|
Awareness -> RE: I Love My White Male Privilege! (3/15/2016 10:39:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Greta *is* given to generalisations and stereotypes. Not with regard to the Japanese, though - and in that case she wasn't. Actually, her main failing in that context, IMO, is regards to Islam and Muslims. That's why I brought up Mao's Little Red Book. Sometimes I think it's a good idea to help people along a path that they've already decided to take. You missed that point of my post, Awareness. You fucker. ;-) No, I think that's just that you are textbook example of the regressive left's pandering to Islamic fundamentalism. Islam is a violent, imperialist culture which seeks to impose a theocracy on the entire world and most Muslims in the world have absolutely no problem with that. They might not be prepared to engage in violence themselves but they have absolutely no problem if other proxies do and consequently impose a theocracy by force.
quote:
Oh, balls. If you had that virtue, versus everybody else, you'd have about ten tons more doubt and circumspection than you've ever displayed here. I've mixed with political science academics of the highest calibre and over decades - and *none* of them would show your hubris. In fact, just as an example, none of them, no matter how far above all the left wing / right wing arguments they've been, would ever have had the nerve to put their views entirely outside the left/right axis. When anyone has done that in the past, it's only ever been an undergrad student, who imagines that he's wiser than his teachers because he's 'not been indoctrinated by education', or some such. They tend to fail their courses, natch. Look, you unthinking mental midget, the left-right political axis is a convenient box into which the left-wing nutcases currently dominating academia attempt to stuff every individual. It's an approach specifically designed to indoctrinate (ironic you used that word) students with left-wing ideology and specifically to discourage them from thinking for themselves.
You attempting to defend what is a fundamental decline in academic standards is simply breathtakingly arrogant and stupid.
The problem is that you're so indoctrinated by political orthodoxy, you've failed to understand your worldview is so irredeemably small. You really do seem to think that politics divides the world into two tribes and all must choose a side. That's not how the world works and the only people who think that's how people work are idiots who think politics is about political parties.
By controlling the frame, you control the game. By proscribing the limits of political thought outside a single axis, you attempt to confine it to that axis. It is a deception, pure and simple.
The meta context my dear boy is that all of this is simple movement in the game of power. The political orthodoxy of the left is an attempt to control thought and use social pressure to enforce a social behavioural standard as decreed by a fundamentally broken culture of victimhood. The appeal to morality of the right is an attempt to manipulate families on an emotional level and to enforce a social behavioural standard as decreed by a religious foundation which few of them actually believe.
The left and right desire different outcomes based upon different belief structures but in terms of the hypocrisy of the way in which they conduct themselves, they are exactly the fucking same. They are both seeking power and if you think the left is any more righteous than the right, then you're not paying fucking attention.
Christ, and you think I'm arrogant because my views fall outside of that limited little world in which you exist? I think you're a moron for being so blind and failing to understand power.
By the way, I reject your appeal to authority: Who've you mixed with is fucking irrelevant to the discussion, nor can it be proven. Part of the problem is that you're so invested in this paradigm that you have absolutely no concept of how it's simply one amongst many with no more validity than any other. Yet you label anyone who attempts to point this out as arrogant. You're so embedded in the system you can't even see how your every viewpoint is constrained by the intellectual straitjacket in which you are locked and - even worse - you attempt to engage in locking others inside this very same straitjacket.
You are fundamentally blind beyond reason. Why should I believe in anyone else in the hierarchy of political orthodoxy which holds you captive? Why should they be any different? You're all basically regurgitating the same memes, the same self-righteous, unthinking tribal nonsense.
quote:
There are straitjackets of moral orthodoxy on both left and right. However, it's only right wingers who invoke 'political correctness' and it's only used as a slam against left wing attitudes and beliefs. No, it's a slam against the automatic assumption of moral superiority in regard to left-wing arguments which are unsupported by evidence. The left uses appeal to emotions instead of appeal to reason. That emotional appeal is manipulative deception. Pure and simple.
quote:
It *is* lazy, because it's so often used to shut someone up without bothering to do anything else to challenge a given belief or attitude. It's a pisspoor term to use, Awareness. Even right wing political thinkers tend to avoid it. Oh dear. The meaning of words and phrases is defined by their usage. When I use the phrase "political correctness" nobody has any doubt what I mean. Consequently it serves its purpose and if the odd, ignorant left-wing academic has his feathers ruffled, then I consider that a bonus.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
The ecological fallacy is a statistical fallacy, not a general rejection of the principle that members of a group probably have shared characteristics. And it is completely irrelevant when we're talking about culture.
quote:
It's been used in political philosophy and the social sciences extensively. It was used with me when I was taught in both. Oh really? How? Given that statistics is a hard science and politics and social sciences are soft sciences, I'd love to know how those were massaged together into a Frankenstein's monster of idiocy. Sounds like more shady left wing academia attempting to fudge the numbers to try and prove one of their pet theories.
quote:
And it's completely relevant when we're talking about culture. Of course it's not fucking relevant. That's one of the dumbest things you've said. Explain to me how you'd generate a cultural aggregate, then how applying that cultural aggregate to a member of that culture would be invalid. Because, that's what you'd have to do to generate a cultural ecological fallacy. Ecology is about biology, not thought or memes.
quote:
I agree that it is not, however, a general rejection of the principle that members of a group probably have shared characteristics. What it *does* imply, however, is - for instance - that because a group of people is known to physically weak, an individual member of that group is not necessarily physically weak. And this was one of the main reasons and arguments by the UK finally accepting female firefighters - amongst many, many other things. Again, what you're talking about is biology, not culture.
And I have no problem with female firefighters - as long as standards aren't compromised. If standards are compromised, then it's a big problem.
quote:
You can, but the crucial ones aren't always evident from a study of a given culture from which somebody comes. That is why I don't know whether or not Greta is violent (but remain willing to bet that she isn't - I like to think I have an intuition about such things). You can infer from Greta's biology that she's not likely to be violent because her testosterone is (likely) to be significantly lower than a man's and her risk of being a sociopath is also lower.
However you could infer from her culture that she probably has views which reflect the broad views and social pressures of that culture. Is it possible to grow up in China and NOT become fiercely competitive? If you survive, probably not.
quote:
Congratulations on your Googling skills. You should, however, have noticed that the ecological and the exception fallacy are flip sides of the same coin. They both lead one to prejudge, sometimes wrongly. That is, they both produce prejudices. I simply focused on the former because it seemed to pertain more re Greta. Oh, the ultimate insult - "I knew that before you did!". Grow up.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
A feminist, however, is someone who believes that women are of equal value as men and should be treated that way.
quote:
For fuck's sake, stop fucking lying. It's pathetic.
quote:
I'm sorry but if you don't accept that, you'd fail even an intro course on the subject. Well, as we've established that left-wing political science courses are really indoctrination sessions, I'd consider 'failing' an intro course to be a sign of someone who can think and reason. So I'd be quite happy to fail a course that relies upon teaching students to regurgitate utter nonsense on command.
quote:
You can spit and fume as much as you like, but that is how feminism is defined. It isn't defined the way either you or Nick would like to define it. You need to get used that. The Chinese define democracy as the longest road between two dictatorships, but funnily enough few people accept their definition. Wait... you do understand that dictionary definitions are not ideologies, right?
Right?
The dictionary definition of communism doesn't encapsulate the works of Marx and Engels. The dictionary definition of capitalism doesn't encapsulate the moral philosophy of Adam Smith, the labour theory of David Ricardo and the wage/productivity theory of FA Harper. The dictionary definition of democracy doesn't begin to convey the principles of the Athenians, the migration of England from monarchy to parliament or the intense consideration which went into the Federalist Papers and the Constitution of the United States.
Ideologies are not dictionary definitions. Ideologies are what they do. The retreat by feminists to a dictionary definition of their ideology is a retreat from the moral responsibility of all the harm which feminism causes. And when the principle proponents of an ideology are so fundamentally morally bankrupt, then it really does imply the ideology is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed.
quote:
That was simply cretinous, Awareness. You're calling the biology of humanity cretinous. That's okay, I'm used to left-wing rejection of science and reason. It's pretty much required if you're attempting to advance the cause of feminism. Feminists don't like dealing with tricky things such as evidence. They prefer to talk about nebulous things such as "feelings".
quote:
I've developed this feeling that you don't like formal education, especially in subjects like the social sciences. Christ, I knew you'd get around to your feelings eventually - feminists always do. As for the social sciences.... well, I like hard things like evidence, not speculative pet theories which tend to lack it. Kind of like the difference between psychiatry and psychology. Psychology is a science backed by experiment, reason and evidence. Psychiatry is speculative black magic with no evidence to support it. And yet, psychiatrists can prescribe medicine. A state of affairs I find absolutely astonishing.
Hard sciences are backed by evidence and they generate testable predictions which can be verified. The soft sciences... not so much. In fact, your characterisation of political science shows that the name is a phenomenal misnomer. Your characterisation implies you teach political orthodoxy, you don't provide people with the tools to understand, track and manipulate power. Political scientists do not experiment to test their predictions. They pontificate, nothing more. And you wonder why I have more faith in the hard sciences? Surely you jest.
I mean, feminism is a classic case of using deception to play the game of political power and all you teach is that feminist orthodoxy is truth? Ye Gods, how lame.
quote:
On this occasion it's your (serious) loss. "Equality" does not imply "Sameness". The two words are meant for different purposes. Seriously, have you *ever* studied feminism? How many times do you think this straw man has been thrown up - do you honestly think I've never dealt with it before? Education time! I'm afraid you don't appear to understand feminism.
Feminists advocate for parity, not equality. Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes and yet feminists behave as though they do. Apparently we must have gender parity for all well-paying jobs and positions of social and economic power. (I won't mention they don't want gender parity for all the negative outcomes. Fuck that, we can leave that for the men, amirite?)
And no. I don't think you've ever dealt with a decent argument before. I think you trot out your dogma and completely fail to understand where it falls down. In this, feminism is rather like a cult.
quote:
Well, they *occasionally do*, perhaps. Though why you'd want to fuck women whose beliefs you abhor beats me. Ah, y'see this is where you just don't understand. A feminist is not defined by what dictionary definition she adheres to. A feminist is defined by what she chooses to believe in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
So, a woman who was raised as a feminist who looks clearly and unflinchingly at the evidence and begins to query the sacred cows of feminism tends not to be a feminist. She's basically a woman who's been indoctrinated and is undergoing some cult deprogramming.
When a woman sleeps with a man who doesn't believe in feminism and he turns out to not be the monster her feminist sisters would have her believe, she begins to wonder if perhaps some of the other things she's been told aren't true either. When he turns out to have compassion, concern and a sense of responsibility, she begins to doubt the demonisation of the opposition which is a fundamental part of feminist indoctrination.
Funnily enough, the number of women prepared to call themselves feminists is dropping. Ever wonder why that is?
quote:
Feminists have occasionally fucked people like me, too. I, on the other hand, like to fuck them, because they tend to be better in bed than non-feminists. This is because feminists, per the definition that you don't like but will have to put up with, generally believe that they have an equal right to enjoy sex. A woman who enjoys sex *is* generally better in bed, I've concluded. Oh, you poor boy. You poor, poor boy.
Women who enjoy being women and who enjoy men being men tend to be better in bed. Because the sexual polarity makes them go off like a rocket. And most women enjoy sex. You don't have to be a feminist to believe you're entitled to an orgasm. And that you think a woman DOES is fucking hysterical.
I mean, I know feminists are given to myths and legends but that one is incredibly fucking funny. Ye Gods, the ignorance is hysterical.
quote:
As for why either feminists or non-feminists go for either of us: Well, this is probably down to our respective good looks, charm and sparkling sense of humour. [:)] Poor taste on their parts, probably.
quote:
Pfft. Again, I think this comes back to your view of feminism. True, if I've made a big noise about my feminism and, in particular *use that word* - women have become suspicious. (Though that's far less so these days, versus the 80s, say.) Me, per my view, I've come to believe that feminists *want sex*. It's an outlook that produces success, for me. I flirt better with women who I think are 'up for it'. When I flirt better, I get laid more often. All healthy women - bar a few outliers - want sex. I don't understand why you would think otherwise.
quote:
Strewth. I don't know whether to say 'Go to college and try to learn!' or 'Never go to college and try to learn!'
As we've established, left-wing academia is an indoctrination machine. I do not regurgitate nonsense simply because someone in authority asserts it is true.
|
|
|
|
