@Lithium said in RL Anger:
@Thenomain I have said why it is offensive, you are just choosing to disbelieve /why/ that would be offensive to someone else.
I can see how that might appear, but you have in the past said that you can't read the connotation in straight-up text. I disbelieve that "someone else thinks it's offensive" is worthy of outright stopping of any behavior. It's vague to the point of uselessness. I've already lived through one era of political correctness, and I'm not about to agree to living through it again.
I'll also note that what "someone else" thinks is offensive isn't the problem. It's never been the problem. Hense: Wora, Swofa, Soapbox. The problem is what the language and action does culturally, it's long-term and very real harmful social effects.
We don't see eye-to-eye because I'm not convinced you have an argument. I clearly think the argument is worth having else I wouldn't be giving you the time of day, and I don't think you're wrong just to say you're wrong but because I don't see you giving your opinion strong merit.
(In more blunt terms: You think the phrase is offensive because someone might think it's dismissive. Not good enough. )
I said Tyche was a /part/ of the problem. It's reading comprehension 101.
Are you sure you don't want hostility to be part of the conversation? Because this? Right here? This is hostile. It's minor, and I can put on my big boy pants, but it undermines the trust needed for such an emotionally charged discussion.
You can be a part of something without being the driving force behind it.
I'm being given a negative social condition by accident of my birth. How can you not see the outright irony of saying this is okay? I'm not parading Men's Rights here, I'm parading Human Rights. If you want everyone to be treated equal, then for fucks' sake, treat everyone equal.
That's my "social justice". That's my justification for my opinion having merit. What's yours?
For example: Not all skinheads are racist, but some skinheads are racist to the extreme. [...] It's the same thing by going with the 'Not /all/ men' defense.
W... wait. Are you saying the classification of "men", a genetic lottery draw, is the same as the classification of "skinhead", a philosophical choice? This is false equivalence, and I will have no part of it.
Firstly, I never said all men did this thing. So by doing that it is a deflection and misdirection to try and turn the fault onto the speaker by making them seem erroneous.
I have offered my defense. You chide me for failing reading comprehension, yet you make this statement in spite that I have already addressed it. I am not misdirecting, I am saying that your statement is erroneous. This is a straightforward accusation.
Let me state this in another way: "Women can't drive." Is this clear that I'm not talking about all women? No, it's not. You would be justified to call me out on this bullshit statement for being overgeneralized. This is the classification of statement that I'm arguing against.
"Men behave thusly". No, no, they don't. My objection is not opinion, it's cold, hard, logical fact. If you think "not all men" is dismissive, perhaps it is. It's dismissive to an overgeneralization that needs dismissed. Instead of getting offended, clarify. If you don't mean "all men", then what do you mean?
I personally find it downright idiotic to not consider the self as part of the problems in conversation, whatever that problem may be! You can bet your blue bippy that I've been doing heavy self-editing to make sure I'm as clear to you specifically as I can.
Second, it refuses to address the actual issue, turning the topic of conversation /away/ from the problem that needs to be discussed and addressed so that it can be lessened.
Yet you're not addressing the issue, either. You're debating the quality of the debate instead of having one. You're doing what you're objecting about, but I'm not going to be insulting to read your mind and say that you are being intentionally misdirecting. I think you're getting emotionally caught up in circles, or reciting talking-points, or otherwise lost in the rabbit warrens of conversation that we all get in.
That is, I trust you have some well-meaning, but you can't expect me to carry the responsibility of miscommunication. I will help, but it only goes so far.
Third, as @Tyche did by immediately jumping to rapes and such the topic is /again/ changed to only a small fragment.
Then as part of the discussion, it is just as much your job to inform as it is to debate. If a conversation has gone off the rails, you can either try to put it back on the rails or you can move on. It's pointless to try and lay blame as to who shoved it off the rails.
I'm personally kind of insulted that you think that I'm trying to derail your point, when I invited you to make it. If this is how low you consider my opinion, then I'd much rather you not try to engage me at all. Hell, I think talking about derailing itself is derailing! Why are you doing that! Why do you think this discussion is more important than the one you were having? Nobody, nobody forced you to reply that way.
Incidentally, this is my model of communcation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication#/media/File:Transactional_comm_model.jpg
This is very simplified, but don't say that I'm not giving you feedback. We're both exchanging roles of the medium.
It's a bait and switch tactic to try and force discourse away from the subject matter that /can/ and /should/ be discussed.
Yes! Yes! This is why I find Anita Fucking Sarkeesian to be such a fraud! To be poison to the discussion we should be having! I find her methodology to be cultish, filled with pseudo-terminolgy, and steps away from Hate Speech.
And what are we talking about? Well, I thought we were talking about why "Not All Men" is or is not offensive, but we've both become emotionally wrapped up in the differing viewpoint that we're now pointing fingers and going "no you". Yes, you've been participating in this, in spite of your objection to same.
This /shouldn't/ be a conversation that is hostile, but certain individuals surely do their best to do that.
Yes.
Please stop.
Both please stop being hostile, and please stop giving the hostility of others importance.