Comments

  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    ↪TheWillowOfDarkness
    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).
  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    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?
  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    ↪Michael
    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?
  • Sexism
    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.
  • Sexism
    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). The rapist isn't discussing a hypothetical scenario, he's actually carrying it out. That's the difference between practice and theory. As I told you before, in theory it's their desire which determines whether there is consent or not. In practice, it's their words and behaviour, since we cannot determine their desire except through those means.
  • Sexism
    A policy statement — Baden
    Where?

    everyone should be fairly clear about what is expected by this point. — Baden
    I'm not at all clear about what is expected, and I suppose most other members aren't either. They will speak for themselves though. All I know is no sexism (I knew that before too!). But what is sexism? We haven't discussed that at all. All we've heard is a bunch of people saying my statements weren't sexist, and another bunch saying they were. Great. So what are we to understand from that? And you're telling us that it should be clear what is to be expected...

    To establish guidelines we have to come to a common understanding, which we by all means haven't.
  • Sexism
    If they want to have intercourse, then they can't be assaulted, since assault presupposes they don't want it and are forced to do it. — Agustino
    For example, this is a true statement. But Hollywood and our pop culture act disgusted when they hear it. Fake disgust of course. The fact it's true is exactly why rapists try to use it as a defence. Otherwise why would they even try to use it to defend themselves? :s After all no sane rapist would say that women want to be assaulted/raped - that would be a self-contradictory statement as I have just shown.

    The point that has to be distinguished is that when a rapist uses it, they LIE about the woman's desire to have intercourse with them. They say she wants it, while actually she clearly didn't want it, as evidenced by her words, her physical resistance and so forth. Now practically speaking the only way we know what others want is through what they say and how they act. So the rapist should have assumed, based on her words and her deeds, that she doesn't want to have sexual intercourse with him. Since her words and her deeds are the only sources of knowledge he has access to with regards to what she actually desires. So he is lying because he's saying the woman wanted it but at the same time denying what the sources of evidence he had available with regards to her actually suggest she desired. So he's affirming she desired sex, contrary to all evidence available. His affirmation can only be based on his imagination - what he wanted reality to be like - and not on what reality actually was like. So that's why what he's doing is disgusting - it's not because he uses that statement.
  • Sexism
    For example, I once told a woman that I love Italian Culture, and then she called me a racist... — Beebert
    >:O >:O Yes, there are some people like that. I don't understand why they behave so strangely, and even how they can live in this world like that. It seems they've all internalised the Hollywood modern pop culture to me with its set of stock answers.
  • Sexism
    Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone). — Agustino
    Now this statement is still under question given Michael's definition of sexism. But we haven't yet got around to discussing it. I'm still trying to see if Baden and Michael are on boat with the Post-Truth comment before we discuss this one, where we'll also discuss whether biological differences between the genders count as sexism, or how sexism should be defined granted that there are such differences as a matter of fact. This will illuminate how such issues must be discussed and addressed in the future.
  • Sexism
    I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men.

    I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.

    I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.

    I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.

    I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West.     — Agustino
    None of these are sexist. Furthermore, you're the kind of crazy who even thought that thread was sexist and was actually started by another account of mine (Thinker) :s - then of course you apologised about it. You seriously have some mental health issues that you need to address. You seem to have a phobia regarding sexism, that you just can't discuss issues regarding the different genders without feeling there's sexism involved. If someone asks if women are more submissive than men, that's sexism to you. You even started another thread back then about it and desperately PMed moderators to delete that thread. Holy moly...

    And to put things in perspective I don't think the other women on these forums found that thread sexist at all. One woman (River) even said she likes to be dominated actually. So I absolutely don't think this has to do with "protecting female members" or some such bullshit. I think most people are mature and rational enough to discuss these issues without getting offended or spewing hatred like you tend to do (there's a few others such as SLX who show such an inability).
  • Sexism
    Agustino has made a lot of sexist remarks — Mongrel
    That's false. There's so far only ONE accusation of a sexist statement that we haven't yet got around to discussing. The others have been discussed, and hopefully I've shown how they're not sexist. Furthermore, several other members have argued that they're not sexist either. It seems that you will ignore everyone and stick to your false beliefs, as you often do. You are very deluded, about sexism, about America, and about a host of other issues as well.
  • Sexism
    women want to be assaulted — Mongrel
    That's a contradiction in terms, I never asserted women want to be assaulted. If they want to have intercourse, then they can't be assaulted, since assault presupposes they don't want it and are forced to do it.
  • Sexism
    Mongrel ought to apologize to Agustino for claiming that he's a sexist and misogynist — Buxtebuddha
    Well actually Mongrel does usually privately apologise, to her credit:

    I apologize for accusing you of having Thinker as your sockpuppet. It's clearly not you. — Mongrel

    But of course, it's always after she publicly accuses and offends.
  • Sexism
    ↪Beebert
    Even John Harris brings up interesting points. Yes, rapists do claim that their victims aren't "raped" because they actually want it. But why do they try to claim that, and why are they wrong in claiming it? These are things that we're all better off understanding. Otherwise you'll hear a guy say that "if a woman is willing, then it's not rape" and accuse him of defending rapists automatically. While that may not actually be the case, since he'd be pointing out a truth, that for rape to occur, the victim must be unwilling and forced into the act.
  • Sexism
    ↪Beebert
    Well yes, I think that you are right that some want to use moderation to enforce their will to power, but I just want to have a discussion about sexism here. I think we can all come to a better understanding of what sexism is, and where the guidelines should be set if we have such a discussion. We need to understand what makes a statement sexist. For example, Michael said that it was the fact that my sentence in the Post-Truth essay was based on gender discrimination that made it sexist. But I, hopefully, was able to show how it was based on a critique of values (which apply to both men and women), and not on gender discrimination, and hence it wasn't sexist, according to his criteria. But is that the right criteria? What about objective biological differences between men and women? Would claiming that there are objective biological differences between men and women which lead to other differences be sexism just because it is discriminating based on gender? Or is more required for a statement to be sexism? These are important and interesting questions to address.
  • Sexism
    Agustino, admit that you wrote something that some are offended by, and you do not have to prove a point. — Beebert

    That they have caused offence to some people I can acknowledge (and I apologise to those they have offended), but I believe it's important to discuss whether or not they were sexism. — Agustino
    I have.
  • Sexism
    This guy really can't stop digging his sexist hole. Unbelievable. — John Harris
    I think you'll get banned even before I do, to tell you the truth >:O
  • Sexism
    This is a standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use to justify rape or assault of those who haven given verbal consent. Unbelievable. — John Harris
    Yes, it is the standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use. But why is it wrong when they use it? Because they're lying about the intentions of the woman. The woman doesn't want to have sexual intercourse with them (exemplified by her words, by her physical resistance, etc.), but they WRONGLY claim she does. For if she truly did want to have sex with them, it would not be assault.
  • Sexism
    We don't have many female members here and we're not going to if they feel the environment is not conducive to their presence. — Baden
    Tiff, TimeLine (not anymore because she sent me a PM saying she's gone to work on a documentary), Mongrel, River and Lone Wolf are just some quick examples which come to mind.

    If you could just acknowledge your past comments have caused offence, and show a bit more restraint in future, we could move on. — Baden
    That they have caused offence to some people I can acknowledge (and I apologise to those they have offended), but I believe it's important to discuss whether or not they were sexism. For example the comment in my long post in the Post Truth thread, as I was discussing with Michael here, can hopefully be regarded in the context of the essay, and isn't sexism. The critique wasn't based on a discrimination of their gender, but rather on our social values, which apply to men and to women equally. So please join in the discussion and let's see what you find sexist in it if you do, and let's discuss it. This is important.
  • Sexism
    ↪Michael
    Anyway Michael. We started by discussing why you think that sentence from my essay is sexist. Do you think I've done a good job to explain to you how that sentence fits in the rest of the essay which is a critique of our hypocrisy and values?
  • Sexism
    And what if they say "no"? Can we just treat the words as a rejection, or do we have to consider what they think and want, and plough ahead if we think they secretly want it? — Michael
    As I said, in practice you're best off - generally - to listen to the words, especially if they're a no. But this doesn't mean that the words are where consent is coming from.
  • Sexism
    To all concerned, I am ignoring John Harris from this moment forth.
  • Sexism
    Her desire. That's why you have to be thinking about others. One cannot just treat words as a permission slip. You have to be considering what another person thinks and wants. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    I agree :)
  • Sexism
    And the women in your scenario never said yes, so you're moving the goalposts again. You keep showing how wrong you were. — John Harris
    But theoretically, it is by her desire, not by her words. — Agustino
  • Sexism
    Is consent (or lack thereof) defined according to desire or by words? — Michael
    In practice, by words, since we cannot with great certainty predict her real desires. But theoretically, it is by her desire, not by her words. If she says yes, but physically resists it for example, then it would be assault to grope her.
  • Sexism
    Well, let's consider a hypothetical scenario where a woman wants to be groped but tells you not to grope her. Is consent (or lack thereof) defined according to desire or by words? — Michael
    Let's consider another hypothetical scenario where a woman doesn't want to be groped but tells you that you can grope her because of social or peer pressure say. Is consent defined by her words or by her desire?
  • Sexism
    In this vile post of yours, you claim that it is not assault to grope a woman if she actually wanted it, which is defending sexual assault. — John Harris
    Well is it assault if you grope a woman who wants you to grope her, maybe even asks you to grope her?! :s

    And instead of condemning the assaulting male, you condemn the assaulted woman--pure sexism. And then you continue your vile sexism by asserting the woman want to be groped when you have no reason to believe or know that at all. — John Harris
    Sorry to tell you, but there's no other possible conclusion. IF a woman wants it - then she is not assaulted. IF she is assaulted - then she doesn't want it. You can't have it both ways. Do you understand that?! Now you can say that I am wrong, that the women on TV don't want it, and would therefore be assaulted, sure! But you can't say that I am a sexist.

    Also I did condemn the male, in fact I condemned the male EVEN IF the woman in question wants it, since I condemn the lust of the activity first and foremost. The assault itself presupposes lust, so striking at lust is striking at the root of the problem.
  • Sexism
    How is assault to be defined? Physically forcing someone (in this case a woman). How do you physically force someone if they want the activity in question?! :s Forcing them implies going against their will.
  • Sexism
    If a woman had consented, it would not be assault or harassment, whether it was immoral or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Sure, I agree with this.
  • Sexism
    This one may be even worse than the original post. — John Harris
    Care to explain why? If a woman actually wants to be touched by a man, that isn't assault, by definition it's not assault. Now if the woman doesn't want to be touched, then yes, that would be assault.

    And I've stated that Trump's behaviour (touching them) would be immoral even if they wanted to be touched in that post. So how you can possibly claim that's sexist, I have no idea.
  • Sexism
    So why do you think that the women on TV secretly desire Trump's attention? — Michael
    I think some of them secretly desire Trump's attention because we are educated, as a society, to draw self-esteem from sex, especially with people in a position of authority/power. That's why people, including women, do sometimes desire that. As you can see, it's a critique of a social value - women on TV in this case are just an example.

    If it's because they're men, and you believe that men desire this kind of attention from men like Trump, then you're making a disparaging remark about people based on a stereotype of their gender. — Michael
    Yes, except that it's not their gender which causes them to desire attention from men like Trump, but their values.
  • Sexism
    Even if they were attracted to Trump, they could still object to his harassment and assault without any issue. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    If a woman wants a man to touch her, is that assault if the man touches her? I am condemning their lust in that part - namely that they secretly desire such things - NOT excusing Trump. Trump's behaviour is still immoral - EVEN IF - they actually do want to be touched by him.
  • Sexism
    No, you're accusing them of hypocrisy because you believe that they secretly desire him. But on what grounds do you base this accusation? On the grounds that they're women, and according you women desire men like Trump. — Michael
    So if Trump was gay, and he grabbed men by the whatever, and I therefore said that men on the TV pretend to hate Trump but actually love him and desire what he'd do to them, would I be a sexist? Or is it only being a sexist when the same is said with regards to women?

    No, the accusation that they desire him isn't based on their sex, but rather on their lust combined with their heterosexuality and the values of our society. We encourage people - both men and women - to want to have sexual intercourse with rich and famous people. If Trump was attracted to men, I would've said the same thing about them.
Home » Agustino