Not every female thinks Agustino's a sexist. So far, only the post-modernist, radical feminists seem to think he is. Poor consensus.

If that is so, he should admit it. Which he Will not, because he is too proud. People seem to think I defend agustino and that I take his side. I dont. I take no side. I questioned why agustino even created this thread because I found it pathetic. This whole thing is quite pathetic. But some People here are too blinded by their ideologies.

(Y)

I wasn't talking about flawed appeals to popularity or authority. Whether all or even any women think someone is sexist is not the measure of they are. That's a question of their comments and behaviour itself.

Consensus isn't relevant to reasoning about an issue like this. It merely rehtorical. My arguments and observations were about Augstino's behaviour and what they amounted to. If you want to talk about that, you'll have some postion worth attention or refuting. What's sexist isn't defined by who thinks it's sexist, but by whether it is, you know, sexist.

Your last paragraph was oxymoronic. Deeming something sexist is most definitely based on consensus. Defining anything as sexism is wholly attitudinal, subject to whichever group is in the majority (or, as clearly evident in this case, making itself loud enough to appear a majority).

Sexism is defined by ideology. Not acknowledging this depicts you as an ideologist by default.

I wasn't talking about flawed appeals to popularity or authority. Whether all or even any women think someone is sexist is not the measure of they are. That's a question of their comments and behaviour itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then why did you bring up the issue of "two prominent female posters" claiming Agustino is a sexist? :|

Consensus isn't relevant to reasoning about an issue like this. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Surely consensus plays some part, as if no one claims Agustino's a sexist, then he's probably not, no?

What's sexist isn't defined by who thinks it's sexist, but by whether it is, you know, sexist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But we are the ones who define what is sexist or not........

It's a bit more complicated than that. I appreciate you aren't supporting everything he says, but there is a way you sort of are. Take all the concerns about sexism in his statement about women on TV. You defended that as not sexist.

Where exactly does that leave people concerned the that statement equivocates the thoughts and likes of women, without taking to account the differences between a woman's thoughts on. Trump's sexist behaviour and thoughts about voting for them?

In defending Augstino that the comment is not sexist, you are saying there is no sexism in this equivocation, as if it were alright to be dishonest about the thoughts women, to ascribe to them a lack of authority in objection to Trump's harassment and assault merely because they happen to vote for Trump or otherwise like him.

if no one claims Agustino's a sexist, — Buxtebuddha

Americans say "Todd is sexist." They don't say "Todd is a sexist."

Your point is..?

LOL.

"You defended that as not sexist."

Where? If it came out that way I would like to apologize, but first I must see a quote of mine that can be understood that way, so that I might see if it is true or if there are some misunderstandings here. I believe I quite clearly have claimed that agustino's statements were sexist or could be understood as such, while believing that he in fact didnt intend them to be but rather wanted to prove a Point about human behavior, irrationality etc.

For example, I see the following as a human tendency which I thought agustino was trying to talk about; in the thread called 'sexism' my last post contained: "They perhaps dont want the war, but the prattle and babble before (That actually helps leading to catastrophy) almost all want", which I think sums up quite a lot of the behavior of People in modern times. Including here.

LOL. — Mongrel

Are you laughing because I'm a male? Look who's sexist now.

+1

I find it ironic that Agustino expressly and quite legitimately requested that this thread be devoted to his suggestion and not to the topic of sexism and yet here Willow and Thanatos are running their mouths about Agustino's alleged sexism.

Are you laughing because I'm a male? Look who's sexist now. — Buxtebuddha

I advise a brain transplant.

After, will you tell me your point?

I won't need to. You'll be a whole new dude.

New how?

Maybe Mongolian. How should I know?

You making fun of Mongolians?

Never.

My observation was about the way Augstino treats two prominent female posters who disagree with him. He seems to attack them with more fervour, like there is something wrong and dangerous about how they are mistaken or criticise him, in comparison to men.

The point being that in his behaviour towards women, that is what place he thinks women thoughts and opposition have in the discussion of philosophy, he is sexist. When men "slander" him with whatever, there's a brief intense conflict and everyone moves on. If a woman does it, he goes on about it endlessly, like some great slight has been committed on the world. He doesn't seem to view "women" (that is anyone who belongs to the category of "women" by them blessing to the category of "woman") as intellectual equals. By his behaviour, it would seem he gives a respect to men in opposing him or making arguments he does not give to women.


"Consensus" is only a measure by the authority of knowledge persons. We can only trust because those talking have an understanding of some issue we are talking about. It's only really rhetorical. In the situations where it is used, there is actually an argument of description going on, which is the reason to accept to reject an argument-- e.g. these twenty people saw this person go into a store, so we have evidence they did and a claim they disn't go into the store is falsified.

So the answer is: no. Just because people think there is no sexism doesn't mean there probably isn't. They might just not notice it. Strictly speaking, the "probably" argument doesn't even work here because sexism is a description made of only present states. When someone claims sexism, they aren't proposing some state of the world we don't know whether exists. Rather, then are suggesting an existing state is sexist.

Someone might be wrong about a state expressing a sexist relationship, but there isn't a potential for some unknown state of the world involved, so it's not coherent to approach the presence of sexism like it were a claim about whether a particular species of bird lived in the forest.

We aren't the one's who define what's sexist. At least, no more than we define what's a tree, a house or a falling rock. Any of them are logical meanings expressed by the world. It's not popularity or whim that' define them, but rather there logic itself.

A tree, a house or a falling rock are objective phenomena. Sexism is defined by one's subjective perception and thus cannot be categorised as a 'logical meaning expressed by the world'. Those are some serious mental gymnastics, I think Wittgenstein may like to have a word with you.

Edit: what sort of definition of 'consensus' is that? Who has an objective understanding of the issue here - how is this not a matter of he said versus she said? Why is it the person crying sexism has been given the upper hand in such proceedings? Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Or tyranny of the minority?

Sexism is an objective phenomena. If your are treating women as lesser, that is an objective expression of the world. If you are specifically attacking women who criticise you, that it an objective expression of the world. And so an so on.

Sexism isn't subjective. it an objective expression of our thoughts, statements, understandings and action towards other people. There are no mental gymnastics at all, just a respect for how are actions mean something in relation to other people.

Should we have slander guidelines? — Agustino

If you can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

"We aren't the one's who define what's sexist. At least, no more than we define what's a tree, a house or a falling rock. Any of them are logical meanings expressed by the world. It's not popularity or whim that' define them, but rather there logic itself."

Would you then call the apostle Paul sexist? Back in his days nobody would. Rather the opposite. These days though, he is considered one by many post-modernists. What does that tell you about what you believe to be the universally understood concept 'sexism'?

" If your are treating women as lesser, that is an objective expression of the world. If you are specifically attacking women who criticise you, that it an objective expression of the world. "

So then perhaps the true sexists are also those who call others sexists then. Yes so it must be.

My point was never that there was a universally understood concept of sexism. Just the opposite, that sexism is a logical expression objectively defined, and like anything, may be misunderstood or not known by someone at all.

As is the case with people thinking about Paul in the past. Many people didn't understand how he was sexist in the past (and maybe some did; after all, the text and the culture of the timearen't the extent of human thought).

Nothing about the situation playing out here pertaining to Augustino appears to be a matter of objective sexism to me however. It almost seems as if everyone has a differing subjective definition of sexism, with at least fifty per cent not considering Augustino's posts to have been sexist at all! How do you explain this in a world where sexism is as objective as a tree, a rock or even a house?

Edit: who decides what the correct understanding of sexism is then?

Edit 2: even the concept of 'treating women as lesser' is a subjective perception.

Only if you are commit about three equivocation fallacies, such that you equate criticising sexists with attacking women. At least in most cases.

There is a point where they intersect. Since women can be as sexist as men, sometimes situations arise where women could be rightly criticised for being sexist, yet an attack of no quarter would amount to ganging up and bundling a woman out of discussion.

In this situation, there can be a sexism. If some concerned men were to go into a group sexist women and run them out of town, it would qualify as sexism-- men would be rejecting women and anything to say and denying them a place, etc. It would be more or less the same sort of sexism Augstino is displaying in his attacks on Mongrel and Timeline, only directed at woman who were sexist.