Pejoratives or put-downs?
If I have to explain every ironic comment I make in each of my posts, I'm going to go gray in the hair before we get anywhere.
I suppose I could have said "hate-spewing psycho-fuck," but that would get me no further rhetorically.
You can't distill that into something as niche as your example, especially because your example lacks the social bias of privilege that one group has over the other. You're stripping that aspect from the conversation with your example and thus making your example moot.
"Moot" isn't the word your looking for here; "inapplicable" or "not analogous" are better choices.
Still, @Arkandel has a point, and it is this: it is difficult to motivate someone to engage in a serious conversation or discussion by using pejoratives or put-downs.
I think we have thoroughly discussed why "Not All Men" and "All Lives Matter" are offensive to marginalized groups.
So, back to trying to come up with solutions: how do we try and address what appears to be an ingrained mentality in our community?
There are times when it makes more sense to back away from a conversation with one person to have a more productive one with another.
It seemed clear to me that you and @Lithium were missing one another in the night.
@Thenomain said in RL Anger:
I'm still hoping that someone can tell me what situations make a response of "Not All Men" taboo, possibly via a web link toward an explanation that is even to both men and women.
Here's how it works, friend.
When women make a point to mention that men are part of the problem, they are directing the focus of the discussion towards the somewhat-ingrained misogyny that men are inculcated with on a daily basis. The focus of attention -- that is, what those women are trying to convey -- is that men, as a population, need to be aware of the problem.
The defense of "not all men" is beside the point, and adjusts the focus towards the erroneous nature of any generalization.
Much like the "All Lives Matter" response to "Black Lives Matter," proponents of the latter are justifiably offended by the adjustment of the conversation away from what is perceived to be the actual problem. Yes, all lives matter; however, the proponents are protesting the fact that, empirically, black lives are treated quite differently.
So, to apply that rule here: yes, not all men are misogynistic; however, please realize that "civilized" society is inherently misogynistic, and that's what the conversation should be focused on. And the reason why men "are part of the problem" is because they are the beneficiary of those misogynistic institutions that keep such beliefs at the forefront of policy.
Hopefully, this explanation makes sense.
This isn't to say that I find @Lithium's attempts to explain satisfactory or effective; rather, I found the opposite. But I do understand why it's upsetting, and, much like the importance of black lives, I can understand why a woman would take extreme umbrage to the misunderstanding.
There is a distinctly barbed and hostile attitude in the core movement (not to mention a lot of high-grade insanity coming from the likes of Luce Irigaray), and a lot of the arguments are focused on (if you're familiar with the Three Languages Of Politics) the Oppressor---Oppressed axis, and very focused on not how to resolve the oppression (which would require a shift in axis and a re-framing of a lot of theory) but rather how to shift who is being oppressed.
Seeing as how you've invoked Irigaray, I must invoke Foucault in response and state that, no matter what you do, you will forever be caught in a binary system of oppression, if one buys into power theory. That is, you have no choice but to shift the target of the oppression.
I don't necessarily buy into that, but power theory does provide an interesting, explanatory model of history's struggles.
And yet rape/sexual assault scenes seem to be quite common on mushes. Now I'm one of a few odd birds who won't do TS at all and would never log into a place like Shangrila. If a higher percentage of mushers are women then why do they subject themselves to virtual sexual objectification there (and even sexual slavery and humilation like on Shangrila)? Same thing with men? What's up with that?
I blame it, simply, on a horrid thing people sometimes refer to as "cultural indoctrination." To that end, pornography is arguably dangerous.
@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:
Now say I find that to be worth talking about, and I declare "Ugh, most workplaces are lousy with sexual harassment!"
So if you think about your own workplace, and your own life, and how tired you are of being lumped in with some faceless throng of male aggressors and you say "NOT MY WORKPLACE! Not ALL workplaces!"
...Well, you aren't wrong, but you are changing the subject in a hell of self-centered way.
And a profoundly stupid way, given that you qualified your statement quite obviously.
Just because he thinks he has something to say doesn't actually mean it has any value, or that the rest of us have to engage him. Refusing to directly engage with an ass does not an ass make.
Then don't engage him? I don't -- not seriously, at least.
I still dislike the use of the term "MRA." Because there's nothing wrong with defending the rights of men, and men's rights are often overlooked on important issues, especially in domestic relations.
Not that men have helped themselves in that arena by being generally misogynistic and bigoted.
@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:
Feel free to stop paying attention to the discussion. Everyone understands your position. We've already played "spot the MRA".
I've always disliked the use of the term "MRA," if only because I find it being used as a dismissive pejorative to silence what I have personally experienced to be reasonable discourse.
I mean, I understand that "mansplaining" is a thing, and that there are ridiculous men's-rights-activists/advocates who are dead-on-wrong about a lot of things. But the instant we get onto the 'nigga-nigger' train, we're heading into a land of perdition that's as productive as fighting for peace.
It's no secret that I'm putting my spare time into a fantasy game as well, so here's a tip that I've found very useful:
Start with the IC History.
Do not work on anything else. Get this done and out of the way. The folks at helped develop L5R less-than-subtly pushed me in that direction, and now I understand why.
What I'm constructing is not 1/10 as elaborate as what you're attempting here.
Regarding your schools of magic and Gods: It sounds as if each God needs their own backstory. Why do people consider the God of Ice the God of Wealth? Where's the connection? Most mythologies have Gods as characters, and it is humanity that assigns each their aspects.
For instance, Hades is the God of the Underworld because that was the kingdom that Zeus assigned to him. He isn't really the God of Death, not like the Grim Reaper might be; rather, he is the caretaker of the Dead. Hades is generally associated with wealth and commerce as well because of the Persephone myth, but Hermes is also connected with wealth and commerce because he's generally the God connected with good fortune.
So, stories! Think of the stories behind the Gods. Their affiliations will extend naturally from there.
@Arkandel said:
I do think if a girl wants to only be known as a good feral druid though they should be able to do that.
Here's a poll: how many people here think I'm a man or woman?
Here's another poll: how many people actually give a shit?
Yet another: how many people think I give a shit what you think my gender is?
I am Ganymede. That's all anyone really needs to know; that, and I don't have any real desire to get to know anyone personally here, beyond those that I already know personally.
(Answers: 1. Neither, I am a robot; 2. Hopefully, no one; 3. Hopefully, no one.)
@Apu said:
I hate it when familial relations become toxic and/or otherwise unhealthy. It isn't like a friendship or a romantic relationship where you can just say your goodbyes and cut all ties. There's that pesky blood bond that is kind of difficult, if not outright impossible, to sever.
When this happens, I simply retreat and hope that time will allow the cancer to heal.
@Lithium said:
This is why people who demand proof, or are 'rationally skeptic' are part of the problem. It is the unwillingness to believe another human being that makes it even hard to stand up anymore. It's why so many of us keep our fucking heads down, and just deal because all to often to do otherwise isn't going to help us, it's going to make it worse and that is only reinforced by the 'proofers'.
I want to hook onto this, and expand upon it just a little to make a point.
For those of us rational skeptics -- I am one of them -- that usually demand proof of things to change our beliefs, it is important to note that one can disbelieve a person's story, and yet still take action. Taking precautions based on risk is a rational thing to do, which means that even if I don't believe everything someone tells me, I have the intelligence to recognize the possibility of truth and therefore take action in the abundance of caution. Where that preventive action may have a high cost, one may conclude that the benefit of prevention does not exceed the cost of taking it, but that simply isn't applicable here.
Outside of the law enforcement scenario, it costs nothing for any of us here to believe anyone's story. So, why not believe it? And, if we do that, then shouldn't w take precautions and act? Of course; that's perfectly rational.
So, let's change the social zeitgeist.
@somasatori said:
Yeah, I've been in relationships like that. Just be patient with each others' needs.
Huh. Most of mine have been rougher.
And by rougher, I mean better.
@ThatGuyThere said:
Sadly I would not be surprised if this was Tim Duncan's last ride.
I wouldn't be surprised, but I think Duncan is biding his time, wanting to win just one more before he rides off into the sunset.
His performance isn't slipping that much.
I want to make sure I understand.
If you get Library (Advanced), does that apply to only one Mental Skill? E.g., Library (Advanced -- Occult) gives you a different bonus than Library (Occult)?
@Arkandel said:
Here, I'll give you a freebie sports tip you can reuse forever.
Here's another one.
No one will ever break Gretzky's pro-hockey career point total. Ever.
@Kanye-Qwest said:
I hate read all 9 of those books, and each of them was the worst book I've ever read in my life.
If the first was the worst, why the hell did you read the others?
I read the first chapter of The Da Vinci Code, and then refused to read any more. It was horrible.
I don't understand why anyone would want to waste their life on shitty reading. There's a lot of it out there.
@wanderer said:
Examples:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/crowgirl/hackers-versus-banksters-a-visual-novel-about-reve
http://www.depressionquest.com/
Super embarrassing stuff, if you ask me.
Sure, but then, there are games like That Dragon, Cancer, which are emotionally resonant and enlightening. For me, it sure sheds a light under the fears I've had, living with a multiple-cancer survivor. And by "multiple-cancer survivor," I mean "someone diagnosed with a condition so rare that she's part of a fucking case study about childhood-cancer survivors that underwent chemotherapy, which may have altered her DNA so badly that she can manifest cancer anywhere, at any time."
DepressionQuest seems alternatingly patronizing and dehumanizing to me. And yet, it's entirely possible that the game wasn't meant for me, and means a great deal more to others who can empathize with it.
I'm not going to poo-poo it for that.
@Tyche said:
I don't believe a single word he says either.
And what of Felicia Day?
My opinion of Breitbart has fallen considerably after they refused to protect one of their own.
Might want to find a more reputable, honest source of information. Not that I think you'll succeed, mind.
