Because I was discussing a hypothetical scenario where what I said about them held true (and therefore there would be no assault involved). The rapist isn't discussing a hypothetical scenario, he's actually carrying it out. — Agustino

I'm not talking about the actual act of having sex. I'm talking about his defence. You're condemning his claim that the women wanted it, despite their actual words, whilst at the same time claiming that the women on TV want Trump, despite their actual words.

He's lying (or mistaken) about what women secretly want but you're not?

Pretty much. I mean there are certain role playing situations where one might define exceptions, but short of that one has to treat a "No" as genuine.

Would you ever be comfortable continuing were your partner to suddenly interject "No?" No-one can honestly just continue and claim to be concerned about another's well-being. If we are thinking of others, a sudden "no" prompts clarification if something is wrong.

And how is that any different to what you were saying about the women on TV?
— Michael
Because I was discussing a hypothetical scenario where what I said about them held true (and therefore there would be no assault involved).

↪Agustino
The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally.

This isn't a "hypothetical" at all. Agustino is now resorting to lying about his sexist post

You're condemning his claim that the women wanted it, despite their actual words, whilst at the same time claiming that the women on TV want Trump, despite their actual words. — Michael

Yes, which is entirely possible. We're discussing theoretically, not practically. If you asked me whether Trump would assault them if he grabbed them by the pussy while they said they don't want to be grabbed, I would say of course he'd be assaulting them! Because that's a practical situation.

In the theoretical situation, where we talk about their desire independently from their words - because they could afterall say they don't want it, while in truth they do - people often do that - then the discussion doesn't occur on the practical level.

I agree that's sexist. Any dissenting opinions? — Baden

Not from me. That's sexist.

I agree that's sexist (towards the end at least). Any dissenting opinions? — Baden

Again, not from me. That last paragraph is sexist, and it reminds me of that tripe from that former Google employee that has recently made the news.

And by the way, I've illustrated before how my discussion was a critique of values & hypocrisy, and had nothing to do with gender. You still haven't addressed that. So I want to know. Do you now understand and agree with me? Or no? And if so why?

Yes, which is entirely possible. We're discussing theoretically, not practically. If you asked me whether Trump would assault them if he grabbed them by the pussy while they said they don't want to be grabbed, I would say of course he'd be assaulting them! Because that's a practical situation.

In the theoretical situation, where we talk about their desire independently from their words - because they could afterall say they don't want it, while in truth they do - people often do that - then the discussion doesn't occur on the practical level. — Agustino

So in theory Trump isn't a rapist but in practice he is?

So in theory Trump isn't a rapists but in practice he is? — Michael

IF the women on TV want to have sex with him while saying they don't, he's not a rapist. If he actually tries to have sex with a woman on TV who tells him she doesn't want to, then yes, he would be one.

And by the way, I've illustrated before how my discussion was a critique of values & hypocrisy, and had nothing to do with gender. You still haven't addressed that. So I want to know. Do you now understand and agree with me? Or no? And if so why? — Agustino

Now answer this Michael.

A policy statement has been made and everyone should be fairly clear about what is expected by this point. — Baden

You asked for opinions on whether certain of Agustino's comments were sexist and got mixed replies. The policy statement is not in question, but whether you are an adequate judge of what constitutes sexism. My hope would be that you let the person accused appeal their case, as Agustino has done in this thread, before removing posts.

As much as you are loathe to talk about our dear old friend Emptyheady, he is precisely the reason why I and others are suspicious of moderation here, especially when it comes to political and social issues. Mongrel told BC to go fuck himself earlier in the thread, apparently in jest. That post is still up. If Agustino told someone to do the same, would you also leave it alone? Judging by the discussion in this thread, it seems that a lot of people refuse Agustino the ability to make similarly "hyperbolic" statements. Instead, they read the worst possible motive into his posts. I have found that if you press Agustino on statements you find prima facie absurd or offensive, using the same hyperbolic method he employs, he will eventually acknowledge your criticism and revise his statements so that you understand what he's trying to say.

Hard to say. Either you're both a misogynist and a misandrist or you're a misanthrope. Or does this amount to the same thing?

Hard to say. Either you're both a misogynist and a misandrist or you're a misanthrope. Or does this amount to the same thing? — Michael

Why is it hard to say? It's a relatively simple matter. You said that it's sexist because it's based on gender discrimination - namely that they secretly want to have sex with Trump because they're women. I showed you that it's not based on sexual discrimination - they could be men (if Trump was gay) in the same way. Rather it's based on their lust and values - which are used as an example of our society's hypocritical values that I'm aiming to criticise. You then stopped commenting and replying to those posts. Why?

Yeah... that's pretty much the sexism people have been hitting you for. Under that "theory", all women are equated as wanting their assualt or harassment, are projected as "untrustworthy" in any instance where they've been reportedly harassed or assaulted.

It's rape apology because it is a "a theory" which imagines a world that replaces the actual "practical" one in which people live. The use of such "theory" is to literally imagine a world in which unsolicited sexual attention or action doesn't violate consent and amount to harassment or assualt.

"Either you're both a misogynist and a misandrist or you're a misanthrope"

Ressentiment! Ressentiment! Stop this.

He's lying (or mistaken) about what women secretly want but you're not? — Michael

Well he has to make a practical judgement about what the women want in a situation where he's actually confronted by a woman saying no, and even physically resisting him, etc.

I don't, I'm making a theoretical judgement about their values based on what they say, and how I suppose they'd actually act if given the chance to act. And for some of the women on TV I'd be right. On camera they'd say they hate Trump, while behind closed doors, they'd be partying with him (or having sex with him or whatever).

Yeah... that's pretty much the sexism people have been hitting you for. Under that "theory", all women are equated as wanting their assualt or harassment, are projected as "untrustworthy" in any instance where they've been reportedly harassed or assaulted.

It's rape apology because it is a "a theory" which imagines a world that replaces the actual "practical" one in which people live. The use of such "theory" is to literally imagine a world in which unsolicited sexual attention or action doesn't violate consent and amount to harassment or assualt. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I haven't replaced reality with my theory at all.

Why is it hard to say? — Agustino

Because I don't know if making disparaging remarks about both men and women in general counts as sexism against both sexes or if it counts as misanthropy.

You said that it's sexist because it's based on gender discrimination - namely that they secretly want to have sex with Trump because they're women. I showed you that it's not based on sexual discrimination - they could be men (if Trump was gay) in the same way. — Agustino

I don't think I said anything about discrimination. I said that if you make a disparaging remark about someone based on a gender stereotype then you're being sexist. The ambiguity is in interpreting a claim like "people secretly want to have sex with people like Trump". Does it count as both a stereotype of (gay) men and a stereotype of (straight) women or just a stereotype of men-liking people?

You then stopped commenting and replying to those posts. Why?

I'm at work and so shouldn't be posting at all. :-*

I guess nobody cares that I was making about point about the effect of apathy when I brought this up (in another thread). — Mongrel

Mongrel, I genuinely care when someone speaks with their heart and I will listen with mine. I am only on page 2 of 13 on this thread but I can tell you that I appreciate anytime you bring up personal experiences of you life lessons because there is often something I can relate to. While I realize that as gender we are in the extreme minority on any philosophy forum, I find it incredibly valuable to have the perspective and expression of another woman. I can count on two hands the female "thinkers" that I have known over decade and I am almost always sorry when they pull back.

My fellow thinkers, all we have is each other to learn from since none of us came with an instruction manual and hard as we may try and as empathetic as we may allow ourselves to be, it is impossible to experience the same life events as the thinker next to us. It is for that reason that some words should be measured before used, some thoughts might be better left unsaid and genuine apologies should never be considered a loss in a battle of ideas.

Just my two cents, that no one asked for. So if I can get my change, I will be on my way.

Because I don't know if making disparaging remarks about both men and women in general counts as sexism against both sexes or if it counts as misanthropy. — Michael

By your own terms it would count as sexism if it's based on their gender. And presumably it would count as misanthropy if it's based on their humanity. I'd say it's neither. It's based on their values.

I don't think I said anything about discrimination. I said that if you make a disparaging remark about someone based on a gender stereotype then you're being sexist. — Michael

But it wasn't based on gender stereotype. It was based on our social values, which as I've said encourage self-esteem associated with sexual intercourse, especially if that sexual intercourse is done with people "high" on the social ladder. All this while also discouraging publicly admitting to such things as immoral, etc. Hence the hypocrisy.

Perhaps Kierkegaard's definition of ressentiment is the most fitting here. Most feminists stand for ressentiment values. And are thus not feminists, but typical people who says "I have rights!" without caring about their responsibilities. Who knows it? According to Kierkegaard, ressentiment occurs in a "reflective, passionless age", in which the populace stifles creativity and passion in passionate individuals. Kierkegaard argues that individuals who do not conform to the masses are made scapegoats and objects of ridicule by the masses, in order to maintain status quo and to instill into the masses their own sense of superiority...

HR people are not to be charmed but laughed at and shunned. — Thorongil

~raising an eyebrow
Could you please explain why HR people are to be laughed at and shunned?

But that's the only way the argument works. It needs people to function by this theory. That, somehow, they world is full of women who want unsolicited sexual attention and groping, such that they would be lying when the came out and said: "I was harassed and/assaulted."

Your argument doesn't function unless this particular theory is true of people in the world. We can't take that theory as true without repeating the rapist's fantasy that their victims actually wanted it. In practice, it's just repeating the idea women just want whatever attention a man gives them, especially if they only say "no" and don't get into a big fight when he doesn't stop.

But that's the only way the argument works. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The argument isn't about any actual act of sex, but rather about the values of the people. It's not even about the fact they're women. That is only relevant because Trump is heterosexual. If he was gay, I would've used men in the example. The example illustrates what they say on TV vs how they behave, act, think and speak behind closed doors.

In other words, it's about the hypocrisy of public vs. private life. In public wanting to appear one way, while in private doing something different (presumably what they truly want).

According to Kierkegaard, ressentiment occurs in a "reflective, passionless age", in which the populace stifles creativity and passion in passionate individuals. Kierkegaard argues that individuals who do not conform to the masses are made scapegoats and objects of ridicule by the masses, in order to maintain status quo and to instill into the masses their own sense of superiority... — Beebert

I think the deeper problem is that such passionate individuals often make others look at themselves honestly for the first time.

I mean, the reason why Mongrel is upset isn't because I'm a sexist, but rather because she fears her society is sexist. Which is true - it is sexist! So she wants to shut me up, only because she wants to avoid the truth - she thinks that if she silences someone pointing to the truth and removing our hypocritical façade, then she'll no longer have to face it.

Think about it. Why do you think she randomly PMs me that sexism is wacko in the US? Because she's scared! She doesn't even want to admit that what Trump said about grabbing women, etc. is sexist. She doesn't want to admit that Trump is only an exemplar of the culture that is everyday promoted in the US! Afterall, aren't men told every day through their movies, through their media, etc. that their greatness comes from how many women they can bed?! Why else do men joke and talk all the time about sex, and how many women they've had sex with, etc.? Why is it that we discuss the affairs of Brad Pitt or whoever else, and salivate after them with admiration?

What else, but a Trump, can you expect to emerge out of this?! Trump is a national hero - he's what every man aspires to be (hopefully people do read this hyperbolically and don't really think I think EVERY man wants to be like Trump). And this is a criticism, not a praise of our culture. Our culture is so terrible and rotten morally speaking that it produces sexism! It is the cause of sexism.

What relevance can it have then?

We are talking about actions, about the way people act towards women and how these actions relate to the valuing of women-- namely that the sort of argument you made equivocates women as the things for male sexual authority, such that harassment and rape are considered myths because women "always want it."

You are replacing the question of action, that is assault and harassment in the world, with your "theory and value", as if that could represent the actual world we are speaking about. The way the argument works is to imagine the women you are speaking about are only values, which must fit this "theory", rather recognising they are people in the actual world.

You think you can talk about this issue while ignoring the actual world in which women are assaulted and harassed. That's sexism. You replace living women with your imagined theory of values.

What relevance can it have then? — TheWillowOfDarkness

The argument isn't about women, sexism and harrassment though. It's about public vs private life of the women on TV. Read this again:

The argument isn't about any actual act of sex, but rather about the values of the people. It's not even about the fact they're women. That is only relevant because Trump is heterosexual. If he was gay, I would've used men in the example. The example illustrates what they say on TV vs how they behave, act, think and speak behind closed doors. — Agustino

What is the TV? The TV is a metaphor for public life. And what are their secret desires? That's how they act in private life. So in public - on camera, on TV - they say "No, we hate Trump!". And in private, they call Trump and say "Mr. Trump, we want to spend time with you!".

Think about it. Why do you think she randomly PMs me that sexism is wacko in the US? Because she's scared! — Agustino

Agustino, please put the shovel down with the personal assessments of others thoughts.

I know that, but the argument supposedly reflects what women want, such that they would be hypocrites for taking issue with harassment and assualt in public life. You can't make that connection without repeating the myth women want to be assaulted and harassed.

If no woman wants what you say, your hypocrisy argument doesn't run. The women in question would just be arguing against others who are responsible for assualt and harassment.

I know that, but the argument supposedly reflects what women want, such that they would be hypocrites for taking issue with harassment and assualt in public life. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, the argument neither suggests this, nor affirms this. First of all, the similarity wouldn't hold precisely because they do take issue with regards to assault in public and in private equally much. Their secret desire isn't to be assaulted.