition to laying out the theory, he interview lots of people — pilots, athletes, etc. — about how it feels to do their thing. As not above, most people rate the sensation of flow as highly satisfying. People in flow are known to get “lost in their work” and become unaware of the passage of time. In some cases they describe time appearing to stand still or the world going into slow motion.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Orion

I’ll have to check him out; a lot of what you mention tallies with some areas of interest of mine. What you say about driving is similar to how we describe ‘skill’, ie something that becomes automatic (compare the sweaty experience of learning to drive and the ‘how the flip did I get here?’ standard of driving when you’ve got the hang of it.) I think there’s probably some wider implications of his work too, so I’ll defiantly be following this up. Thanks!