EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 735
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On December 24 2013 07:29 ComaDose wrote: if you believe that greater than 60% of women are braindead twats and that you have a high oponion of women, then I don't know how to respond LOL! More absurdity from this fool. I never said more than 60% of women are braindead twats. I just said the ones I've personally met.  I meet tons and tons of people. In specific to the matter at hand, I meet lots of attractive girls who are the type that's sociable/outgoing but also dumb as nails (a type that is relatively common in California), so it ups the percentage . If I stuck to my CS/EE peers during undergrad and didn't meet other girls in or outside of school, the above percentage would be extremely low. Girls in CS tend to be pretty smart on an academic and other bases as well. But I must say, your reading comprehension ability is still rather horrendous, despite my clarifications and the chances I've given you to redeem yourself. Heh, and people make fun of America's education system XD. Also, it's spelled "opinion". Not "oponion". | ||
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
Ah yes, the good ol' "I have literally no argument to use to refute this guy's, so I'm just going to attempt to belittle him in a vaguely condescending way". A true winning strategy, befitting only the most honourable and intellectual of humans, if I've ever seen one! | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 24 2013 07:29 ComaDose wrote: if you believe that greater than 60% of women are braindead twats and that you have a high oponion of women, then I don't know how to respond they are, and it's because of the patriarchy. Most men are also braindead twats, probably also because of the patriarchy. We should all smash the patriarchy and stop being braindead twats, but dogmatic anti-essentialism isn't the way to do it paglia is just the zizek of feminism, basically. Which is why I like her :D | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote: You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. just out of curiosity, do you see that division of labor, the sharing of tasks, above personal choice?, sex based choice. (you put both men and women in a room and have them choose between XYZ tasks; not assign them tasks based on some subjective equality/fairness ideal). | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On December 24 2013 07:53 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Ah yes, the good ol' "I have literally no argument to use to refute this guy's, so I'm just going to attempt to belittle him in a vaguely condescending way". A true winning strategy, befitting only the most honourable and intellectual of humans, if I've ever seen one! Oh come on now : ) he barely even made an argument. I just enjoy his posting. Here are my favorite parts: ...at the very least 60% of girls I've met are literally braindead [sic] twats I said personal experience, not personal opinion. There's quite a difference LOL! If I did base my opinion on my personal experience, I would be horribly biased. Fortunately, this is not the case. Despite my relatively poor experience, I do not have a poor opinion. Quite the opposite of a negative opinion really. I hope that makes it clear. In reality, it was implied I like women . . . I mean, almost half of my friends are women. I've certainly had quite a lot in the sexual regard as well, so it's not like I'm bitter about that (nor would I be were that not the case). At this time, I practically have a girlfriend I mean, how can you possibly claim that I hate women simply because I stated that [at the very least 60% of girls I've met are literally braindead [sic] twats?] This is my favorite: Also, if I hated anything, I have significantly better places both on the internet and IRL to post / talk about it than here LOL XD. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:10 xM(Z wrote: just out of curiosity, do you see that division of labor, the sharing of tasks above personal choice?, sex based choice. (you put both men and women in a room and have them choose between XYZ tasks; not assign them tasks based on some subjective equality/fairness ideal). I think people should be free to choose where they assign their own labour. If you wanna try and be an engineer or whatever and someone is willing to hire you to be so then go for it. Same if you want to do a nurse. At its core it's simply a matter of freedom. For generations women (and to a degree men by the same role based system (conscription being a particularly brutal example of this)) were denied the freedom to choose what they wanted to do and asking women to thank men for taking all the positions of power so they didn't have to worry about all those decisions is a bit much for me. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote: You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On December 24 2013 05:40 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: at the very least 60% of girls I've met are literally braindead twats. If I wasn't a graduate engineering student, that percentage would be much higher. this insinuates that you believe greater than 60% of women, outside your program, are braindead twats. no amount of ninja editing and insulting me will change that. that is not a high opinion of women in addition to being sexist. + Show Spoiler + dude i have my bachelors in system and computer engineering with a minor in computer science stop dropping that like it matters or using it to generalize women more like ot proves your point instead of mine. accidently hit the o instead of the I there on my phone but ill leave it like that to give you something to talk about in your next long winded point dodging post. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote: they are, and it's because of the patriarchy. Most men are also braindead twats, probably also because of the patriarchy. We should all smash the patriarchy and stop being braindead twats, but dogmatic anti-essentialism isn't the way to do it paglia is just the zizek of feminism, basically. Which is why I like her :D First Zizek thing I found. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/fake-mandela-memorial-interpreter-schizophrenia-signing I read it and it was at least as stupid as Paglia's article which is saying something because Paglia thinks being a lesbian is about how you feel about men. Some stupid guy got way over his head taking money for a job he couldn't do and tried the same "I'm insane" excuse he used every time in the past, it's not a very interesting or complex story. But apparently it means sign language isn't for the deaf and cancer research isn't for people who have cancer. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. We agree wholly. I'm arguing against Paglia, you're arguing against Paglia too. You just misread my post. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
(for example, here you are incapable of grasping the subtlety of the fact that when zizek says "the sign language translator is not there for the deaf" he doesn't literally mean that sign language isn't for deaf people, rather he is denying something seemingly obvious and unproblematic to effect some estrangement and make you consider an additional dimension of the phenomenon besides the stupid, obvious utilitarian one - namely, that the MAIN purpose of cancer research and sign language translators is to make all the rest of us feel happy about how progressive we are, in the same way that the MAIN purpose of, say, a Toyota Prius is not to help the environment (although it does that), the main purpose is to make us feel good about how we are helping the environment. he's interested in the libidinal/ideological underpinnings of our seemingly "progressive" efforts. and he's right. but you are far too robotic a thinker to be able to understand this) the problem with what somebody said earlier abt 'put them in a room' is that subjects are always-already constituted by their social interpellation so it doesn't show you anything useful to think like that. The interesting question is to examine the social construction of gender as it is built on top of (or 'hooked into' in some way) its biological foundations. People who deny either side of that are reductionists (so both most feminists and most sociobiologists) | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:18 ComaDose wrote: this insinuates that you believe greater than 60% of women, outside your program, are braindead twats. no amount of ninja editing and insulting me will change that. that is not a high opinion of women in addition to being sexist. + Show Spoiler + dude i have my bachelors in system and computer engineering with a minor in computer science stop dropping that like it matters or using it to generalize women more like ot proves your point instead of mine. accidently hit the o instead of the I there on my phone but ill leave it like that to give you something to talk about in your next long winded point dodging post. So, if 60% of the people I met were black, then I am insinuating that 60% of people are black? This is the logic you're implying I have. LOL!! XD I can barely catch my breath. This is great comedy! Umm, I never said 60% of women outside my program are braindead twats. Nor did I say that 60% of women are braindead twats. I've only said 60% of women I've met were dummies, and I've explained why the figure is so high. To reiterate, I come into frequent contact with a specific demographic of people that is known for being stupid, meeting far, far more than people I do in my program, and even my university for that matter. Another fail. First you said I think 60% of women are stupid. Now you changed it to 60% of women outside my program. My goodness, you sir are a goldmine of fail. Could you please be anymore comical? XD Your spoiler doesn't prove you have basic reading comprehension skills either (assuming it's even true what you say, which I highly doubt). I've defeated your absurd arguments and and attempts at defamation and insults. Go troll somewhere else please :S. Your attempts at trolling earlier failed, so now you've turned to overt insulting the past couple posts, but still full of failure. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:30 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: To reiterate, I come into frequent contact with a specific demographic of people that is known for being stupid That probably says more about you than it does about the people you're describing. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
late edit tho: at the very least 60% of the people I've met are literally black. If I wasn't a graduate engineering student, that percentage would be much higher. you can't keep ignoring the fact that you said the second part now that you know it doesn't help you | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:37 ComaDose wrote: dude you totes did imply that outside your program you expect more than 60% of women to be brain dead twats I quoted you just there I pretty much expect more than 60% of all people period to be braindead twats, maybe thats just me. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote: It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On December 24 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote: they are, and it's because of the patriarchy. Most men are also braindead twats, probably also because of the patriarchy. We should all smash the patriarchy and stop being braindead twats, but dogmatic anti-essentialism isn't the way to do it paglia is just the zizek of feminism, basically. Which is why I like her :D So the presentation and the shock value seems to be more important these days, even amongst the most brilliant. I am becoming more understanding to why so many people were happy to take many French charlatans seriously now. | ||
| ||
