First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Woman living as male
6044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

nichtmalda wrote:

A thread with a ton of different topics cramed into it, ain't that fun. Let's go at random.

The nice guys finishing last. Yeah, they have nobody but themselves to blame, the guys precieved as assholes are just abusing women being hypergamous by upping their value in the eyes of women. Generally a man who has options is considered of higher value, "nice guys" don't have options. This is a rather simplified version of what's going on, but I'm way too lazy to write a very long post hardly anyone would finish.

@megahobbit, how exactly does being in support of GG invalidate someones opinions on other, unrelated topics in any way? I hate smokers, but I am not going to dismiss their opinions on other, unrelated topics.

About men not being able to express their emotions, they are thaught from a very young age that expressing their emotions is wrong. Mostly by women and feminists who call their expression of emotions toxic masculinity. So boys learn that they have to bottle up their emotions and feminists earn cookie points by acting all concerned about a problem they themselves create and perpetuate.

Also something something blah blah blah I forgot what else there was.


I'm so nice I didn't even participate in the race, so I wouldn't take anyone's chances away from winning.

I don't understand the not expressing emotions, I'm sure both girls and boys who feel like crying will try their best to hold it in, nobody wants to be seen crying, but sometimes you just can't hold it in, I mean sure if I'm alone, or around people I know, I'll be more okay with it, but I'll still try my best to hide it so nobody has to feel bad for me.
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

megahobbit wrote:
Like I said before I disagree with the call to have this topic not be spoken of in class.

I may have been to hasty in my calling out of colleges. What I meant was colleges should probably hold a less important opinion of themselves. Debate is necessary and should be handled throughout your schooling and there is a startling lack of understanding on how to handle books in schools IE we should discuss themes not fill out fucking bubbles.

I dont think that Feminism is largely about silencing opinions. Unlike what some people might believe there is no feminist gulag were your all brainwashed into holding one view without any debate whatsoever. I have met many a person who has been completely challenged by feminism itself going into college and discovering more about how they think of gender through it.

I dont really see any mass feminist silencing of discussion. The articles you provided just brought up more discussion and debate the first one was a person arguing for why it should be in. Thats not silencing discussion its creating more of it.


If whenever a dissenting opinion attempts to get a platform for their voice, they are silenced, regardless of the method, there is a problem. Like I said, cases in which speakers were denied a platform because of a wave of feminists who don't want their views challenged, are plentiful.

Feminists will gladly feed you facts (some less accurate than others) supporting their agenda, "opening your mind" to the horrors of "patriarchy" , but voicing outside opinions largely gets you ostracized, ignored or silenced.

As for the articles bringing up more discussion, you can hardly applaud feminism because their attempts to since these opinions aren't as absolute as they would have liked.

But I digress...we have strayed from the topic of privilege, so just to sum up my points on everything:
Both men and women hold privileges in different areas, some governmentally imposed (mostly benefiting women) and some social and some biological. However, the feminist movement largely attacks only make privilege, often using outdated or falsified statistics, largely leading an attack on men (or masculinity). I believe that many of the actions of feminism create harm and stifle debate, potentially pushing change in the wrong direction as well as breeding contempt, further pushing us from informed action.
75434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

Freddy96NO wrote:


megahobbit wrote:
Alright alot of what she complained about is stuff alot of feminists agree on.

Could we please stay away from feminist in this thread?


You're talking about women d'uh. I'm afraid you've already invoked them.


15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You're talking about women d'uh. I'm afraid you've already invoked them.

also why I don't want it ;( hoped aleast a message from OP would stop it but nope -_- right by.
soon I guess they will come saying everything here is sexist and empowerment for men
So what do you think of what she did and how it maybe effected her personallity etc?
8655 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 6/18/15 , edited 6/18/15

eclair-lumiere wrote:

This myth about women only liking assholes is just a made up thing to help rejected guys feel better.


every myth has a bit of truth in it.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

sundin13 wrote:


If whenever a dissenting opinion attempts to get a platform for their voice, they are silenced, regardless of the method, there is a problem. Like I said, cases in which speakers were denied a platform because of a wave of feminists who don't want their views challenged, are plentiful.

Feminists will gladly feed you facts (some less accurate than others) supporting their agenda, "opening your mind" to the horrors of "patriarchy" , but voicing outside opinions largely gets you ostracized, ignored or silenced.

As for the articles bringing up more discussion, you can hardly applaud feminism because their attempts to since these opinions aren't as absolute as they would have liked.

But I digress...we have strayed from the topic of privilege, so just to sum up my points on everything:
Both men and women hold privileges in different areas, some governmentally imposed (mostly benefiting women) and some social and some biological. However, the feminist movement largely attacks only make privilege, often using outdated or falsified statistics, largely leading an attack on men (or masculinity). I believe that many of the actions of feminism create harm and stifle debate, potentially pushing change in the wrong direction as well as breeding contempt, further pushing us from informed action.


I still dont see any feminists silencing dissenting opinions just protesting positions they are opposed too. When Ann Coulter went to a university and her talk was protested by people with liberal leanings that wasnt silencing opinions. You have provided me with one example that isnt really an example.
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

megahobbit wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


If whenever a dissenting opinion attempts to get a platform for their voice, they are silenced, regardless of the method, there is a problem. Like I said, cases in which speakers were denied a platform because of a wave of feminists who don't want their views challenged, are plentiful.

Feminists will gladly feed you facts (some less accurate than others) supporting their agenda, "opening your mind" to the horrors of "patriarchy" , but voicing outside opinions largely gets you ostracized, ignored or silenced.

As for the articles bringing up more discussion, you can hardly applaud feminism because their attempts to since these opinions aren't as absolute as they would have liked.

But I digress...we have strayed from the topic of privilege, so just to sum up my points on everything:
Both men and women hold privileges in different areas, some governmentally imposed (mostly benefiting women) and some social and some biological. However, the feminist movement largely attacks only make privilege, often using outdated or falsified statistics, largely leading an attack on men (or masculinity). I believe that many of the actions of feminism create harm and stifle debate, potentially pushing change in the wrong direction as well as breeding contempt, further pushing us from informed action.


I still dont see any feminists silencing dissenting opinions just protesting positions they are opposed too. When Ann Coulter went to a university and her talk was protested by people with liberal leanings that wasnt silencing opinions. You have provided me with one example that isnt really an example.


How is being unable to speak because people are yelling over you, not silencing? How is petitioning to cancel debates from even happening because they are on a topic (or from a perspective that isn't in line with modern feminism) that feminists deem sensitive, not silencing? While they aren't always successful at getting these talks cancelled, I think the attack mentality is being used instead of the debate mentality. Someone disagrees with you? Do whatever you can to get rid of them, instead of actually opening lines of communication and debating their point. Someone said something you don't like? Take action to get them fired or ostracized or ignored.

A good deal of this has to do with the "trigger warning" movement mixed with outrage culture, essentially attempting to remove discussion of things that are deemed "dangerous" (despite the whole of the trigger warning movement being misguided). Overall, while you may see this as harmless, the removal of discussion on the grounds of potential offense seems like a pretty dangerous position to me and the attacking of faculty and speakers who express counterpoints certainly does not breed healthy discussion.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/27/the-campus-crusade-to-safely-squelch-speech/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0
75434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

Freddy96NO wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

You're talking about women d'uh. I'm afraid you've already invoked them.

also why I don't want it ;( hoped aleast a message from OP would stop it but nope -_- right by.
soon I guess they will come saying everything here is sexist and empowerment for men
So what do you think of what she did and how it maybe effected her personallity etc?


Been done before and can be quite illuminating.

15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:
Been done before and can be quite illuminating.

ofc something similar would maybe have been done before,

9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

sundin13 wrote:

How is being unable to speak because people are yelling over you, not silencing? How is petitioning to cancel debates from even happening because they are on a topic (or from a perspective that isn't in line with modern feminism) that feminists deem sensitive, not silencing? While they aren't always successful at getting these talks cancelled, I think the attack mentality is being used instead of the debate mentality. Someone disagrees with you? Do whatever you can to get rid of them, instead of actually opening lines of communication and debating their point. Someone said something you don't like? Take action to get them fired or ostracized or ignored.

A good deal of this has to do with the "trigger warning" movement mixed with outrage culture, essentially attempting to remove discussion of things that are deemed "dangerous" (despite the whole of the trigger warning movement being misguided). Overall, while you may see this as harmless, the removal of discussion on the grounds of potential offense seems like a pretty dangerous position to me and the attacking of faculty and speakers who express counterpoints certainly does not breed healthy discussion.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/27/the-campus-crusade-to-safely-squelch-speech/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0


New york post is not a good source so ill be skipping that and the second is an opinion piece so it will undoubtedly be biased. Both are not good sources.

The opinion piece made absolutely no fucking sense equating a fucking flier kindly asking people to make this "A safer space" in an incredibly fucking vague way that could mean anything with the destruction of classroom discussion.

But lets go point by point with the grievances.


This logic clearly informed a campaign undertaken this fall by a Columbia University student group called Everyone Allied Against Homophobia that consisted of slipping a flier under the door of every dorm room on campus. The headline of the flier stated, “I want this space to be a safer space.” The text below instructed students to tape the fliers to their windows. The group’s vice president then had the flier published in the Columbia Daily Spectator, the student newspaper, along with an editorial asserting that “making spaces safer is about learning how to be kind to each other.”


Nothing against that. We should be kinder to each other. HOW AWFUL AND THOUGH DESTROYING.


I’m old enough to remember a time when college students objected to providing a platform to certain speakers because they were deemed politically unacceptable. Now students worry whether acts of speech or pieces of writing may put them in emotional peril. Two weeks ago, students at Northwestern University marched to protest an article by Laura Kipnis, a professor in the university’s School of Communication. Professor Kipnis had criticized — O.K., ridiculed — what she called the sexual paranoia pervading campus life.

The protesters carried mattresses and demanded that the administration condemn the essay. One student complained that Professor Kipnis was “erasing the very traumatic experience” of victims who spoke out. An organizer of the demonstration said, “we need to be setting aside spaces to talk” about “victim-blaming.” Last Wednesday, Northwestern’s president, Morton O. Schapiro, wrote an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal affirming his commitment to academic freedom. But plenty of others at universities are willing to dignify students’ fears, citing threats to their stability as reasons to cancel debates, disinvite commencement speakers and apologize for so-called mistakes.


People are protesting an article they dislike. Its not like humanity has been doing that for thousands of years. I disagree we can get into a debate on rape culture but I find victim blaming to be a huge problem.


At Oxford University’s Christ Church college in November, the college censors (a “censor” being more or less the Oxford equivalent of an undergraduate dean) canceled a debate on abortion after campus feminists threatened to disrupt it because both would-be debaters were men. “I’m relieved the censors have made this decision,” said the treasurer of Christ Church’s student union, who had pressed for the cancellation. “It clearly makes the most sense for the safety — both physical and mental — of the students who live and work in Christ Church.”


I agree with the feminists going to disrupt it. Having a debate on abortion by people who would never actual have to have an abortion is like having a debate on racism with only white people on both sides. Its fucking stupid.


A year and a half ago, a Hampshire College student group disinvited an Afrofunk band that had been attacked on social media for having too many white musicians; the vitriolic discussion had made students feel “unsafe.”


To correct this the term is Afrobeat which this author is clearly not knowledgeable on. This I actually agree with but thats not censorship it caused controversy whether stupid controversy on campus and the campus decided to disinvite(not actually a word btw) them. Reminds me alot of what happened in the 80s with Albini band (and this will probably piss you off but im gonna throw up a trigger warning)
TW Rape


In which the band was protested for there name (which is understandable and despite liking the bands music I agree that the naming is disgusting)

One such demonstration was at a concert with Dinosaur Jr. and Band of Susans at Leeds Poly (UK) on the 14th October 1988. The protestors had tried to persuade the venue (the student's union) to ban the event entirely. They could not due to contracts with the promoter. However, the venue provided the minimum to allow the concert to go ahead - they provided the hall and the electricity and little else - no heating, no bar, and so on. Despite this, there were only a small number of protestors outside.



Last fall, the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, apologized for causing students and faculty to be “hurt” when she failed to object to a racial epithet uttered by a fellow panel member at an alumnae event in New York. The offender was the free-speech advocate Wendy Kaminer, who had been arguing against the use of the euphemism “the n-word” when teaching American history or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” In the uproar that followed, the Student Government Association wrote a letter declaring that “if Smith is unsafe for one student, it is unsafe for all students.”


While I agree with Kaminers position on how I find the n-word shouldnt be taking out of Huckleberry Finn here saying the N-Word is cruel and uncalled for and I would get into an uproar if the president of the university failed to object to it being uttered on a panel.

None of this is the removal of discussion except for the Abortion debate which isnt about removing discussion but who the people discussing it are.

I stand with Trigger Warnings though. As you railing against them have probably never faced trauma you really have no right to judge them or how another person might need them.
58098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / In the back.
Offline
Posted 6/18/15
There are no privileges that can't be worked around.

Nobody's lot in life is equal; it's not fair, and it never will be.

It's a noble goal to strive for, and we should, but temper it with expectations drawn from reality; not everyone is going to win.

Suck it up and get to work, because time waits for no one, especially not the whiny.

That being said, censorship is a terrible thing. If you don't like someone's idea, you don't have to believe it. Refute it, argue against it, work your way past their argument, but never deny them a platform to speak on. You never know when you've got something to learn.
Posted 6/18/15
Oh dear god.. Not this Feminism shit again. -_-

Was just starting to read the first page and BAM! "feminists...."


75434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

Freddy96NO wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:
Been done before and can be quite illuminating.

ofc something similar would maybe have been done before,



I'll have to go read the links.


15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 6/18/15 , edited 6/18/15

May the fate be with you!

oh wait just do it like that works too..
"it splatters and now it spreads even more"

papagolfwhiskey wrote:
I'll have to go read the links.

What links? (it means you didn't see it? one is 18min other around 2-3min sums it up more in a little time)
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/15

megahobbit wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

How is being unable to speak because people are yelling over you, not silencing? How is petitioning to cancel debates from even happening because they are on a topic (or from a perspective that isn't in line with modern feminism) that feminists deem sensitive, not silencing? While they aren't always successful at getting these talks cancelled, I think the attack mentality is being used instead of the debate mentality. Someone disagrees with you? Do whatever you can to get rid of them, instead of actually opening lines of communication and debating their point. Someone said something you don't like? Take action to get them fired or ostracized or ignored.

A good deal of this has to do with the "trigger warning" movement mixed with outrage culture, essentially attempting to remove discussion of things that are deemed "dangerous" (despite the whole of the trigger warning movement being misguided). Overall, while you may see this as harmless, the removal of discussion on the grounds of potential offense seems like a pretty dangerous position to me and the attacking of faculty and speakers who express counterpoints certainly does not breed healthy discussion.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/27/the-campus-crusade-to-safely-squelch-speech/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0


New york post is not a good source so ill be skipping that and the second is an opinion piece so it will undoubtedly be biased. Both are not good sources.

The opinion piece made absolutely no fucking sense equating a fucking flier kindly asking people to make this "A safer space" in an incredibly fucking vague way that could mean anything with the destruction of classroom discussion.

But lets go point by point with the grievances.


This logic clearly informed a campaign undertaken this fall by a Columbia University student group called Everyone Allied Against Homophobia that consisted of slipping a flier under the door of every dorm room on campus. The headline of the flier stated, “I want this space to be a safer space.” The text below instructed students to tape the fliers to their windows. The group’s vice president then had the flier published in the Columbia Daily Spectator, the student newspaper, along with an editorial asserting that “making spaces safer is about learning how to be kind to each other.”


Nothing against that. We should be kinder to each other. HOW AWFUL AND THOUGH DESTROYING.


I’m old enough to remember a time when college students objected to providing a platform to certain speakers because they were deemed politically unacceptable. Now students worry whether acts of speech or pieces of writing may put them in emotional peril. Two weeks ago, students at Northwestern University marched to protest an article by Laura Kipnis, a professor in the university’s School of Communication. Professor Kipnis had criticized — O.K., ridiculed — what she called the sexual paranoia pervading campus life.

The protesters carried mattresses and demanded that the administration condemn the essay. One student complained that Professor Kipnis was “erasing the very traumatic experience” of victims who spoke out. An organizer of the demonstration said, “we need to be setting aside spaces to talk” about “victim-blaming.” Last Wednesday, Northwestern’s president, Morton O. Schapiro, wrote an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal affirming his commitment to academic freedom. But plenty of others at universities are willing to dignify students’ fears, citing threats to their stability as reasons to cancel debates, disinvite commencement speakers and apologize for so-called mistakes.


People are protesting an article they dislike. Its not like humanity has been doing that for thousands of years. I disagree we can get into a debate on rape culture but I find victim blaming to be a huge problem.


At Oxford University’s Christ Church college in November, the college censors (a “censor” being more or less the Oxford equivalent of an undergraduate dean) canceled a debate on abortion after campus feminists threatened to disrupt it because both would-be debaters were men. “I’m relieved the censors have made this decision,” said the treasurer of Christ Church’s student union, who had pressed for the cancellation. “It clearly makes the most sense for the safety — both physical and mental — of the students who live and work in Christ Church.”


I agree with the feminists going to disrupt it. Having a debate on abortion by people who would never actual have to have an abortion is like having a debate on racism with only white people on both sides. Its fucking stupid.


A year and a half ago, a Hampshire College student group disinvited an Afrofunk band that had been attacked on social media for having too many white musicians; the vitriolic discussion had made students feel “unsafe.”


To correct this the term is Afrobeat which this author is clearly not knowledgeable on. This I actually agree with but thats not censorship it caused controversy whether stupid controversy on campus and the campus decided to disinvite(not actually a word btw) them. Reminds me alot of what happened in the 80s with Albini band (and this will probably piss you off but im gonna throw up a trigger warning)
TW Rape


In which the band was protested for there name (which is understandable and despite liking the bands music I agree that the naming is disgusting)

One such demonstration was at a concert with Dinosaur Jr. and Band of Susans at Leeds Poly (UK) on the 14th October 1988. The protestors had tried to persuade the venue (the student's union) to ban the event entirely. They could not due to contracts with the promoter. However, the venue provided the minimum to allow the concert to go ahead - they provided the hall and the electricity and little else - no heating, no bar, and so on. Despite this, there were only a small number of protestors outside.



Last fall, the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, apologized for causing students and faculty to be “hurt” when she failed to object to a racial epithet uttered by a fellow panel member at an alumnae event in New York. The offender was the free-speech advocate Wendy Kaminer, who had been arguing against the use of the euphemism “the n-word” when teaching American history or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” In the uproar that followed, the Student Government Association wrote a letter declaring that “if Smith is unsafe for one student, it is unsafe for all students.”


While I agree with Kaminers position on how I find the n-word shouldnt be taking out of Huckleberry Finn here saying the N-Word is cruel and uncalled for and I would get into an uproar if the president of the university failed to object to it being uttered on a panel.

None of this is the removal of discussion except for the Abortion debate which isnt about removing discussion but who the people discussing it are.

I stand with Trigger Warnings though. As you railing against them have probably never faced trauma you really have no right to judge them or how another person might need them.


I must say, your dismissal of sources is getting laughable, as it essentially seems that you are throwing away sources from places that you don't agree with, which is essentially what I am currently arguing against. "I don't agree with this opinion, so instead of confronting it, I will simply throw it away under the guise of 'bias'". I don't need you to confront everything in every source I include...for the most part, inclusion of sources exist to back up what I am saying. The fact is, a growing epidemic of political correctness is being used to silence discussion, attack individuals, or create a wall for people to hide behind without getting their opinions challenged.

Colombia University:

"“Kindness alone won’t allow us to gain more insight into truth,” he wrote. In an interview, Mr. Shapiro said, “If the point of a safe space is therapy for people who feel victimized by traumatization, that sounds like a great mission.” But a safe-space mentality has begun infiltrating classrooms, he said, making both professors and students loath to say anything that might hurt someone’s feelings. “I don’t see how you can have a therapeutic space that’s also an intellectual space,” he said."

Oxford:

The idea that you can only discuss something that you have personally experienced is ridiculous. People are capable of forming informed points of view based on information, and often an outsiders perspective is important in discussing the facts behind a matter instead of relying on biased anecdotes. There is no logical grounds to throw away the opinion of these two individuals.

Smith College:

I think you must have misunderstood. In this circumstance, the discussion was about the use of the n-word in teaching about Huckleberry Finn. Nothing cruel or uncalled for about that... I don't see the problem. This is just sensationalism and baseless attacks because the political incorrectness of the word offended someone.

A little more information on this particular case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-progressive-ideas-behind-the-lack-of-free-speech-on-campus/2015/02/20/93086efe-b0e7-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html

Trigger Warnings:

Unfortunately, trigger warnings are misguided, and lacking in usefulness while being potentially damaging to speech and discussion. First of all, a triggering stimulus can be virtually anything and it is often not simply the mention of something such as rape, but instead a smell, movement or something else that is virtually unpredictable and unavoidable. Second, in actuality, frequent, innocuous exposure to the triggering stimulus is the best way to overcome PTSD, while sheltering yourself and avoiding the trigger actually reinforces PTSD. The idea of trigger warnings just isn't supported by science...

Study: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11955&page=R1
Website with a quick summary and a few other points of information: http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/hazards-ahead-problem-trigger-warnings-according-research-81946
Other sources:
http://www.aaup.org/report/trigger-warnings
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/05/29/essay-faculty-members-about-why-they-will-not-use-trigger-warnings
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.