|
echinopsis posted:This is the kind of poo poo I was talking about here : If you think of a human as an object, your thinking is hosed up. Because humans aren't objects. They're human loving beings.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
echinopsis posted:This is the kind of poo poo I was talking about here : People respond badly because this is a tactic that opponents regularly use in bad faith to derail and score points against minorities arguing about oppression. It's such a common tactic that there's lots of writing about it online. Read more here if you're curious: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/ Not saying you're not doing it in good faith, but if you are you should realise that when oppression is systemic and well-documented and easy to read about its not the duty of the minority to drop what they're talking about to educate you one-on-one, personally, from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Sardine Wit posted:People respond badly because this is a tactic that opponents regularly use in bad faith to derail and score points against minorities arguing about oppression. It's such a common tactic that there's lots of writing about it online. Posting on the internet to tell someone you aren't going to educate them is some petty poo poo. He isn't asking in person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you think of a human as an object, your thinking is hosed up. Because humans aren't objects. They're human loving beings. I was asking if objectification was inherent to sexism, not whether or not it was ok in of itself, plus you seem to be falling into a false dichotomy... people generally find mannequins unsexy [I know some do] so the human aspect of objectification is absolutely essential to the purpose of why its being done Sardine Wit posted:People respond badly because this is a tactic that opponents regularly use in bad faith to derail and score points against minorities arguing about oppression. It's such a common tactic that there's lots of writing about it online. hmm that does make a lot of sense. reality is thought usually when I'm in the situation like that all im looking for is some starting guidance. I'm happy to do a bit of self learning but I'd have no idea what to even start reading regarding that topic. it's like you posting your post, until you did I'd have no idea what the problem even was let alone how to find out why its a problem and what the solution is. and to be honest my problem is usually with the fact that people don't respond with "go read some feminist literature" but instead "check out this fuckin chauvinistic pig" you know? I don't expect them to do hard work for me but it's like I'm a stranger in a new town and I'm asking for directions to the information centre and the person I asked says "I guess you should have thought of that before you came here"
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
He didn't say people were always posting, so I'm not sure what your point is?  He said he was pissed off people didn't drop what they were doing to reply to him.Edit: Echinopsis, that's fair, I agree it's poo poo when people assume the worst of people but at the same time you have google. I'm sure you can do a little research before you wade in on twitter. I think you'll find if you even start qualifying your posts with "I've done a little reading on google, but i can't find an answer to question X" you'll get taken much more in good faith - assuming your question is one it's reasonable to still not be able to answer on google. Sardine Wit fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I was asking if objectification was inherent to sexism, not whether or not it was ok in of itself, plus you seem to be falling into a false dichotomy... people generally find mannequins unsexy [I know some do] so the human aspect of objectification is absolutely essential to the purpose of why its being done objectification OF WOMEN, an entire specific class of oppressed persons. include the words used in the original statement. yes, sexism is inherent in the objectification of women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
If a women does it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
I think he's basically asking if seeing a woman and thinking anything related to her appearance, whether it's "wow, she's pretty" or "she's ugly" or whatever else, regardless of circumstances, is it wrong to do that at all, ever? It should probably go in it's own thread though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Sardine Wit posted:Edit: Echinopsis, that's fair, I agree it's poo poo when people assume the worst of people but at the same time you have google. I'm sure you can do a little research before you wade in on twitter. I think you'll find if you even start qualifying your posts with "I've done a little reading on google, but i can't find an answer to question X" you'll get taken much more in good faith - assuming your question is one it's reasonable to still not be able to answer on google. That's a fair point  Back to my original question though (regarding "sexism is inherent to the objectification of women."), and the reason I asked it is because I don't see why the objectification of women has to be a sexist thing to do. Surely a lesbian could objectify a woman in the same way that a gay dude could objectify a man, hence, how is objectification of women inherently sexist? Or is the statement itself claiming that objectification of women can only exist because sexism exists? Part of my issue is perhaps not really understanding what the person was trying to say AVeryLargeRadish posted:I think he's basically asking if seeing a woman and thinking anything related to her appearance, whether it's "wow, she's pretty" or "she's ugly" or whatever else, regardless of circumstances, is it wrong to do that at all, ever? When you say "he", do you mean me? I am right here you know. I can read what you write... Well that's kind of the question, but not really but is a good question perhaps. I try to re-phrase it just above here. Hopefully I don't get probed for another week for asking it
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Sardine Wit posted:Read more here if you're curious: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/ gently caress now I'm reading the rest of those and am realising the only thing I can ever really complain about to anyone ever is that I'm not (relative in our society at least) rich, when I am discussing wealth with richer people. Although just you wait until I am talking to them because they are gonna fuckin pay
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Man, you gays may have people preaching for you to be murdered, but can we get back to what really matters, when straight guys can stare at tits? Seriously, thought I do believe you're doing this in good faith, do you not see how irrelevant to the present conversation you question is? Same thing for the marriage equality thread. Why does a discussion about gay rights seem like the place to ask questions about straight male objectification of women? I do think that treating Phelps as entirely irrelevant misses the normalizing effect protests like his have. Even if bigots think he goes too far, I've definitely seen WBC used to defend less extreme homophobia as moderate and reasonable. I don't think you can just dismiss him as a relic of a bygone era, especially since homophobic violence is still very much a threat to LGBT people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
poo poo bro I just didn't want to start a new thread. You get killed in D&D these days for that poo poo. This thread was dead as gently caress, no on had posted in it almost 2 months, I don't really even feel bad at all for "derailing it" or whatever... Plus it worked, people pulled together and helped me understand why.. well.. actually no I'm still not sure about my original question but thanks for misrepresenting what I said completely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:poo poo bro I just didn't want to start a new thread. You get killed in D&D these days for that poo poo. This thread was dead as gently caress, no on had posted in it almost 2 months, I don't really even feel bad at all for "derailing it" or whatever... Plus it worked, people pulled together and helped me understand why.. well.. actually no I'm still not sure about my original question but thanks for misrepresenting what I said completely. My advice is to never look at another woman again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:poo poo bro I just didn't want to start a new thread. You get killed in D&D these days for that poo poo. This thread was dead as gently caress, no on had posted in it almost 2 months, I don't really even feel bad at all for "derailing it" or whatever... Plus it worked, people pulled together and helped me understand why.. well.. actually no I'm still not sure about my original question but thanks for misrepresenting what I said completely. Just start a new thread, you seem to be getting over your stroke so you should have the language for it now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
ok maybe when I have a minute to form a cool OP Little Blackfly posted:My advice is to never look at another woman again. even my wife? poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:37
|
|