But no one's telling him that. They're telling the government not to listen to his idiotic views. and in my case I'm also telling the universities and media not to listen to his views and to stop paying him for them. Let him express his views as widely and forthrightly as me. — unenlightened
If he has the right to tell women how to have sex, I think I have the right to call him a sexist. — unenlightened
If you want to call him sexist merely because he has opinions that involve women (opposed to opinions that he applies only to women due to prejudice), you're free to do so, — VagabondSpectre
But it sure works, because the institutions fear those PR shit-storms so much!when we treat the existence of ideas and viewpoints as themselves harmful and a threat, and therefore seek to prevent others from hearing or expressing them via applied social pressure, then we're drawing a rather aggressive line in the sand — VagabondSpectre
Indeed, the effect objectification is not determined by a comparative measure of whether both men and women are objectfied, but by its impact on an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Addressing this harm, this sexism, requires an effect on how an individual is treated/harmed, not a measure of whether the same is happening to someone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But it sure works, because the institutions fear those PR shit-storms so much! — ssu
And this is the most crucial thing to understand here.hey sure do!
And what does it mean when negative PR can so easily overcome the positive?
They all become terrified of offending anyone, they take less risks, and only feel safe while pandering to a common denominator. It's a chilling effect in my view, and is not a good thing for democracy. — VagabondSpectre
What does it mean to tell a private institution like a university to stop paying for whatever floats their academic boats? (And what is the manner of such a directive?). — VagabondSpectre
Consider the woman who plays with her clitoris during the act of coition. Such a person affronts her lover with the obscene display of her body, and, in perceiving her thus, the lover perceives his own irrelevance. She becomes disgusting to him, and his desire may be extinguished. The woman’s desire is satisfied at the expense of her lover’s, and no real union can be achieved between them — Scrotum
and defending his views as somehow liberal legitimate and reasonable — unenlightened
trying to delineate the dangers of polemics in contemporary (digital) political discourse. — VagabondSpectre
I don't think the passage is particularly sexist [...] in the end his views do probably imply a more traditional role for women, that is, a restricted one. But this is a legitimate political position--traditional conservatism--rather than simple sexism or misogyny. — jamalrob
I would say that a view that wishes to restrict the role of women is a sexist view in any normal understanding. — unenlightened
I am open to correction, but on the face of it, I would say that a view that wishes to restrict the role of women is a sexist view in any normal understanding. — unenlightened
But this is an issue for debate, not for shutting people down. — jamalrob
at least a couple of liberal-leftish members here are in favour of existing, or even more extensive, obstacles to getting an abortion. — jamalrob
Existing, in my case. Anyhow, it's a false equivalency. In the case of abortion, there's a balance of rights to be considered between the unborn child (of whatever sex) and the pregnant woman. There's another life at stake. — Baden
The idea that the Scruton quotation about masturbation--here repeatedly and bizarrely interpreted out of context--is sexist, but controlling women's reproductive freedom is not, is bonkers. — jamalrob
Maybe, but then it's just another sexist opinion to be countered with argument. — jamalrob
consigning a view to somewhere beyond reasonable debate (the place you aim to put someone when you call them sexist, fascist, malevolent, etc.) — jamalrob
Again, I see you condemning my language as trying to put something beyond reasonable debate as if calling something an obscene disgusting practice is the language that keeps things within reasonable debate. — unenlightened
Anyway, I reckon obscenity and disgust are crucial in any comprehensive discussion of sexuality, so I don't see any problem with that language. — jamalrob
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.