In my previous post, I made an argument for the distinction between real bigotry from non-egalitarians and satirical bigotry from (at the very least self-professed) egalitarians. I think that distinction still stands and is an important one to make. At the end of my blog, I highlighted the responsibility of the defenders of egalitarianism to provide an argument (and preferably evidence) for why social taboo humor specifically is harmful rather than just labeling it as “misogyny” without qualification.
After several hours of discussion, a feminist provided evidence for why social taboo humor is harmful. At the very least, this evidence should be acknowledged and addressed by people who wish to invoke social taboo humor. The papers are referenced below.
Romero-Sánchez et al. (2010) Exposure to sexist humor and rape proclivity: the moderator effect of aversiveness ratings
The aim of this study is to explore the effect of exposure to sexist humor about women on men’s self-reported rape proclivity. Earlier studies have shown that exposure to this type of humor increases rape proclivity and that funniness responses to jokes are a key element to consider. However, the role of aversiveness responses has not been studied. In a between-group design, 109 male university students are randomly exposed to sexist or nonsexist jokes. Participants are asked to rate the jokes according to their degree of funniness and aversiveness. Participants’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism were also measured. Results about the relationship between sexist attitudes and sexist humor and the relationship between sexist attitudes and rape proclivity are consistent with those of earlier studies. However, exposure to sexist humor affects rape proclivity only when aversiveness shown to this type of humor is low. The results are discussed in the light of the prejudiced norm theory.
Ford et al. (2008) More than “just a joke”: the prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor
The results of two experiments supported the hypothesis that, for sexist men, exposure to sexist humor can promote the behavioral release of prejudice against women. Experiment 1 demonstrated that hostile sexism predicted the amount of money participants were willing to donate to a women’s organization after reading sexist jokes but not after reading nonhumorous sexist statements or neutral jokes. Experiment 2 showed that hostile sexism predicted the amount of money participants cut from the budget of a women’s organization relative to four other student organizations upon exposure to sexist comedy skits but not neutral comedy skits. A perceived local norm of approval of funding cuts for the women’s organization mediated the relationship between hostile sexism and discrimination against the women’s organization.
A PR Problem
I am very happy to present the evidence above. I think it is unequivocally important and relevant in the discussion of the harmful effects of social taboo humor.
However, I think it is relevant that, when I posted my original blog, I received a very hostile and non-evidential response. Feminists came on to my blog and insulted me for literally hours saying that I was “mansplaining” (a sexist term, in the context it was being used), calling me a bigot, and expressing outrage at me for holding horrible positions that I NEVER endorsed (straw man fallacy). Not to mention that there was just generally a lot of unwarranted rudeness in response to sincere comments.
I know that not all feminists behave like this. And I want to thank the user athyco for taking the time to find and present these studies. But to the type of feminists who behave like this: this is not helpful behavior. It is horrible for your image and horrible for the cause of egalitarianism.
Providing evidence and responding to sincere inquiries with sincerity is helpful.
Evid3nc3 
Hey Evid3nc3. For you, it would be very difficult to put forth your opinions on what is fair, what isn’t, what’s funny, and what’s not without inciting some kind of angry response from a feminist perspective. I prefer to stay out of the debate because it’s such a deep topic with so many people who want a different final outcome. It’s easy to say you’re simply /for equality/. What equality means to people is different for everybody.
Your opinion is frowned upon because the opinion of feminists is that there is a patriarchy in place where males run a system that subjugates women, whether knowingly or not. When it comes to gender issues, I feel that it is unfair to cast aside a male’s perspective on things because feminist’s pursuit for [what they see as] equality and fairness affects all of us.
I’m speaking generally. Feminism is a broad subject with many different people who identify as feminists, but have different viewpoints on the subject. And yea, it’s really frustrating when you’re told that you’re mansplaining or that it’s not your place to talk about this stuff.
You have a good instinct when it comes to acquiring evidence about things, and I think you have the right idea about bigotry and satire. You /get/ it. If you’re having trouble working out in your head why you’re getting the response that you’re getting, than maybe seeing this YouTube video might clear things up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
I know you’re a busy guy, but I swear this video is a very good listen and might mitigate some of the mental hoopla that you might be going through when engaging in this debate. I think that she has a strong concept of equality, fairness and just straight-up logic & facts in her arguments. [she’s also got other videos and a blog.]
Cheers!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Spellman. While I am uncomfortable with her referring to all Feminists as a single unified group (as you were careful not to), I think she makes some important and relevant points.
your understanding of what patriarchy is is wrong, thus your argument against it is a strawman. Patriarchy is NOT “males run a system that subjugates women”, it is a society-wide system in which, ceteris paribus, men are higher-status than women (and things tagged “masculine” are higher-status than things tagged “feminine”), and everyone perpetuates and polices this.
Notably, there is actually some excellent research and writing on men and the patriarchy; written by men (often gay men, but not exclusively). Just because the patriarchy ranks men above women, it doesn’t actually mean it doesn’t harm men, or that men aren’t actively engaged in fighting it for their own benefit as well as women’s benefit.
We should totally judge all feminists by the terrible behaviour of “the feminist community” in response to your last post, in the same way it’s appropriate to judge all atheists by the behaviour of “the atheist community”, on Reddit. How are guys supposed to participate in the feminist community when it’s so misandronistic?
Gosh, for a minute I thought this collection of absolutist statements might be bigotry and then I realized that all feminists are identically terrible being equivalent to all atheists are identically terrible and feminism ought to change so men don’t have to are actually satire and examples of social taboo humor. Did I get that right?
You didn’t get it right at all. This was not humor. It was frustration. He is referencing the absolutist statement in the title of Rebecca Watson’s blog title: “Reddit Makes Me Hate Atheists”.
If you are defining absolutist statements about an entire group as bigotry, that title is bigotry. Personally, I think that definition of bigotry is too broad and that it actually trivializes real bigotry. Rather, I think Rebecca Watson is just frustrated and, when people are frustrated, they tend to over-generalize. I don’t think Rebecca Watson is actually a bigot just because she made an absolutist statement.
The primary thrust of William Russell’s comment is that he is frustrated at the situation of seeing a man (me) trying to have an honest dialogue with the Feminist community and receiving a barrage of insincere and sarcastic insults instead. Your comment is a perfect example of this.
Interesting. I thought I was responding to social taboo humor with equivalent social taboo humor and instead of checking to see if I was actually an egalitarian in pursuit of boundary-pushing humor you have apparently leapt to the conclusion that my comment to someone else is “a perfect example” of insincerity and sarcastic insult aimed at you personally . Now that you have derailed the conversation to your hurt feelings and accused me of being dishonest and a misandrist, I can’t possibly take your criticisms seriously.
I didn’t say a word about my feelings, let alone them being hurt.
So which social taboo were you trying to violate in your first comment?
@crowepps: Firstly, I must admit I found it _really_ hard to figure out what your first reply meant. I’m sorry. My response then. Your reply reeks of sarcasm and insincerity, but in case it was genuine: yes my comment was a satire, of Rebecca Watson’s claims against the “atheist community”. It demonstrates the inappropriateness of her response. If you were indeed being sarcastic: I think you missed the point of my comment. You accidentally hit it right on the head in your attempt at sarcasm. Does that clear it up?
@evid3nc3: The primary thrust of my comment was not frustration at insincerity and sarcasm among feminists, which I believe was your understanding. I agree that that is frustrating, but I, unlike others, accept that “communities” (_especially_ online ones) are, firstly, nothing of the sort and, secondly, guaranteed to contain vast numbers of, very vocal, idiots. We must just ignore them, as we would such people in the streets. To do otherwise (what else ultimately should be done anyway: internet police?) is simply to encourage trolling. It betrays an ignorance, I think, of the nature of the internet and our natural tendency to remember the most shocking and extreme things we witness.
Rather, what I primarily object to is (as you also pointed out) any blogger who writes posts complaining about the behaviour of communities, implicitly and often even explicitly lumping every one of them into one group. It’s the essence of bigotry. So in my comment I was essentially pointing out the irony, given the subject of Rebecca Watson’s post, in the response of the “feminist community” to your post.
Does that make sense?
Yes, it does make sense, William.
On later reads its hard not to read this as a funny parody of male sexism, just reversed. Inappropriate, since it continues an attack that wasn’t seen as funny against Evid3nc3. But it still stands as funny inappropriate humur. If it wasn’t meant as humor thn its unselfconscious parody. I think its ironic sexist misandronistic humor against Evid3nc3. I think laughing or taking offense is the correct response. The author is clearly playing to a different audience
A few thoughts on the last two posts.
1. How do you know it’s all satire? I was waiting for you to say that sure they may be some people among the thousands of commenters who are genuinely sexist, but that time never came. Why? I am genuinely curious about this and I would apreciate an answer. Other commenters are welcome to do so, who share Cris’s position.
I wouldn’t make such a huge assumption. Not when it comes to the largest country on the planet at the moment: the internet.
Considering merely the probabilities it seems a mistake to assume that no one who is genuinely sexist has read and commented with a sexist comment and actually meant it. Hey maybe it was drowned out by the satire that followed. Maybe that was what started the satirizing. That is a distinct possibility. But why isn’t this considered? Is it impossible? Unlikely?
Can’t you imagine that someone who is for example turned on by such sexist and derogatory language found the thread? And the horror got aroused by it?
I wouldn’t dismiss their experience by declaring it all in good fun and just satire.
And let me make it clear they have the right to do that. They can also click on the other tab and watch some good rape porn if hey like, but they can also go out and actual rape someone.
I only have a problem with the last part. I have no problem imagining such a scenario. Or variations of it. I just don’t understand why you think it all is pure satire. I love me some good satire. I’ve even been known to use it. I just don’t understand why it is so obvious that all of those comments are nothing more than satire. I really don’t.
2. ‘I think you are mistaken when you claim the people making the jokes are “ignorant” of the history of rape. On the contrary, I think they are quite aware of it. Which is why they make the jokes.’
I could say that this is because of your white male privilege (which would be correct), but I won’t because it evokes bad associations (hey we reached the point in a discussion about free speech where I have to censor myself so that I won’t be called a feminazi. Isn’t it great?).
So let me put it this way. You are a highly educated and obviously intelligent person. Based on what I’ve heard and read from you I’m assuming you are in the higher end of the IQ scale. I’ve also seen that you like to know what the facts are and you are not only willing but very much able to research the things you are curious about.
But the problem is that most people are not like that. And yes, I have no research with 100-500 university students to support this, but it is obvious to me based on my personal observations (and yes you can dismiss that) that most people (men and women alike) are not like that.
Most people don’t research the history of feminism. Most people don’t care about rape studies and the social aspects of misogyny/racism/etc. They watch the Kardashians or American Idol. Or they go to a sports event. Or to a bar/club with friends. They live their life. Only a small part of the population is sufficiently informed about topic like sexism/racism/economy/politics/etc.
And no there is nothing wrong with that. You don’t have to care about these issues and you should not be forced by law or social pressure to do so either.
But if you are a person (male or female) who is sufficiently informed and cares enough about this to not do something else (something more along the lines of mainstream entertainment) but write a blogpost about one of these topics, you should not assume that everyone else is like that too. Because I assure you they are not. 99% or internet users are not white males doing their doctoral thesis work and taking a break form that to look up the latest thread on r/atheism.
Most people use the internet for fun and not to promote free speech or to make conscious social commentary or satire.
And looking at the laws and policies in action, there are way fewer people like you in the world, or at least in positions to do the right thing.
If this is the case, when people who are not only able but it is part of their job description to do the thinking and research you can do just because you’re curious and they don’t, why do you expect the other people to do the same? And why do you assume that all of the commenters are like you and not like the rest?
3. And yes I think Rebeca does exaggerate sometimes and focuses on the easy targets more than on the more difficult ones and chooses certain titles and topics specifically because they are scandalous (hence assuring traffic to the website) and by doing so is only conforming to another trend in our dear homeland the internet. And is hence part of the problem.
But that’s another discussion.
4. It is difficult to talk or think about topics like this out loud on the internet.
Religion is one of those difficult topics and your thoughts about that were one of the most defining readings (or rather viewings) I’ve had during my recovery from religion and magical thinking. This is also rare. And I appreciate it very much. And I have yet to find it’s equivalent about the topic of feminism, racism, economics, politics and nutrition. As well as other subjects.
And I think this unwillingness to think deeply and seriously about thses topics is much more of a problem than a discussion on some trendy thread on an atheist forum that will be forgottne in a few weeks tops.
Your willingness to think this way is why I have respect for you and none for internet commenters who write shitty comments on any page that allows them ot do so. (Note: by allows I’m referring to the possibility to post unmoderated comments, because not every webpage has articles and a comments section)
Sorry for the long comment but I’d rather write something this long and have most people not read it than write a 5 word spiffy internet koan and be misunderstood.
Thanks for the sincere comment.
1. “How do you know it’s all satire? I was waiting for you to say that sure they may be some people among the thousands of commenters who are genuinely sexist, but that time never came. Why? I am genuinely curious about this and I would apreciate an answer.”
Actually, I did address this, several times, in the comment section. But the comment section was so obfuscated that I’m not surprised those comments were hard to find.
I absolutely acknowledge that some of the commenters may be genuinely sexist. But we have evidence that at least some were self-professed egalitarians. The point of the blog was to build a bridge with those people.
2. “But the problem is that most people are not like that.”
I really, really NEVER said that EVERYONE who makes a sexist comments is well-researched. When I said ‘they’ in that comment, I was specifically referencing the self-proclaimed egalitarians.
You will have to forgive me for having the hair raise on the back of my neck in response to having my comments over-generalized and being effectively straw-manned *again*. I know this is your first comment and you are making every effort to be sincere. But I had this done to me over and over again yesterday and I am getting pretty sick of it.
3. For the record, while I do think Rebecca makes mistakes, I generally like her and appreciate what she is trying to do.
4. Thank you for the *very* kind comments about the series. I hope that as time goes on we do get more resources for other topics. I agree that these are some thorny issues and better online material would be helpful.
what’s the purpose of “building bridges” with people who ay they’re egalitarians but act the reverse of that?
Also, whence the assumption that someone who is “genuinely sexist” wouldn’t call themselves an egalitarian? This is a conflation of “genuine” with “explicit” (as in “explicit attitude”, the social psychology term for a knowingly held belief/attitude/bias), when genuine beliefs can just as easily be implicit and thus not actually perceived as such by the individual holding them.
Isn’t the purpose of building bridges always to increase awareness and encourage positive change?
If a person has chosen to identify as egalitarian, half the battle is won right there. Opening communication in a positive way with such a person could go a long way to moving them further forward. As pervasive as sexism is in our culture, people are completely blind to the ways they may act in opposition to their stated beliefs, so we are SURROUNDED by people who are accidentally talking the talk but not walking the walk. All of us labor under assumptions we don’t even know we’re carrying. Engaging someone in a positive way is the single best tool to have in such endeavors.
I can think back to MANY times people have built such bridges to me. I’m immensely grateful that they thought I was worthy of their time and effort.
“Social taboo humor” isn’t really a good phrase for it, though. It covers things that touch on bigotry of various kinds, and things that don’t. A person making jokes about pooping may be using social taboo humor, but there’s no human population whose humanity is being called into question as a result. You should find a more precise phrase to use.
nobody links to the peer-reviewed literature when refuting garden-variety creationists
similarly, most AGW-denialists claims are dismissed or explained as wrong without linking to scientific journals. Only with the higher-level denialists who themselves are already somewhat familiar with the literature does this happen.
Your post was low-level bigotry-denial (yeah, I know that was not your intent; not relevant), and that’s the level on which people argued with it. And you still acting as if the difference between bigotry on-purpose and bigotry not-on-purpose is meaningfully distinguishable, when in reality it has the same effects. And you cling to this claim without any evidence that intent makes a difference, yet demand peer-reviewed literature from us. that’s a double standard.
nonetheless, here again are the links I gave in the previous post on this subject:
The Enjoyment of Sexist Humor, Rape Attitudes, and Relationship Aggression in College Students
Kathryn M. Ryan and Jeanne Kanjorski
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g451601664828vh1/
Exposure to Sexist Humor and Rape Proclivity: The Moderator Effect of Aversiveness Ratings
Mónica Romero-Sánchez
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/25/12/2339.abstract
More Than “Just a Joke”: The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor
Thomas E. Ford
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/2/159.short
No laughing matter: Women’s verbal and nonverbal reactions to sexist humor. Prejudice: The target’s perspective.
LaFrance, Marianne;Woodzicka, Julie A.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-07621-003
Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism
Thomas E. Ford, Erin R. Wentzel, Joli Lorion
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.56/abstract
How about next time you at least do a basic google scholar search on a topic you are not familiar with, before posting a criticism of other people who ARE familiar with it?
Refer to the book:
Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most
It explains and provides evidence for why acknowledging someone’s intentions when trying to have a difficult conversation with them is an effective way of reaching agreement. If you want people to stop, acknowledging their intentions before attempting to correct them will help your cause.
There is a difference between acknowledging a lack of ill intent, and pretending that bigotry isn’t bigotry.
You seem to think that by labeling bigotry as bigotry, we make it impossible to acknowledge the lack of ill intent.
That doesn’t make any sense. If a you didn’t do or say something that clearly comes off as bigoted, then there would be no NEED to acknowledge that there wasn’t any ill intent, would there?
Don’t know the book, but from your description, it directly contradicts what we know about attitude formation. Implicit attitudes are not changed by denying them and instead focusing on explicit attitudes.
I never said anything about denying attitudes. I said “acknowledging intentions”. Getting someone’s story correct first so that they know you understand them before trying to correct them. It’s called the Principle of Charity in Philosophy. It is a very widespread concept, not something restricted to a single book.
“intentions” are based in explicit attitudes. “acknowledging intentions” means prioritizing one’s explicit attitudes over the implicit ones, when it’s the implicit ones that are causing the trouble. So yes, taking people at their word about their intent means denying implicit attitudes.
Though, I should maybe introduce one bit of nuance here: people who hold both implicit and explicit bigoted attitudes will not be affected by the methods that alter bigoted implicit attitudes in the same way as those people who have dual attitudes. In either case however is the denial of the existence of bigoted implicit attitudes not likely to be helpful, since countercultural change of implicit attitudes needs to be done deliberately by the person holding them. So the first step is getting someone to acknowledge that despite their claims to the contrary, they hold bigoted attitudes and thus act in bigoted ways.
Let’s stop talking in abstractions. Here is an example of what I am talking about:
“Dave, I know that you said that you explicitly support egalitarianism and are just making sexist jokes because it is socially taboo. But it has been demonstrated through experiment that when people make those jokes, it still causes damage.”
In my negotiation experience (and I have quite a bit of it), think this is an effective way to negotiate with someone.
I’m not sold on the psychology of “addressing implicit attitudes”. We don’t have mind-reading machines. Until we do, I think that the most effective way to deal with people is to talk about what we actually have direct evidence for: what they do and what they say.
should have been:
“people who hold both implicit and explicit bigoted attitudes will not ALWAYS be affected by the methods that alter bigoted implicit attitudes in the same way as those people who have dual attitudes.”
since implicit attitudes are created by such things as mere exposure, classical conditioning, etc. if you change frequency and association of stereotypes and other bigotry “in the wild” you change implicit attitudes regardless of what the explicit attitudes are. hence the focus on changing actions (since they lead to the frequency and associations mentioned above) over trying to talk every single bigot out of being a bigot both explicitly and implicitly via slow-route learning
Jay Smooth’s TEDx talk on how we talk about race seems quite relevant.
He has a great conversational presentation methodology for discussing difficult issues.
What a pity that you seem unable or unwilling to take his lessons to heart.
What a pity that you continue to make judgemental statements about me without justification.
What a pity that YOU don’t take his lessons to heart and learn to speak to people in a spirit of mutual respect and without condescension.
Seriously, this was completely uncalled for, especially given the context of Jay’s talk.
Unbelievable. Someone who advocates the respectful, cooperative approach to dealing criticism as described in the video, turning around and saying something so cantankerous in their very next line.
I don’t know whether Sally *feels* she’s justified because of the discussion yesterday and today, but I can’t see how the justification would work either.
Uncalled for? Jay Smooth’s approach is dramatically at odds with the one that evid3nc3 appears to be advocating. Rather than giving well-meaning people more tools to be able to hear, “Hey, what you said sounded racist/misogynist/whatever,” which is what Jay is trying to do, evid3nc3 seems to think that merely making the observation will be inherently alienating and is mutually exclusive with recognizing that their intentions were not bad. My impression is that he thinks that these people, the ones who mean well and are bigoted on accident, should be protected from the observation and the social opprobrium. I think it’s silly to think that you can get someone to do less bigotry without making the direct observation that they have done bigoted things in the past. Especially if they are someone who tries to be non-bigoted.
So, it’s odd that he appreciates the video, but can’t seem to put the advice given therein into practice.
“evid3nc3 seems to think that merely making the observation will be inherently alienating and is mutually exclusive with recognizing that their intentions were not bad”
Wrong again. I’m being misrepresented again. Not surprised. Again.
Read the example approach that I gave above:
“Dave, I know that you said that you explicitly support egalitarianism and are just making sexist jokes because it is socially taboo. But it has been demonstrated through experiment that when people make those jokes, it still causes damage.”
There is nothing about that approach which even remotely implies that I think these people should be protected from criticism. Rather, what I am advocating is giving them that criticism in a way that they will actually HEAR it without becoming defensive. Which, from my understanding, is EXACTLY what Jay Smooth is advocating.
Well, that’s a bit of a turnaround from insisting that “satirical” bigotry isn’t actually bigotry and shouldn’t be labeled as such.
There is no turnaround happening here. I still hold the exact same stance.
My entire point, from the very first blog post was that: if you are going to criticize this behavior, you need to first show that you recognize that some people are purposefully imitating opinions that they do not publicly support for the sake of invoking a type of social taboo humor.
I NEVER said that you shouldn’t criticize them. My point has always been that, if you are going to criticize them, acknowledging their intentions is an important part of getting them to hear you without becoming defensive.
That’s one amazing talk, thanks very much for sharing it, for my sake at least!
you’re “not sold on the psychology of ‘addressing implicit attitudes'” based on which evidence?
yeah, didn’t think so. like i said: first do the research, then do the opinioning.
as to your example: how many bigots do you think can be addressed in such a way? how many of them won’t simply dismiss psychology the way you just did (or ramble something about the “soft” sciences)? how many of them will be even amenable to a “threadjacking” to discuss something they thought of as “just a joke”?
Contrast this with social activism that removes those things that contribute to implicit bigotry, which can affect many people at once, without their defensive shields going up instantly and without elevated risk of reactance.
Not that the former isn’t sometimes a valid approach, especially in very public forums where the bigot is in the minority and the argument can serve as an object lesson to lurkers, readers, and assorted non-participants. The latter is just a lot more effective when talking about something like an r/atheism thread.
Could I get some good, relevant links on implicit/explicit attitudes? Particularly something to read about social activism that modifies implicit attitudes without raising defensive shields or risk of reactance. Google is not giving me anything quite relevant.
P.S. speaking of a PR problem… Why did evid3nc3 deserve your snark and get petitioned for evidence simply because his mind is not yet made up on something? Why am I now bracing to be lashed out upon, just for asking for information and pointing out said snark? Is this a useful part of your strategy to effect social change, or just a side-effect?
Anyhow, I will be dropping out of the conversation now. This is an important topic of discussion. As are the topics of physics, history, and sociology. But I think I have devoted enough time to it for now and need to focus on other things.
I am disappointed at the quality of discussion here. There was much straw-manning of evid3nc3 and am embarrassed that he had to experience this.
I hope future conversations that I read of evid3nc3 will be improved.
As an ally, he should be super excited that his post attracted this much attention and constructive criticism. I’m not seeing that he got straw manned, just that he failed to fully think through the implications of what he was saying.
I was consistently accused of holding positions I never endorsed. Many of those accusations came from you personally. If you want to find those accusations, do a search in the comments of the previous blog for every time I typed “I NEVER said”. Intentionally or not, accusing someone of a horrible position that they never explicitly endorsed is straw manning.
I am not at all super excited by the response I received. Most of what I received were a lot of personal attacks, sarcastic insults, and unsolicited psychoanalysis.
If I had received an honest and mutually respectful discussion of the arguments I made, that would have been exactly what I asked for.
But the inferences that were made about my identity and my psychology for *making* the arguments were not helpful. The bitter and vitriolic sarcasm that I received in almost every comment were just atrocious.
The consistent prejudice that I held all manner of horrible opinions that I had never explicitly committed to revealed terrible dialogue methods. And, based on the accusations that were made, I have a hard time believing that this prejudice was not motivated by the fact that I am a male.
Some of my closest friends identify as feminists and I have a lot of respect for them. I’ve had many meaningful discussions with them. What I witnessed here was just horrible. It has shown me a dark side of the feminist movement and, I am very sad to say, caused me to lose some respect for it.
Dude,
They so trolled you..
I was incensed first readthru,!
But now its really funny…You are the wooby here…
@Evid3nc3
This is why you gotta finish Why I am no longer a Christian. I don’t care if it takes you 2… maybe 5 years, whatever, just get it done. I think it’s important because while you may be just revealing your own experiences in ultimately rejecting Christianity, you are making a far greater argument for evidentialism, which is critical in any debate.
@Sally Strange:
Social opprobrium is no substitute for hard evidence and logic. Resorting to this tactic is very telling of your own beliefs, because it literally adds nothing substantial to the conversation. If you have a boatload of information to share, than why wouldn’t you just share it? Why appeal to fallicies such as, “it’s OBVIOUS.”?
If you have to attempt to shame and humiliate your opposition, such as accusing them of bigotry or supporting bigotry, being flippant on account of their alleged ‘white male privilege’, and misrepresenting their arguments, than you’re not doing anything (good) to promote your cause.
You also can’t come into a debate and expect instant repieval of your opposition’s beliefs. That’s unrealistic because they have likely spent their whole life coming to the conclusions that they have about the world. Perhaps this comes from your own frustrations with people who have /any/ compasion for people who engage in a behavior that /you believe/ is indisputably harming the world.
But this should not be. You don’t go into a religious debate denouncing all religious people, even though we are aware that some of the beliefs can be harmful to society. You should offer strong arguments, logic, apt analogies, and evidence in actual debates, even if you think it’s super obvious.
An example would be homosexuality. I think we all share the belief that it is not wrong or immoral to be gay. Yet there are some people out there who legitimately can’t fathom why being gay could ever be considered acceptable. If someone is sincerely looking for answers to this, than you might find it more productive to incite doubt in their mind by providing logical arguments, analogies, and facts, instead of making accusations about their character. If you start accusing them of things that they don’t identify as, than likely, in their mind, they’re saying to themselves, “This person is completely off base, I’m not a bigot, I’m just following God’s word, etc. etc.” This is exactly what J. Smooth is trying to promote. Again, you shouldn’t expect immediate results in such an argument.
Inversely, if your own arguments can’t stand up to scrutiny, than maybe there’s a problem with your own beliefs an a personal reevaluation is in order.
I’m not convinced that the case for “satire being indistinguishable from real bigotry and is therefore abhorrant” is rock solid. There are holes in this argument— one of the main ones being that satire and humor, no matter how vicious it may sound to you, can have positive effects on society as a whole. Exposure to crude language can liberate us from the shock of hearing it. It can help us to differentiate between real harmful actions, and people making light of them (without actually supporting them— also known as sarcasm and irony.)
Afterall, you did this on your Twitter when you mocked Evid3nc3 with your Scumbag Privilege Denying rAtheism meme. You don’t /actually/ think that rape jokes are funny just because you made an image of a character that specifically says they do, you’ve just created a facetious and sarcastic character in order to mock someone that /you believe/ does. I don’t find it very funny, but I can understand the sentiment behind it, and MORE IMPORTANTLY it proves that you understand that there is a place for satire and irony. You may not like other peoples methods of engaging in this type of humor, but you don’t have to decry their freedom to use it, or try to get others to be genuinely disgusted with them as people. /Any/ language that you use can have negative effects on other people depending on their own personal experiences, not just the ones that personally offend you. I would argue that those very same words may overall have more beneficial effects on the world, as I’ve experienced in my own life.
For example, my friend finds it extremely humorous to call me names that would be considered shockingly hateful in the context of an actual bigot. I laugh because it’s so shockingly terrible, but in numerous instances he’s turned around and said, “can you believe that people that ignorant and hateful?” which usually leads to short discussions here and there about how ignorant it is to hate people for conditions in which they have no control over. I’ve even been able to share my own knowledge of not-so-well-known minority issues (the whole LGBT spectrum) with my friend, and while I know he wouldn’t take issue with such people, sharing the knowledge that these people exist and are mistreated was (I think) enlightening to him, and helps /him/ understand why some people might get offended by it, and how to diffuse a situation where you have offended someone.
Sorry, this post might be excessively long for a blog comment. But I think these are important considerations to be making when evaluating this debate. Tackle ideas and actions with reason and evidence, instead of trying to besmirch their character.
Strong arguments. I purpose of encouraging the use of evidentialism is one that I take seriously and I appreciate the support.
(Before I say this, I want to point out that my comments are directed to both men and women, and to those who are both aware of “mansplaining” and those who are not)
“Mansplaining” can be a useful term and does have use in some contexts. For example, there are many situations with things such as cars, where women will be working on them or discussing them, knowing full well how they work, their history, etc., and a man will butt in and do his best to explain over her, or to “educate” her on it. Sometimes, it’s explicit and sometimes, it’s implicit, but there’s a clear and definite intention from the male explainer (or “mansplainer”) that his explanations are because he does not trust that the woman has the knowledge or can already grasp it, that the man automatically knows more and can therefore explain better purely because he’s a man, and is condescension in one of its purest forms. I have no problem with the term in that sort of context.
But it’s one of those terms that’s abused and twisted and way too overused as a knee jerk reaction to anything that’s even vaguely against certain types of feminist thought. For example, I do not think “Is It Bigotry When It Is Satire?” can be called mansplaining in the same way that the mechanics scenario can. Although the post discusses feminism, its audience is obviously meant for people of both genders. It is more of a general post about Evid3nc3’s opinions on the abuse of the word “bigotry” (much like this one is doing for “mansplaining”), more than trying to directly tell Rebecca Watson what the definition of satire is. In this case, it’s mansplaining simply because it’s explaining, and it happens to be written by a man. And in this context, I definitely think it is sexist.
(Waiting for this post to be called “mansplaining.”)
I think this is a well-presented analysis of the common use of the term “mansplaining”.
Hey look, Ryan Grant Long looks like a self professed egalitarian engaged in social taboo humor!
I have no idea what you are talking about. But I can smell the odor of excessive sarcasm. Your compulsive reliance on mockery and apparent inability to deliver a reasoned argument without resorting to insults and personal attacks makes it very difficult to take your position seriously.
Sorry, I should have left the link(s) (http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/01/10/d-j-grothe-replies-and-i-reply-back/ and http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/01/03/dammit-dj/).
I can also taste the flavor of poorly received disagreement!
You have stated your disinterest in continuing to talk about this topic! Several people, myself included, have been dismissed as discussing what you don’t want this thread to be about. If you’d rather move it to e-mail that’s fine, but it’ll be a lot of what you seem to think isn’t important.
And that’s a lot of wasted time better spent crafting snark if “yes, but that isn’t what I was talking about” is going to be your basic reply.
Well, you tasted wrong. The only thing that was poorly received was the sarcasm. I have absolutely ZERO problem with disagreement and deal with it quite well when it is presented genuinely.
I looked at the blogs but all I’m seeing is the aftermath to Ryan Grant Long’s comment, whatever it was. So, unfortunately, I have no way of judging whether it was a genuine attempt at social taboo humor. So far, I’m not seeing anything that resembles that.
But I am seeing a lot of bickering. And a lot of personal attacks and judgements where objective persuasive arguments would be more effective.
I honestly don’t get the obsession with personal attacks (like Greta’s attack on DJ). They are extremely ineffective. They cause people to get defensive and they are extremely difficult to substantiate. They require enough evidence to claim intimate knowledge of a person’s mind, which is almost always unattainable. The audience knows this, at least intuitively (likely from experiencing inaccurate personal attacks on themselves). So they, too, are less likely to take your claims seriously.
It is, in my experience (with my series), much more effective to simply talk about the arguments being made and respond to them. If people personally identify with those arguments, they are less likely to continue to after hearing your counter-argument. And they won’t waste any cognitive time defending their image publicly. Because you will have never attacked anyone’s image. The audience, too, is more likely to absorb your arguments because they won’t have any red flags going off that you are possibly making inaccurate personal attack claims.
Jay Smooth is a master at this. His approach has the potential to glide gracefully past barriers of defensiveness and make a real difference in the way people think. Which is why I was perplexed when Sally would recommend his videos in one comment and then make another personal attack in the next.
“I looked at the blogs but all I’m seeing is the aftermath to Ryan Grant Long’s comment, whatever it was. So, unfortunately, I have no way of judging whether it was a genuine attempt at social taboo humor. So far, I’m not seeing anything that resembles that.”
“Whatever it was”, indeed. Its a big screen cap in the second link, hidden in a big image! What he said was NOT “social taboo humor”, so while it is nice that you can declare my “excessive sarcasm” to be odorous, you can also deny that bad taste in your mouth, you are correct in detecting the big wad of sarcasm (I would only dispute that it smells BAD). But that is more bickering I suppose, and there’s been plenty of it, for sure.
However, that is above and beyond missing the point. The whole situation is of the roughly the same animal as the reddit episode, and “social taboo humor” is just your nifty label. It is people defending misogyny’s perpetrators instead of the victims of it, and (AND) the seemingly reflexive dismissial and/or denial by SO MANY people who should probably know better. But now that’s ME critcizing YOUR ideas, and it really seems you are not at all willing to engage with people along this line (and you know, its your blog, I’ll GTFO if you are re-disinterested).
Was “Greta attacked DJ, and personal attacks are bad” basically your take away from those links? (To forestall a tiresome speedbump, I realize that isn’t EXACTLY what you said)
Here’s a nice relevant quote from Greta, in that link you seem to think is full of personal attacks:
“My problem is that — when weighing on the one hand, “Greta did something that in my opinion was unfair by quoting someone out of context,” and on the other hand, “Ryan publicly stated that he wanted to ‘slap the bitch’ and ‘kick her readers in the cunt’” — you (DJ) seem to think that the former is of greater concern than the latter. “
Again with the compulsive reliance on insults and mockery, now towards me. It seems like I can squeeze one genuine comment out of you (or Sally or most of the feminists commenting here) before it is back to the insults.
My feelings aren’t hurt. I don’t take your insults seriously. Personal attacks aren’t “bad”. They are irrelevant, inefficient, and a waste of my time to filter through, looking for actual relevant arguments.
That’s what this boils down to for me: efficiency. Conversations that are worth my time and conversations that aren’t. And someone spewing a line of insults at me with a few tiny bits of reasoning and argumentation is not worth my time. It requires too much filtering between your insults and I’m not inclined to waste the cognition.
If you would like to make a straightforward persuasive argument in response to an argument I have explicitly committed to, feel free. In the meanwhile, these are the poor dialogue skills I referenced in the OP above.
And for the record, of course I think that saying “slap the bitch” and bullshit like that is completely dumb and even worse in dialogue than what you are doing (focusing on mockery, personal attacks, and insults). That doesn’t mean that what you are doing is the best approach either.
I think people like myself and Jay Smooth have the most efficient approach. And, again, that is the only approach I am going to spend my time on.
Feminists are not egalitarians, they are not interested in equal rights. They are only interested in womens rights. Society has as much misandry in it as misogyny (and a lot of the misandry comes from feminist movements) but feminists ignore this, and will lie about it to promote their own womens rights agenda.
One example is the laws covering corporal punishment. In countries where it is still legal to beat people with weapons as a form of punishment, there are laws that specifically ban it’s use on females, thus legitimising it’s use on men and boys. There are many examples of males being beaten so horrifically that they have to get skin grafts. And these beatings are for offences such as talking to their sister while at school.
Laws banning the use of corporal punishment on women are one of the main reasons boys are tortured so often. But feminists don’t care about that because the victims are male.
If the world had more actual egaliatarians, fighting for equal rights, fighting for the rights of everyone to be treated humanely. Then horrible laws like this would not exists. Instead there would just be a law the makes it illegal to use corporal punishment on all people
(Sorry for the bad English here, I’m ESL.)
What I always notice in almost every discussion about feminism is how the behavior of people is eerily close to the behavior of a religious fanatic. These are moments that remind us just how bigotry is something that can manifest in a wide range of topics, and ironically, usually appears right away in most people who say they are trying to fight it. I always remember the situation when someone says that the listener needs to have an “open mind” – in most cases, when you hear that phrase, who spoke it is usually a person who should listen to this very suggestion.
From what I understand, every subject that stirs strong emotions are likely to generate some form of bigotry/fanaticism. It may be religion, sports, politics… And of course, feminism. What is a shame, because you can become a fanatic even with a correct view. As the saying goes, “be right for the wrong reasons.” And here in the blog comments of evid3nc3, it is amazing how the traits of fanaticism is rampant. Strong emotional response, the act of misrepresenting (intentionally or not) the claims of others, ad hominem… It’s all here.
And the interesting thing is that this behavior will not recognize one of the strongest features of the current generation, the act of “trolling”. Many people, especially on net and even more in certain sites, just make certain statements with the intent to cause discomfort and irritation to others. This says nothing about what he believes or does not believe, is just the way he has fun. Hell, I’ve done it myself when I was younger, even as an agnostic, I went into a forum for agnosticism and pretended to be a religious fanatic just to see the answers. (Something that I’m not proud of, indeed.) This type of behavior is widespread, and now goes far beyond the Internet, even if it is more subtle out there.
Trying to criticize a person who is expressing an attitude of a “troll” with a speech that conveys anger will not work, because your anger is exactly what he wants. He has fun with it. He will enjoy it when you say that you think he is ignorant, bigoted, immoral, or whatever. It is precisely the justification he needs to be able to disregard everything you say, “if he/she isn’t smart enough to realize that I’m screwing with he/she, then I won’t waste my time listening to what he/she has to say”. Instead of trying to understand your point of view, what these people are trying to do is find other ways to annoy you even more, looking for anything in your speech to use against you.
And the funny thing is, these people might be willing to hear you. If they were reading what you have to say in another context, place, they could stop for a moment and reflect about it. But they don’t, because you became a laughingstock for them in the first moment your speech is no longer balanced and rational. What is happening behind the conversation is no longer a debate, it is “bullying” and you’re not even noticing. And the inability to cope with this context (even if you judge that you can in fact understand and perceive it) will invariably reflect the outcome of the conversation. That will be none.
note: This ought to be 3 separate posts, First to Chaud, Evid3nc3 and his detractors,
as I’m on moble, its too hard to edit…
<. , Chaud,
May the Goddess herself, her represtatives on Earth, Starhawk and Gloria Steinem Blessed Be, forgive your mansplaining! I also have difficulty with your unsubtle brag that you speak two or more languages with better fluidity and felicity, than I do with my native toungue. In the future, please have the sensitivity to actually leave a gramatical error or two ( obvious enough enough for us natives to find ) following your prepost apology. If that is too difficult to figure out, due to a superior education, You may aLso consider writing in a phoenetic variant spelling that better communicates your foreign mispronunciation of my language.
This will prevent you in the future from Shattering my sensitive self-esteem. Again. You…you.. insensitive man…see the privilidge…Unless of course you learned in English in Brittish "public" (private boarding school )and have a sexy Brittish/Australian lilt to your voice. Not only would that be nearly unforgivable,(!) but I would also need to see a pic/Video! Afterall , hearing a beautifully crafted discusion, in a stunningly amazing voice, is what drew me to Evid3nc3's blog in the first place!
Chaud, you have a wonderful grasp of modern interpersonal relationships/ culture . I wonder If you have a background in Linguistics, psychology or Anthropology? I couldn’t help but notice that after you taught me something new, crafted an intelligent insightful letter, encouraged me to think in challenging new ways: you broke the custom of the thread. That is , Launching a personal irrelevant attack on our host, and then hiding passive-aggressively behind it being humor. ( Could the lot of them be sincere but seriously unfunny? That would be terrible) moving on, ..Chaud, you’ve got intelligence, multilingual, a broad range of knowledge of internet culture/communication skills? But is it in a pretty package?! Muscles too?! Are you ( also ) a video blogger with the looks of a geek Adonis and a voice like warm melting sunshine? I’d need to see the Evid3nc3….Really great post tho. I loved it. Even if you forgot to end it with Bashing Evid3nc3 for not supposedly displaying all the truths you explained (like the posters before you ). You disrupted the symmetry of the entire THREAD!
You realize you give yourself away in this manner. You seem wise and tolerant, but by breaking the ethos of the thread, you expose yourself as non-gynocentric human. You were probably raised with a first world , eurocentric, (if not actually white) patriachicaL worldview. And the way you dismissed, almost non-existantly, the ego-abrasive, good-for-him Reeducation the board tossed at Evid3nc3…your non-participation sticks out like a swollen…phallus. It’s OK with me that you probably are a womb-disabled male. Many of my friends are…So you are Unable to know the joy having an organ that creates life from inside you. (Or are you?)As long as you are willing to accept the privilidge this grants you, and not expect reciprocation.
….Actually, I do care, A LOT; I’m just WAY TOO distracted by my pulsing fanboi semi-BRONER (!)— inspired by the beauty of open-hearted wisdom, flawed self-aware honesty of transpersonal transformation, and raw masculine reason gave me—for our host, Evid3nc3s, to mind! Unlike the other rude ( if they were males I would call them out for being both dickish and cunty! Please choose your own adjective ) guests, I apologize for assaulting Evid3nc3s intellect with irrelevant Unreason about his character. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion, How stellar his IQ is, how many degrees he’s obtained, how much he can bench press …or the depth of his transpersonal insights are, ….right?
Perhaps I should leave it to Chaud,our resident expert of internet bigotry and fanaticism, whether I have a dangerous bias, for not desiring to RUB out my… dirty feet on our generous host ( without consent ) before leaving…Ladies, if you truly dislike the dude so much, STOP playing kick the wooby! It only makes Him more sympathetic (than you ).
Evid3nc3,
So, Mate, for bringing your character into discussion, or your looks, Studly Genius, Compassionate Freethinking, Tolerance of a Saint…Let me be the first to say it is totally irrelevant to the discussion (Distracting even). I hope we can continue future rational discourses without getting bogged down by your supposed flaws or masculine glory. I mean enough is enough, right? (No)
I’d love to initiate another discussion on another thread, how a lack of a positive orientation is itself is a subtle but pervasive form of Bigotry! The truth contains its own bias! but to ignore the humility, patience, brilliance and sheer livingness of this man, is to be somewhat dead inside!! Having just started listening to his videos, I appreciate him as an embodied intelligence. He was moving, and I felt something move…Bro, you had me aT “pantheism” After that it was like listening to the lost son of Jeri Ryan and Carl Sagan Bare his soul about the Universe! …Ladies, WTF!!! I am greatful that Evid3nc3 didn’t End the thread, or ban posters ( You Womyn did deserve it, many times over…if I was on a PC I would scroll up and identify posters…but its not necessary since He called you out each time…Ms Whiskey!, Ms Tango! Ms Foxtrot! ) because, aside, from the InsaNe lack of love for what seems like a great guy, and unnecessary attacks on him—when he took your side!—Your arguments were lucid, educational and truly worth Reading and Learning…So thank you also for coming here to teach us. It was worth it.
But most of you should aim the psychoanalysis back on yourselves. Wistfully ask yourself ‘Is something relevant about yourselves that is preventing you from seeing another human being cleary?. Seeing Evid3nc3 clearly? He appears to be not hiding who he is and how he thinks? So… what is it about yourselves, a group of bright, intelligent, and forthright Womyn, and can’t accept this man as he is? Its beyond my Ken whther Evid3nc3 was subject to bullying trollying or misandry, but for anyone like myself who just discovered his video blog, the bias is palpable… Maybe I missed the thread that you maintained your panrational intellect with a steady diet of female puppies….
Finally, in my own defense, In took a few Satyrical liberties, and fully expect to be misunderstood. There is a large irony that some of my jokes and praise, might even make me look to be bigoted. I am not. Ironically, I am going to take shelter in the right to privacy of my own body. ITs not just for women. If you knew fully how I reacted physically to beauty, pleasure, wonder, and love there would be no appearance of bias, or any privacy! If you reacted toward my jokes differently because you made assurumption about how my body/mind works, you may be bigoted or have A sex-negative attitude. I was playing with that on purpose. To shine a light there….I am fully cognizant that by stripping myself of privacy, I could avoid any appearances of Douchiness, Homophobia ( ha ) or sexism. But A right that is only as good as you don’t exercise it, isn’t real. I feel secure in the pleasures of my body, and in the pleasure I take in other humans. Whether its raw physical or embodied sympathetic joy. I wish that for others…I know I am not as naked to the world as Evid3nc3. But I admire him deeply for it and know that he stands as a BEACON
First posting is chopped up, Please delete above posting if possible, Sorry!
note: This ought to be 3 separate posts, First to Chaud, Evid3nc3 and his detractors,
as I’m on moble, its too hard to edit…
, Chaud,
May the Goddess herself, her represtatives on Earth, Starhawk and Gloria Steinem Blessed Be, forgive your mansplaining! I also have difficulty with your unsubtle brag that you speak two or more languages with better fluidity and felicity, than I do with my native toungue. In the future, please have the sensitivity to actually leave a gramatical error or two ( obvious enough enough for us natives to find ) following your prepost apology. If that is too difficult to figure out, due to a superior education, You may aLso consider writing in a phoenetic variant spelling that better communicates your foreign mispronunciation of my language. This will prevent you in the future from Shattering my sensitive self-esteem. Again. You…you.. insensitive man…see the privilige…Unless, of course, you learned in English in Brittish “public” (private boarding school )and have a sexy Brittish/Australian lilt to your voice. Not only would that be nearly unforgivable,(!) but I would also need to see a pic/Video! Afterall , hearing a beautifully crafted discusion, in a stunningly amazing voice, is what drew me to Evid3nc3’s blog in the first place! ( pay attention haters,–and hatresses– thaTs Double-sideways praise, in a bow of male-gaze . Triple ironic, while being totally sincere. If it plays well in Kansas, I’m. Free on the 14th for whatever Practical pantheism the holiday educes or induces)
(Sorry for the -bad- worse English. I was taught in American public schools, and am typing on a droid)
Chaud, you have a wonderful grasp of modern interpersonal relationships/ culture . I wonder If you have a background in Linguistics, psychology or Anthropology? I couldn’t help but notice that after you taught me something new, crafted an intelligent insightful letter, encouraged me to think in challenging new ways: you broke the custom of the thread. That is , Launching a personal irrelevant attack on our host, and then hiding passive-aggressively behind it being humor. ( Could the lot of them be sincere but seriously unfunny? That would be terrible) moving on, ..Chaud, you’ve got intelligence, multilingual, a broad range of knowledge of internet culture/communication skills? But is it in a pretty package?! Muscles too?! Are you ( also ) a video blogger with the looks of a geek Adonis and a voice like warm melting sunshine? I’d need to see the Evid3nc3….Really great post tho. I loved it. Even if you forgot to end it with Bashing Evid3nc3 for not supposedly displaying all the truths you explained (like the posters before you ). You disrupted the symmetry of the entire THREAD!
You realize you give yourself away in this manner. You seem wise and tolerant, but by breaking the ethos of the thread, you expose yourself as non-gynocentric human. You were probably raised with a first world , eurocentric, (if not actually white) patriachicaL worldview. And the way you dismissed, almost non-existantly, the ego-abrasive, good-for-him Reeducation the board tossed at Evid3nc3…your non-participation sticks out like a swollen…phallus. It’s OK with me that you probably are a womb-disabled male. Many of my friends are…So you are Unable to know the joy having an organ that creates life from inside you. (Or are you?)As long as you are willing to accept the privilidge this grants you, and not expect reciprocation.
( whether PEOPLE think I am profeminist or making fun of feminism, ProSex-positive erotic humor, making fun of sexual haRassers, or just people who deny a place for earthy innappropriate praise, I’m ok with all that. and if it makes me a lightning rod for Hate of otherwise Lovely Ladies who’s minds I adore. So be it! ) ….Defense of Evid3nc3:
…Actually, I do care, A LOT; I’m just WAY TOO distracted by my pulsing fanboi semi-BRONER (!): ( inspired by the beauty of his open-hearted wisdom, flawed self-aware honesty of transpersonal transformation, and raw masculine reason) gave me—for our host, Evid3nc3s, to mind! Unlike the other rude ( if they were males I would call them out for being both dickish and cunty! Please choose your own adjective ) guests, I apologize for assaulting Evid3nc3s intellect with irrelevant Unreason about his character. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion, How stellar his IQ is, how many degrees he’s obtained, how much he can bench press …or the depth of his transpersonal insights ( to the truths that bind us deeply -alltogether-into an-ALLness on this god_forgotton- sphere at the edge of galactic space ) are? ….right? Incredibly interested,… but not relevant
Perhaps I should leave it to Chaud,our resident expert of internet bigotry and fanaticism, whether I have a dangerous bias, for not desiring to RUB out my… dirty feet on our generous host ( without consent ) before leaving…Ladies, if you truly dislike the dude so much, STOP playing kick the wooby! It only makes Him more sympathetic (than you ).
Evid3nc3,
So, Mate, for bringing your character into discussion, or your looks, Studly Genius, Compassionate Freethinking, Tolerance of a Saint…Let me be the first to say it is totally irrelevant to the discussion (Distracting even). I hope we can continue future rational discourses without getting bogged down by your supposed flaws or masculine glory. I mean enough is enough, right? (No)
I’d love to initiate another discussion on another thread, how a lack of a positive orientation is itself is a subtle but pervasive form of Bigotry! The truth contains its own bias! but to ignore the humility, patience, brilliance and sheer livingness of this man, is to be somewhat dead inside!! Having just started listening to his videos, I appreciate him as an embodied intelligence. He was moving, and I felt something move…Bro, you had me aT “pantheism” After that it was like listening to the lost son of Jeri Ryan and Carl Sagan Bare his soul about the Universe! …Ladies, WTF!!! I am greatful that Evid3nc3 didn’t End the thread, or ban posters ( You Womyn did deserve it, many times over…if I was on a PC I would scroll up and identify posters…but its not necessary since He called you out each time…Ms Whiskey!, Ms Tango! Ms Foxtrot! ) because, aside, from the InsaNe lack of love for what seems like a great guy, and unnecessary attacks on him—when he took your side!—Your arguments were lucid, educational and truly worth Reading and Learning…So thank you also for coming here to teach us. It was worth it.
But most of you should aim the psychoanalysis back on yourselves. Wistfully ask yourself ‘Is something relevant about yourselves that is preventing you from seeing another human being cleary?. Seeing Evid3nc3 clearly? He appears to be not hiding who he is and how he thinks? So… what is it about yourselves, a group of bright, intelligent, and forthright Womyn, and can’t accept this man as he is? Its beyond my Ken whther Evid3nc3 was subject to bullying trolling or misandry, but for anyone like myself, who just discovered his video blog, the bias is palpable… Maybe I missed the thread that you maintained your panrational intellect with a steady diet of female puppies….
Finally, in my own defense, In took a few Satirical liberties, and fully expect to be misunderstood. There is a large irony that some of my jokes and praise, might even make me look to be bigoted. I am not. Ironically, I am going to take shelter in the right to privacy of my own body. ITs not just for women. If you knew fully how I reacted physically to beauty, pleasure, wonder, and love there would be no appearance of bias, or any privacy! If you reacted toward my jokes differently because you made assumption about how my body/mind works, you may be bigoted or have A sex-negative attitude. I was playing with that on purpose. To shine a light there….I am fully cognizant that by stripping myself of privacy, I could avoid any appearances of Douchiness, Homophobia ( ha ) or sexism. But A right that is only as good as you don’t exercise it, isn’t real. I feel secure in the pleasures of my body, and in the pleasure I take in other humans. Whether its raw physical or embodied sympathetic joy. I wish that for others…I know I am not as naked to the world as Evid3nc3. But I admire him deeply for it and know that he stands as a BEACON
Chaud, I think Adam Black was commending you on your excellent English and clear argument. I would like to add that I found your post a pleasure to read.
It is easy to throw around the word “bigot”. I was called a bigot by a former friend the other day during a long Facebook argument, and something like 20 people came to my defence. Let me tell you it felt wonderful to know that for every one person who would misinterpret me as a bigot, there were 20 others that saw clearly that I was not.
-Kateface