I've watched them all — Wosret

You've watched them all. Really? There are hundreds.

Yes, but there are some situations where you negotiate terms in order to have a sensible conversation. As in, if by what you mean by masculine is A then I was saying B. Obviously this is going to happen a lot in philosophy. In other cases though where there are political ramifications such as the gender / sex point you mentioned, you can't negotiate the term without ceding something important.

I think we may have watched the same Jordan Peterson video. :)

I think that we have to be careful about how we talk, as women don't have to be more masculine to be more assertive, and men don't have to be more feminine to be tempered. — Wosret

Semantics really. Masculinity is not exclusively male and femininity not exclusively female. Neither is either exclusively physical or mental. So, pick your cards and play your game. As long as everyone knows the rules it's fine.

(I'm not trying to mess with you here by the way. Feel free to discount this. I just find it a fairly coherent, if not particularly pleasant, way of looking at social interactions in general.)

Sure and that's a sensible strategy to gain respect, and so a higher placement in the hierarchy in this intellectually orientated environment. You can be conscious of it or unconscious of it. Being unconscious of it helps some because you don't have to think of yourself in ways which could cause cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, you're unlikely to ever fully convince yourself of your own sincerity. Hence doubts and uncertainty. That's the basic idea anyway.

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. It's masculine to be assertive and dominating. It's feminine to be flexible and accommodating. Cruelty and love are different things to me. You can be assertive and loving or flexible and loving. And dominating is not necessarily cruel.

That's why I said women could be masculine in this respect too. Yin/yang, we've all got some of both.

The truthy stuff is more or less a sideshow. — Baden

Of course that could be a test of masculinity. The more interested we are in bashing each other with our "truths" and the less interested we are in the actual truth (whatever that is) the more masculine we are (and women can be masculine in this respect too).

You were clearly too neurotic to answer truthfully. There is a more comprehensive test on the site (300 questions).

Humans can never escape dominance hierarchies and the maneuvering that goes on in them whether that be in a philosophy forum, at a bar, or around the dinner table. The truthy stuff is more or less a sideshow. That's not a value judgement by the way just an observation.

(Think about it, if you were just after the truth, you could just go read some books).

Yes, that was pre-philosophy masculine stage. The man in us wants to build stuff from trees and rocks and chase people with clubs. Books, not so much. You can't have everything.

@Hanover gets overly sensitive about stuff like this. We just humour him. :p

Hey, do you remember the pics I posted on the old forum with my head on different bodies? That's masculine vs non-masculine. I think the solution is to stay away from philosophy. :D

Is there a certain way that we ought to express masculinity? — Posty McPostface

If our masculinity is not expressing itself, there's not much of it there to express.

You'd have to be a robot not to be able to understand it has potential meaning - as a form of submission, a declaration of acceptance, a stoical cry, a determination not to be defeated, and more as mentioned. It's not only the logic that's important but the context (see the recent feedback discussion, for example) and the fact that the words are spoken at all. Expressions express.

Haha. As I said, I got the pragmatics if not the grammar claims but I'll piss in your Cheerios anytime. (Y)

Knowing the erudite BC, it must be the former.

Looks like most of my high school reading material :) . Anyway, my general thought on this is that Hefner's death is a matter for him and his family. The rest is about selling newspapers, and editorials cherry picking from his life to further their own agenda and settle their own scores either personal or political. Right now, there's not much more to it than voyeurism, ironically, considering the subject. It would probably take years more of research to come up with anything very interesting or enlightening about his personality that is actually verifiably true. And by that time there will probably be few people who care enough to listen.

Sure, and thanks for your efforts at clarifying.

Heh... and I wasn't even trying.

Yes, and the alternative explanation is what I was trying to interpret. If not that, what? Maybe rephrase.

Some recent work from my locale.

Are you saying that the wish for a resolution of our search for meaning prevents us from jettisoning the idea of free will?

The most important point as far as I'm concerned is that we wouldn't actually ban someone solely on the basis of a protest statement like that. We're looking to keep people here and posters have the right to get annoyed at us if they think it's appropriate. Banning is a last resort for lost causes.

I agree. You would hope they have a plan seeing as they escalated it. But I doubt it. Emotion triumphs over reason yet again.

People are complicated.

Morally not so good, but strategically disastrous; about the worst thing they could have done short of mowing them down with machine guns.

Hustler was the working man's porn rag I thought?

If he hadn't cornered the market in middle-class masturbation, I'm sure someone else would have. I doubt he made all that much difference one way of the other.

Oh, yes, me too. :)

Sure, from the pragmatics point of view, I get it. I just wondered if there was a deeper reason for the original apparent chasm of disagreement. And apparently not.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter now. I'm just asking a question about the grammar.

So, how would you give an instruction then? If you had wanted to instruct us to delete or ban you if A then how would you give that instruction other than to say: If A, delete me or ban me?

I mean I accept Americans might say, "If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores", which is effectively a grammatical simplification and easy to understand, but that's a completely different construction to the one you used because the second clause of the conditional is in a different grammatical mood not just tense, i.e. indicative vs. imperative. Maybe the colloquialism has to do with the part of America you're from because in standard American English the imperative mood is used to give instructions and orders and the indicative mood is used for questions and statements just as it is in standard British English. That should be the case regardless of whether the conditional construction is used. The differences in standard British and American English in terms of grammar are fairly tiny compared to those in dialects of some other languages. Anyway, I'm mostly curious because I teach English and I haven't come across this before and it leaves me wondering as I mentioned above how you would express an instruction if not with an imperative.

(Of course, effectively your particular instruction was a request but leaving that aspect aside, it's the grammar I'm mostly curious about).

Fair enough. (Y)

Aw :) I think you'd be good.

Ok, I'll give you the last word on that.

The important part was the part where I said that you don't get special treatment. The latter part consisted in a common sense criticism of the way in which special treatment was sought, but didn't really need to said — Sapientia

(Y)

You have authority but you also have a responsibility to be even-handed and appear, let's see...., moderate. — T Clark

(Y)

No one should expect special treatment including us. In other words, no one has to be any nicer to us than to any other poster. It's not going to make a difference re moderation.

Jokes aside, @Sapientia is right on the semantics, and no-one took the apparent insult personally, but it's just common sense not to upbraid someone (mod or not) and ask for a favour in the same breath.