Talk:TheAmazingAtheist/Archive4
Anita, Jennifer Hepler, and boy's toys[edit]
Here are links to two interesting articles about a current and on-going culture war between a select group of gamers who see games as a "boys world", and two or three women acting as commentators on that position, as well as gaming authors trying to change that position. NOW I see why the 12 year old boy crowd is so obsessed by this random feminists. She is invading their all boy, all geek club. [1] and [2]. --
GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good for her! ТyrannisPlead 20:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I always have mixed feelings about this sort of thing, because this situation is often invoked by immature people trying to use it to claim identity. There are a lot of people I know who are incredibly defensive about being a 'girl gamer' without even being attacked in the first place. You know, the kids you want to give the 'A+ Ovaries award' (very loudly doing normal things while constantly trumpeting one is female) to... but it's not at all OK to dismiss this stuff because as annoying as the fallout can be, the root of the matter (which this case demonstrates!) is serious buisness. It's a response to a culture that does treat them as unwanted in the clubhouse, when really it shouldn't matter who is what gender when it comes to preferred activities and social circles. I've run the life cycle of resentment for this kind of stuff (A+ Ovaries award -> stopping and trying to understand the issue before I lash out-> taking a greater interest in cultural stigmas) and come out the other side. It's just a hailstorm of misinformation and unwillngness to understand, which then has greater backlash than just sore behinds: it connects concepts like Feminism to the issue in a completely wrong way and changes how some people define the term... perhaps for the rest of their lives if they don't want to become informed. ±
KnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 00:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC) - I guess I don't understand... You don't think she should be analyzing women in games, female characters, and who's playing (not playing/)
GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 00:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh no, she should. In fact, it's really important she does. There are casualties on both sides of the culture war: girls who grow up thinking they have to scream and shout their identity for any respect at all, and boys who reject that and retreat into the secret-clubhouse nerd-bro culture. Sorry for the tl;dr, I'm agreeing with you. There's just a lot of un-needed fallout on both sides of the issue that makes people look terrible and can be totally avoidable if more people just had awareness of stuff like your original link above and knew about the issue before engaging in discussions about it. ±KnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 01:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome to the clubhouse. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- If I had a dime for every time I linked that article to friends and online acquaintances I certainly would have a lot more dimes than I have now. ±KnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- If I had a dime for every time I linked that article to friends and online acquaintances I certainly would have a lot more dimes than I have now. ±
- Welcome to the clubhouse. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh no, she should. In fact, it's really important she does. There are casualties on both sides of the culture war: girls who grow up thinking they have to scream and shout their identity for any respect at all, and boys who reject that and retreat into the secret-clubhouse nerd-bro culture. Sorry for the tl;dr, I'm agreeing with you. There's just a lot of un-needed fallout on both sides of the issue that makes people look terrible and can be totally avoidable if more people just had awareness of stuff like your original link above and knew about the issue before engaging in discussions about it. ±
- I always have mixed feelings about this sort of thing, because this situation is often invoked by immature people trying to use it to claim identity. There are a lot of people I know who are incredibly defensive about being a 'girl gamer' without even being attacked in the first place. You know, the kids you want to give the 'A+ Ovaries award' (very loudly doing normal things while constantly trumpeting one is female) to... but it's not at all OK to dismiss this stuff because as annoying as the fallout can be, the root of the matter (which this case demonstrates!) is serious buisness. It's a response to a culture that does treat them as unwanted in the clubhouse, when really it shouldn't matter who is what gender when it comes to preferred activities and social circles. I've run the life cycle of resentment for this kind of stuff (A+ Ovaries award -> stopping and trying to understand the issue before I lash out-> taking a greater interest in cultural stigmas) and come out the other side. It's just a hailstorm of misinformation and unwillngness to understand, which then has greater backlash than just sore behinds: it connects concepts like Feminism to the issue in a completely wrong way and changes how some people define the term... perhaps for the rest of their lives if they don't want to become informed. ±
I am pressured to hate Halo, Red Dead Redemption, Force Unleashed, Knights of the Old Republic 1 Fable 1, Mario Brothers 1 & 3 & Mario 64 and Medle of Honer, I also own Knights of the Old Republic 2 (dispite its cripuling and incomplete development) Fable 2, Fable 3 Finale Fantasy 13 Dragon Age 1 and 2 because you can choose your gender and in all the last six I chose a female character to play whith as much cloths on as possible. I also enjoyed playing the sims and have created characters of both sexes and above all Storybook Weaver where the player can create their own characters but I know that is not enough to call me an equalist because I'm a member of the target audiance and there fore I am the oppressor. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- ... I honestly don't know how to reply to that. --il'Dictator Mikal 08:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know. "Shut up, kiddo, you are not making any sense."--ZooGuard (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I played Unreal Tournament exclusively with the female skins for years because a) I liked the boobies and c) they presented a marginally smaller target. So, what was this about, again?
postate 08:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I played Unreal Tournament exclusively with the female skins for years because a) I liked the boobies and c) they presented a marginally smaller target. So, what was this about, again?
- I know. "Shut up, kiddo, you are not making any sense."--ZooGuard (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you really pressured to hate those games? How so? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- And Weasel again makes the comment i'd have made. This isn't about pressuring you not to play whatever the heck you want to play, however you want to play it. It's about developers, producers, authors etc., saying "maybe we are not only buying into particular views and sterotypes of women, but actually creating them, and creating an envionment where women are unable to have real options in life from 'day one". And the answer might be "nope, we are truly ballanced". Being a woman, i suspect that's not the answer, but you never know till you at least ASK the question of yourself and your product. GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 19:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I play some of those games (who hasn't played Mario?) and I'm failing to see the castrating man-hatred here. Gaming has always been a boys' club -- anyone who's played an online FPS knows that sexism (and racism, for that matter) is tolerated and sometimes encouraged outside of moderated servers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Guess what you have only reinforced my statement that the games are boycotted and pressured to be hated. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar is the one who is saying that games are targeted at chauvinist pigs and Neo-Nazis. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, he's talking about the behavior of the players. Also, one doesn't need to be a Neo-Nazi to be racist (or a "chauvinist pig" to be sexist). Anyway, your statement about games being "boycotted and pressured to be hated" doesn't make much sense, either logically or grammatically. I suggest a remedial writing class and/or waiting until you grow up a bit.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- BoN, you have some strange ideas about what people are saying. You should pay more attention to what people actual say before coming up with these baffling knee-jerk responses. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- BoN, you have some strange ideas about what people are saying. You should pay more attention to what people actual say before coming up with these baffling knee-jerk responses. Wèàšèìòìď
Being a racist makes you a Neo-Nazi, Black Panther, al-Qaeda member or what ever your race is and being misogynistic against women makes you a chauvinist and being misandric against men will also make you a chauvinist. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are so many things wrong with that statement... Neo-Nazis are advocating for a particular political system, al-Qaeda is based on religion not race, and lumping the Black Panthers in with those other groups is just offensive. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 05:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- oh good lord dont reply to him, is a brick wall --il'Dictator Mikal 05:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. We've gone about as far as we can go in terms of constructive dialogue with a guy who's just not interested in listening. I took a look at his comments at Wikipedia & they're all along the same lines. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I've submitted the "Feminist are not perfect" screed from above to FSTDT. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- "All forms of feminism are in reality radicals in discuise. Just like every denomination of Christinatiy are the same thing because they all believe in Jesus was the son of god and in the case of feminism they all believe in the Patriarchy there fore they all hate men period. - Sweet mother of bad English! theist 12:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- "All forms of feminism are in reality radicals in discuise. Just like every denomination of Christinatiy are the same thing because they all believe in Jesus was the son of god and in the case of feminism they all believe in the Patriarchy there fore they all hate men period. - Sweet mother of bad English!
- I'm inclined to agree. We've gone about as far as we can go in terms of constructive dialogue with a guy who's just not interested in listening. I took a look at his comments at Wikipedia & they're all along the same lines. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I've submitted the "Feminist are not perfect" screed from above to FSTDT. Wéáśéĺóíď
- oh good lord dont reply to him, is a brick wall --il'Dictator Mikal 05:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't think that all whites are narrow minded racist, all muslims are terrorist or all that all blacks are mindless hate crimanals I am just saying if you hold a grudge, or discrimanate against one or more collective then you are just as bad as the hate groups. No I don't think that women should be bullied and abused, be subdugated and reduced to do the lion share of the housework. Infact I'm disgusted by it. I just fell they think we are the oppressor. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, long story short here: are there feminists who are anti-male? Sure. All groups have their radical idiots. Does this mean all, most, or even a sizable portion of feminists fit this category? Not at all. Now, it's clear from reading your comments here and at WP that you're not very bright. I think you said something about special ed classes above, and frankly I'm not surprised. I'm sorry you don't have the mental capacity to really understand complex issues; it must be tough. That being said, this site doesn't really seem to be for you. You'd fit in much better with the less intelligent people at Conservapedia. You actually might feel smart hanging out there, and they'd love your completely misguided notions on feminism. Why not set up an account? Godspeed. DickTurpis (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Feminist portray themselves as misandrist in public I mean look at Lifetime (TV network) all it douse is feed on the fear of women, make them helpless victums and portray all males in a negitive light. That represents the entire movement because all it has achieved is promoting Double standerds and increased the fear and hatred of both genders and there for all feminist think and act exactly alike. No wounder why no woman is where any man is. I have not come on this site for my intelligence (which I believe my IQ to be 22) but to debate over a topic that is both overated and underated in a sense that it belives and practices equality or fails misurably like communism since none of the soviet states where succussful in bringing it particually in eradicating poverty. The reason why I can't set up a account is because it keeps on disappearing when I return to the shoping center since I'm blocked by this site's community and everything to do with feminism including the site known as TV Tropes. I apoligise for my overeaction against athism in the other page. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK kid, last try. You say "all feminist think and act exactly alike", and also "they all believe all males are the oppressor even if we agree with tham" and "all male are automatically Chauvinist pigs and violant potintial rapist from birth no matter how far away we are from mindless animals we are or how much we are opposing misogony". So you're criticising feminists for thinking all men are same, while also claiming that all feminists as the same. Can't you see how hypocritical that is? You even say "the arguement of feminism is just black and white", and elsewhere "I just see everything as black and white".
WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The last few days I have come to regret much of what I have said on this site and realise my hostilities where an error and there for I apoligise like I did with atheism above. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hate to start another controversy...[edit]
...but should this guy be defaultsorted to "AmazingAtheist, The"? Balaam (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- AHHHHHHHHHH Тytalk 13:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, the use of the article is not a grammatical convention but a specific characteristic of his chosen name. We're not talking about just one generic amazing atheist, we're talking about TheAmazingAtheist (who is, by the way, not amazing).--
talk
08:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixing this article[edit]
This article is filled with a lot of blatant hatred and twisted facts.
Can we seriously just change this so that it's objective and focuses on his youtube instead of how much a bunch of people hate him? It seems pretty immature to me. — Unsigned, by: Revenir / talk / contribs
- Unlike the totally mature behavior of its subject? No, no whitewashes, please.--ZooGuard (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, because everyone should act like an immature brat. That's totally what real encyclopedias do; they just write whatever bullshit about that asshole they hate. Because that really reflects well on the standard of the site as a whole. --Revenir (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. ТyrannisPlead 01:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- We have SPOV here. This guy is a thunderously repellent wad of misogynistic crap, hiding his bitterness under the too-common facade of being "edgy." My only regrets about the tone of this article is that it is impossible to compose a series of words that is capable of physically leaving the server, driving to his house, and peeing into his slippers during the middle of the night. If we had {{fuck this guy and here are some soggy slippers}}, I would immediately put it in this article.
- He is unpleasant, so we will say as much.--talk 03:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is he actually a misogynist, or just a bully who will stop at nothing to get up the nose of those he disagrees with?
ListenerXTalkerX 04:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- From reading what he says - he's a misogynist. He'll say he's not, but that's rather immaterial. "some of my best friends are women". GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 04:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Has he ever stated a belief in the inferiority of women, in contrast to being a real little dirt-bag in his behavior toward certain rape victims? ListenerXTalkerX 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever he is, one thing that is clear is that he has a severe lack of empathy. If he had even the slightest idea of what it is like to be raped (something which I myself can thankfully only imagine), he would not have said the things he did. (((Zack Martin)))™ 04:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- He is one of those people who, when he sees what he perceives to be a sacred cow, thinks it necessary to slaughter it. ListenerXTalkerX 04:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- He dismisses women and their ideas, their voices, their suggestions on how to change the world. Not "argues logically with them" but DISMISSES THEM as irrational, and beneath him. As do several people around here, by the way.GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- But is he doing that because they are women, or just because they disagree with him? ListenerXTalkerX 05:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think he devalues what tend to be distinctively female experiences, which goes back to his lack of empathy. I don't think we can deny, that statistically speaking, average female experiences in our society are in certain ways rather different from average male ones, and I think he fails to appreciate that. (e.g. fear of being raped is more of a realistic concern for adult women than it is for adult men, outside of certain unusual subpopulations such as prison inmates.) (((Zack Martin)))™ 05:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- True, but from what I have seen of his rants, he "devalues" the experiences of everyone he disagrees with. ListenerXTalkerX 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't favour the word "misogynist". I dislike its imprecision and question its helpfulness. I think few men literally "hate women", but that doesn't mean they can't have wrong-headed attitudes; the term "misogynist" tends to turn it into a semantic debate that misses the point. I don't think there can be a doubt he "has issues" with women. Of course, "having issues" with women doesn't exclude him from "having issues" with other groups of people too. (((Zack Martin)))™ 05:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Misogynist" has a very precise meaning. John Knox was a misogynist. Marc Lépine, who killed several women in Montreal in 1989, was a misogynist. ListenerXTalkerX 05:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with labelling Marc Lépine a misogynist. (John Knox, I am aware of the pamphlet of which you are thinking, but I don't feel I have studied the matter sufficiently to comment either way.) TheAmazingAtheist, as disgusting as his behaviour is, it does not to my knowledge rise to the level of Lépine's; and it's unclear how much their psychology is similar or different. TAA might be a misogynist, he might not, I don't know enough to say. But even if he technically isn't a misogynist, he still has very problematic attitudes towards women, and getting bogged down in arguing over whether he technically is or isn't a misogynist is kind of missing the point. (((Zack Martin)))™ 06:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- While I agree that in YOUR WORLD those words have precise definitions, in the real world of gender equality, equality litigation and harrassment litigation, legislation, feminism and feminist ethics, "misogynist" does not mean "hates women" the way you are applying it. Killers, people who walk up to women and say "I hate thee, i hate thee, and thy entire gender". It's like homophobia that it has more to do with your overall view of how women should act in society, should interact in society, and what rights you as a man should have over them. specifically TJ mentions that he "should have a right to look where he wants, because it's natural, and he should not be chasizes for it". He turns women into objects at that second. objectifying women is misogyny. And yes, that means our entire society is slightly misogynist, and that many societies are fully misogynist. As are many religions (all the Abrahamic ones), and many politicians, and the film industry, etc. We live in a world where to be female is to be Other. We've not steped away from that yet. To be "other", is to be part of a misogynist system. GodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 18:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a debate about semantics. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Debates about semantics aren't debates they are circle jerks. Talking about real issues women face from literally the moment they are born, in a society where they have limited access to power, much less a society where they have no access to power is how you "debate". The reason I despise "lesswrong" (is that correct?) is they spend so much time on the narrative style, they don't consider the plot. GodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 22:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- No doubt that some people have very backward attitudes to women's issues. But I'm doubtful that the term "misogyny" (literally, "hate women") is an accurate descriptor of all of them. Probably some of them do in fact literally hate women, but I doubt that most of them do. But whether they do or don't doesn't change the backwardness of their attitudes. (((Zack Martin)))™ 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Debates about semantics aren't debates they are circle jerks. Talking about real issues women face from literally the moment they are born, in a society where they have limited access to power, much less a society where they have no access to power is how you "debate". The reason I despise "lesswrong" (is that correct?) is they spend so much time on the narrative style, they don't consider the plot.
- It's a debate about semantics. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- While I agree that in YOUR WORLD those words have precise definitions, in the real world of gender equality, equality litigation and harrassment litigation, legislation, feminism and feminist ethics, "misogynist" does not mean "hates women" the way you are applying it. Killers, people who walk up to women and say "I hate thee, i hate thee, and thy entire gender". It's like homophobia that it has more to do with your overall view of how women should act in society, should interact in society, and what rights you as a man should have over them. specifically TJ mentions that he "should have a right to look where he wants, because it's natural, and he should not be chasizes for it". He turns women into objects at that second. objectifying women is misogyny. And yes, that means our entire society is slightly misogynist, and that many societies are fully misogynist. As are many religions (all the Abrahamic ones), and many politicians, and the film industry, etc. We live in a world where to be female is to be Other. We've not steped away from that yet. To be "other", is to be part of a misogynist system.
- I have no problem with labelling Marc Lépine a misogynist. (John Knox, I am aware of the pamphlet of which you are thinking, but I don't feel I have studied the matter sufficiently to comment either way.) TheAmazingAtheist, as disgusting as his behaviour is, it does not to my knowledge rise to the level of Lépine's; and it's unclear how much their psychology is similar or different. TAA might be a misogynist, he might not, I don't know enough to say. But even if he technically isn't a misogynist, he still has very problematic attitudes towards women, and getting bogged down in arguing over whether he technically is or isn't a misogynist is kind of missing the point. (((Zack Martin)))™ 06:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Misogynist" has a very precise meaning. John Knox was a misogynist. Marc Lépine, who killed several women in Montreal in 1989, was a misogynist.
- I don't favour the word "misogynist". I dislike its imprecision and question its helpfulness. I think few men literally "hate women", but that doesn't mean they can't have wrong-headed attitudes; the term "misogynist" tends to turn it into a semantic debate that misses the point. I don't think there can be a doubt he "has issues" with women. Of course, "having issues" with women doesn't exclude him from "having issues" with other groups of people too. (((Zack Martin)))™ 05:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- True, but from what I have seen of his rants, he "devalues" the experiences of everyone he disagrees with.
- I think he devalues what tend to be distinctively female experiences, which goes back to his lack of empathy. I don't think we can deny, that statistically speaking, average female experiences in our society are in certain ways rather different from average male ones, and I think he fails to appreciate that. (e.g. fear of being raped is more of a realistic concern for adult women than it is for adult men, outside of certain unusual subpopulations such as prison inmates.) (((Zack Martin)))™ 05:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- But is he doing that because they are women, or just because they disagree with him?
- He dismisses women and their ideas, their voices, their suggestions on how to change the world. Not "argues logically with them" but DISMISSES THEM as irrational, and beneath him. As do several people around here, by the way.
- He is one of those people who, when he sees what he perceives to be a sacred cow, thinks it necessary to slaughter it.
- Whatever he is, one thing that is clear is that he has a severe lack of empathy. If he had even the slightest idea of what it is like to be raped (something which I myself can thankfully only imagine), he would not have said the things he did. (((Zack Martin)))™ 04:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Has he ever stated a belief in the inferiority of women, in contrast to being a real little dirt-bag in his behavior toward certain rape victims?
- From reading what he says - he's a misogynist. He'll say he's not, but that's rather immaterial. "some of my best friends are women".
- Is he actually a misogynist, or just a bully who will stop at nothing to get up the nose of those he disagrees with?
If the consequentialist outcome of his bashing feminists results in less movement for gender equality, and he knowingly does this, then yes, he is misogynist. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- He may or may not be a misogynist, but I don't agree that people who oppose gender equality are necessarily all women-haters (which is what "misogynist" means). I do think they are wrong, but I don't think that is in every case a realistic description of their psychology. Does Phyllis Schlafly hate women? I think her views on gender issues belong in the 19th century, but I don't think it would be accurate or fair to call her a misogynist. (((Zack Martin)))™ 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Schlafly I actually would consider misogynist, due to her views on marital rape. Still, you have a good point; there's no hard evidence that TAA is misogynist. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- If Phyllis Schlafly, a woman, is a misogynist (i.e. hates women), does it follow that Schlafly hates herself? I don't agree with any of her opinions, but labelling a woman a woman-hater just seems dumb. It's like those Zionists who keep on trying to label Noam Chomsky an antisemite - I'll file the misogynist woman right next to the antisemitic Jew. It's dumb. (((Zack Martin)))™ 23:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Saying that someone is not a misogynist just because they are a woman does not make sense. Of course, the specific issues she takes the misogynist stance on, such as marital rape, conveniently do not apply to her. It may seem weird, but ideology can turn people into tools against themselves. Perhaps this is on a less extreme level, but compare to all the middle class Republicans. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Phyllis Schlafly has all manner of warped ideas, including on the issue of rape. But she doesn't hate women. There is absolutely zero evidence that Phyllis Schlafly hates women. Having warped and extremely backward ideas on gender issues doesn't mean she hates women. You are just jumping from "having warped ideas" to "hating women" when there is no evidence to support the jump from A to B. And being a "tool agianst yourself" is not the same thing as hating yourself and a group you belong to. You may well be right that middle class Republicans support policies that ultimately undermine their own best interests, but they don't do so out of hatred for the middle class; by the same token, anti-feminist women often have self-limiting ideas that ultimately undermine their own self-interests, but that doesn't mean that anti-feminist women hate women. (((Zack Martin)))™ 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are again conflating the literal/technical meaning of "misogynist" with the more relaxed, figurative use of the word common in feminist speech. Compare to "transphobic".--ZooGuard (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's differences though. Going back to the Greek roots, miso- means hate, -phobia means fear. Accusing people of hatred is a stronger accusation than accusing them of fear. Another difference is the advocacy of extermination. Many homophobes, if you asked them "In a perfect world, would homosexuals exist?" They'd say "No". Likewise many transphobes would say "In a perfect world, transsexuals/transgenders would not exist". And quite a few antisemites would say "In a perfect world, Jews would not exist". But how many "misogynists" would say "In a perfect world, women would not exist"? Very few. So the terminology is rather back to front - we use the weaker root to describe the stronger position, and the stronger root to describe the weaker one. Heterosexuality as a social institution and as a method of reproduction puts limits on the possibilities for misogyny or misandry - it is hard to hate all women or all men, when doing so means hating your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, your daughter, your son, etc. No such natural limits are imposed on the capacity of hatred for GLBT people or for members of other racial/ethnic groups. Few anti-feminists literally hate or fear women, but very many anti-GLBTs literally hate and fear GLBT people. (((Zack Martin)))™ 04:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, hating all GLBT people sometimes does inevitably involve hating members of your own family — but not always. Whereas, given heterosexual reproduction, hating all men or all women really does imply hating members of your own family. So heterosexual reproduction contingently limits GLBT-hatred, but necessarily limits women-hatred and man-hatred. (((Zack Martin)))™ 04:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's differences though. Going back to the Greek roots, miso- means hate, -phobia means fear. Accusing people of hatred is a stronger accusation than accusing them of fear. Another difference is the advocacy of extermination. Many homophobes, if you asked them "In a perfect world, would homosexuals exist?" They'd say "No". Likewise many transphobes would say "In a perfect world, transsexuals/transgenders would not exist". And quite a few antisemites would say "In a perfect world, Jews would not exist". But how many "misogynists" would say "In a perfect world, women would not exist"? Very few. So the terminology is rather back to front - we use the weaker root to describe the stronger position, and the stronger root to describe the weaker one. Heterosexuality as a social institution and as a method of reproduction puts limits on the possibilities for misogyny or misandry - it is hard to hate all women or all men, when doing so means hating your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, your daughter, your son, etc. No such natural limits are imposed on the capacity of hatred for GLBT people or for members of other racial/ethnic groups. Few anti-feminists literally hate or fear women, but very many anti-GLBTs literally hate and fear GLBT people. (((Zack Martin)))™ 04:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are again conflating the literal/technical meaning of "misogynist" with the more relaxed, figurative use of the word common in feminist speech. Compare to "transphobic".--ZooGuard (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Phyllis Schlafly has all manner of warped ideas, including on the issue of rape. But she doesn't hate women. There is absolutely zero evidence that Phyllis Schlafly hates women. Having warped and extremely backward ideas on gender issues doesn't mean she hates women. You are just jumping from "having warped ideas" to "hating women" when there is no evidence to support the jump from A to B. And being a "tool agianst yourself" is not the same thing as hating yourself and a group you belong to. You may well be right that middle class Republicans support policies that ultimately undermine their own best interests, but they don't do so out of hatred for the middle class; by the same token, anti-feminist women often have self-limiting ideas that ultimately undermine their own self-interests, but that doesn't mean that anti-feminist women hate women. (((Zack Martin)))™ 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Saying that someone is not a misogynist just because they are a woman does not make sense. Of course, the specific issues she takes the misogynist stance on, such as marital rape, conveniently do not apply to her. It may seem weird, but ideology can turn people into tools against themselves. Perhaps this is on a less extreme level, but compare to all the middle class Republicans. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- If Phyllis Schlafly, a woman, is a misogynist (i.e. hates women), does it follow that Schlafly hates herself? I don't agree with any of her opinions, but labelling a woman a woman-hater just seems dumb. It's like those Zionists who keep on trying to label Noam Chomsky an antisemite - I'll file the misogynist woman right next to the antisemitic Jew. It's dumb. (((Zack Martin)))™ 23:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Schlafly I actually would consider misogynist, due to her views on marital rape. Still, you have a good point; there's no hard evidence that TAA is misogynist. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is it so unreasonable for people to hate their mother, father, etc.? It makes more sense if you call it "contempt" rather than "hate", as it's certainly easy to feel contempt for an entire gender, especially since that contempt is towards a group, not necessarily towards all the individual members of that group. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- So, back to Phyllis Schlafly... she has contempt for women as a group, but not necessarily towards all the individual members of that group? I doubt she has contempt for herself, and there's probably plenty of other women she doesn't individually have contempt for either. But I'm not convinced there is any evidence Schlafly actually has contempt for woman as a group. Acting against the best interests of women is not evidence for contempt; I think it is more likely that she honestly albeit mistakenly believes she is acting in women's best interests, and has no contempt for women as a group at all. I'm not sure what it means to have contempt for a group vs. an individual. The closest analogy I can think of is "I have contempt for all Jews except the ones I actually know" antisemitism; but I don't think that model fits anti-feminist women very well - it is a model which assumes one is standing outside the reference group, rather than existing within it. (((Zack Martin)))™ 06:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Because you are still adhering to a very literal meaning of misogyny. It's an attitude that women are of less value than men, not an explicit "I hate them all" belief. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Yeah, but if I define misogyny like this, then he's not a misogynist! And I'm therefore right!" d hominem 11:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that TAA wasn't a misogynist. I don't say he is one either. He has a severe lack of empathy and some very backward attitudes towards gender issues, but whether he is a misogynist or not I don't claim to know — I lack insight into his internal psychology. But seriously, if people are going to use recent coinages with Greek roots, they really should pay some attention to what those Greek roots actually mean. If they can't be bothered, maybe they should just stick to native English compounds instead (e.g. woman-hater or woman-contempter or woman-devaluer or whatever they feel best expresses their point.) (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- What really bugs me zack, is your instance that words are static, and do (or should) mean what their roots mean, or what they meant in their foreign language. Cause we all know Aweful means full of awe today, and ignore has the same meaning it did when we stole it from french, or that "ninja", "anime" or spring rolls are in any way related to something in their host language. It's a weak ass argument to say "homophobes don't really FEAR gays, the dislike them". The question is - why are women disliked by this community? Why is there a need to disparage women by this community, and does this guy go out of his way to harm women, their personal and cultural identity, and does he attempt to better his standing in his own eyes and the eyes of his equally women bashing brethern by making fun of women. I don't really give a shit if you don't like the term. Make up another one. The fact is, he's a sexist, selfish, harmful, intolerant, emotionally violent, child who needs to shut down women. GodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 16:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going to reply with something similar, but WfG put it much better than I would. Words are given meaning not just by their etymological origin but by the contexts they are used in & the way the people who use them & the people who read or hear them understand them. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you remove the terminology completely and just describe his views in a very "brute force" manner (i.e., cite his actual quotes), you'll find that simply calling him a "misogynist" with little additional commentary actually makes him sound like less of a douche. gnostic 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- WfG, I agree with a lot of what you say about TAA. But has "misogyny" really changed its meaning since it entered the English language in the 17th century? (which I was surprised to discover, I had somehow thought it was newer) Merriam-Webster defines it as "hatred of women", which is identical to a literal reading of the Greek roots. Random House broadens it a bit with "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women". Wiktionary has "hatred or contempt for women". (Anyone have access to the full OED?) It looks like its meaning today is roughly the same as it was in the 17th century, it doesn't seem to have shifted much from the original roots. What I think has happened though, is that some feminists have formed the view that if a person expresses sexists views against women, or advocates policy's that act against women's best interests, they must be a misogynist (have hatred or dislike or mistrust or contempt for women). And in some cases they quite possibly do - maybe TAA is one of those cases, but to say so we'd need insight into the internal psychology behind his statements, which I don't think we have. But, Phyllis Schlafly, or other anti-feminist women like her, I really don't believe one can realistically claim that they hate women, or dislike women, or mistrust women, or have contempt for them. She may advocate policies that are in fact against the best interests of women, but she does so in the honest yet mistaken belief that the policies she advocates are in women's best interests. That is not an approach based on hatred or dislike or mistrust or contempt; it is based on misguided beneficence. And if anti-feminist women like Phyllis Schlafly aren't misogynists, that would then suggest that maybe at least some anti-feminist men aren't misogynists either. I think many, even most, anti-feminist men aren't actually misogynists — they don't hate their mothers, their sisters, their wives, their daughters, and the many other women in their life. Like Phyllis Schlafly, if they act against women's collective interests, I think that is more often based on an honest but mistaken belief they are doing the right thing, as opposed to consciously acting against another person's or group's best interests out of animus. Compare anti-feminism to anti-semitism — how many antisemites honestly believe they are acting in the best interests of Jews? Probably very few. How many anti-feminists honestly believe they are acting in the best interests of women? Probably very many. I say they are mistaken in that belief; but, if the issue is trying to understand their psychology, then it is the nature and honesty of their belief that counts, not its truthfulness. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting even more pointless, cause you are hung up on a word, but I'll go here. "women" does not mean "individuals in my life who happen to have boobs and vaginas (Vagina!!)." "women", like "blacks", like "old people", like "gay" is a classifier, in the most literal sense. It identifies a class. No, you do not hate your mother when you are mysogynist, you hate "women" the CONCEPT of women, the class of women, the sense of women in power, the changing role of women, the rights of women, and the associated loss of all of that for your class. In the same way "I have a best friend who is black, how can i hate blacks". In the same sense "I knew someone who had to have an abortion, so how can you say I've never thought about women's needs in that area". When we are talking about these racist, sexist, genderist, whatever other "ist" notions, it's not really about a particular or many or any particular persons. Its' about the class. And teh power that class has; and the power that class is taking from your class. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, but there you go. GodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 01:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations Zack on turning this into a semantic debate that misses the point (something you accused others of doing further up the page). Isn't it nice to just forget about the real complex issues & focus in on a nice arbitrarily literal reading of a common word. (See e.g. the "rape isn’t fatal" quote in this article). WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- @WfG, I don't think Phyllis Schlafly hates "the concept of women" or "the class of women". I don't think she necessarily even hates the concept of "women in power" - while she would oppose some feminist understandings of that concept, she herself exercised significant political influence as a woman, and encouraged like-minded women to emulate her in that regard. I don't think the "hating a group" vs. "hating individuals who make up that group" distinction works a lot of the time: I can see it works in some cases — e.g. the anti-semite who hates Jews in general, but happens to like all the Jews he actually personally knows — but I don't think that applies to most anti-feminists — the anti-semite likely views the individual Jews they know as exceptional ("she's/he's one of the few good ones"), while the anti-feminist is less likely to view the individual women they know as exceptional. @Weaseloid, it wasn't I who brought the word into the discussion. If people are going to use a word, they need to face the fact that other people may have different opinions on how that word is to be used than they do, and their views on usage might not be the most defensible. (((Zack Martin)))™ 01:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations Zack on turning this into a semantic debate that misses the point (something you accused others of doing further up the page). Isn't it nice to just forget about the real complex issues & focus in on a nice arbitrarily literal reading of a common word. (See e.g. the "rape isn’t fatal" quote in this article). Wėąṣėḷőįď
- This is getting even more pointless, cause you are hung up on a word, but I'll go here. "women" does not mean "individuals in my life who happen to have boobs and vaginas (Vagina!!)." "women", like "blacks", like "old people", like "gay" is a classifier, in the most literal sense. It identifies a class. No, you do not hate your mother when you are mysogynist, you hate "women" the CONCEPT of women, the class of women, the sense of women in power, the changing role of women, the rights of women, and the associated loss of all of that for your class. In the same way "I have a best friend who is black, how can i hate blacks". In the same sense "I knew someone who had to have an abortion, so how can you say I've never thought about women's needs in that area". When we are talking about these racist, sexist, genderist, whatever other "ist" notions, it's not really about a particular or many or any particular persons. Its' about the class. And teh power that class has; and the power that class is taking from your class. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, but there you go.
- WfG, I agree with a lot of what you say about TAA. But has "misogyny" really changed its meaning since it entered the English language in the 17th century? (which I was surprised to discover, I had somehow thought it was newer) Merriam-Webster defines it as "hatred of women", which is identical to a literal reading of the Greek roots. Random House broadens it a bit with "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women". Wiktionary has "hatred or contempt for women". (Anyone have access to the full OED?) It looks like its meaning today is roughly the same as it was in the 17th century, it doesn't seem to have shifted much from the original roots. What I think has happened though, is that some feminists have formed the view that if a person expresses sexists views against women, or advocates policy's that act against women's best interests, they must be a misogynist (have hatred or dislike or mistrust or contempt for women). And in some cases they quite possibly do - maybe TAA is one of those cases, but to say so we'd need insight into the internal psychology behind his statements, which I don't think we have. But, Phyllis Schlafly, or other anti-feminist women like her, I really don't believe one can realistically claim that they hate women, or dislike women, or mistrust women, or have contempt for them. She may advocate policies that are in fact against the best interests of women, but she does so in the honest yet mistaken belief that the policies she advocates are in women's best interests. That is not an approach based on hatred or dislike or mistrust or contempt; it is based on misguided beneficence. And if anti-feminist women like Phyllis Schlafly aren't misogynists, that would then suggest that maybe at least some anti-feminist men aren't misogynists either. I think many, even most, anti-feminist men aren't actually misogynists — they don't hate their mothers, their sisters, their wives, their daughters, and the many other women in their life. Like Phyllis Schlafly, if they act against women's collective interests, I think that is more often based on an honest but mistaken belief they are doing the right thing, as opposed to consciously acting against another person's or group's best interests out of animus. Compare anti-feminism to anti-semitism — how many antisemites honestly believe they are acting in the best interests of Jews? Probably very few. How many anti-feminists honestly believe they are acting in the best interests of women? Probably very many. I say they are mistaken in that belief; but, if the issue is trying to understand their psychology, then it is the nature and honesty of their belief that counts, not its truthfulness. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you remove the terminology completely and just describe his views in a very "brute force" manner (i.e., cite his actual quotes), you'll find that simply calling him a "misogynist" with little additional commentary actually makes him sound like less of a douche.
- Yes, I was going to reply with something similar, but WfG put it much better than I would. Words are given meaning not just by their etymological origin but by the contexts they are used in & the way the people who use them & the people who read or hear them understand them. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- What really bugs me zack, is your instance that words are static, and do (or should) mean what their roots mean, or what they meant in their foreign language. Cause we all know Aweful means full of awe today, and ignore has the same meaning it did when we stole it from french, or that "ninja", "anime" or spring rolls are in any way related to something in their host language. It's a weak ass argument to say "homophobes don't really FEAR gays, the dislike them". The question is - why are women disliked by this community? Why is there a need to disparage women by this community, and does this guy go out of his way to harm women, their personal and cultural identity, and does he attempt to better his standing in his own eyes and the eyes of his equally women bashing brethern by making fun of women. I don't really give a shit if you don't like the term. Make up another one. The fact is, he's a sexist, selfish, harmful, intolerant, emotionally violent, child who needs to shut down women.
- I never said that TAA wasn't a misogynist. I don't say he is one either. He has a severe lack of empathy and some very backward attitudes towards gender issues, but whether he is a misogynist or not I don't claim to know — I lack insight into his internal psychology. But seriously, if people are going to use recent coinages with Greek roots, they really should pay some attention to what those Greek roots actually mean. If they can't be bothered, maybe they should just stick to native English compounds instead (e.g. woman-hater or woman-contempter or woman-devaluer or whatever they feel best expresses their point.) (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Yeah, but if I define misogyny like this, then he's not a misogynist! And I'm therefore right!"
- Because you are still adhering to a very literal meaning of misogyny. It's an attitude that women are of less value than men, not an explicit "I hate them all" belief. Wëäŝëïöïď
Staring and objectifying[edit]
- first comment moved down from further up; inserted out of sequence in an old discussion
If you do not think that is reciprocated from female to male, you are an idiot. Anyone should be able to look or stare at anything, it literally does no harm. It is not degrading just to be looked at (although you may find it slightly awkward), and this works the same way for both genders. Viewing someone as an object is what people do until they interact with that person. Calling people misogynists for just looking at another person is stupid, and by your own definition would also make the majority of females, the film industry etc misandrists.— Unsigned, by: Exorania / talk / contribs 5 February 2013
- So much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.
- "Viewing someone as an object is what people do until they interact with that person." Rubbish. We have a thing called empathy and can appreciate that other people have thoughts and feelings, and treat them accordingly. If you don't, it's your loss, but don't assume everyone else is as solipsistic/misanthropic as you.
- "Anyone should be able to look or stare at anything, it literally does no harm. It is not degrading just to be looked at". It can be. The "it does no harm" argument is stupid; just a variation on the old "it's only words" platitude which, if you follow its logical implications, suggests that anything other than physical injury or damaged property is completely insignificant. No, obviously what people think and say and how they behave are important and can have an impact on what other people think and say and how they feel and behave. That includes staring at somebody & making them feel uncomfortable, or like you like are treating them as an object, a freak, or whatever. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's actually QUITE degrading to be looked at, stared at. Ever been a 13 year old girl, who "popped" a year or two ahead of the other girls? most teens will react in one of two ways - hiding, by wearing big sweaters, sweatshirts, holding their books in front of themselves; or going out of the way to prove they WANT to be looked at, to attempt to take control of what they know is alraedy happening. Kinda like my cat who slams into a wall, then holds her head up "that was my plan all along". Neither is good for a teen's self image. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's actually QUITE degrading to be looked at, stared at. Ever been a 13 year old girl, who "popped" a year or two ahead of the other girls? most teens will react in one of two ways - hiding, by wearing big sweaters, sweatshirts, holding their books in front of themselves; or going out of the way to prove they WANT to be looked at, to attempt to take control of what they know is alraedy happening. Kinda like my cat who slams into a wall, then holds her head up "that was my plan all along". Neither is good for a teen's self image.
Of course I was not literally talking about an object, and people understand others do have thoughts and feelings. But you will never actually know the people who you just walk past on the street or whatever, so it is difficult to view them as you would a friend or someone you at least know the name of. It's like an advertisement of a product, where the focus is on what the person is advertising, rather than on the actual person, even though you realise that there is clearly more to the person then that. " The "it does no harm" argument is stupid; just a variation on the old "it's only words" platitude." No it isnt, words generally convey a whole lot more meaning then just looking does, otherwise language would be useless. Youre also suggesting that saying something offensive is on par with being stared at. I would prefer to be stared at then be berated with insults. Your interpretation of what a person is thinking when they look at you can make you feel a certain way depending on the circumstance, but there is still nothing wrong with being looked at. Your rights are not being taken away and it works both ways, you have just as much right to look back at the person staring at you. It is the persons own self esteem that influences how they view being looked at, and do people really need protection from realising their own self image. Naturally I realise being stared at for a long time will get creepy, but that is the way our society views it and the way we were brought up with it, rather than anything that is inherently wrong with being viewed with interest. — Unsigned, by: Exorania / talk / contribs
- Are you somebody who is regularly stared at? I'm going to guess probably not. You might not have such a blasé attitude towards it if you had to experience it first hand. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I do get stared at every now and then, I'm average looking so it happens. I still do have a blasé attitude towards it because all it shows is someones interest in you. Half the problem is that if its someone you dont find sexually attractive looking at you, you will be offended (that appears to be the attitude most people have anyway) and if you do find them sexually attractive the look will be returned (self esteem, place where youre at etc considered). --Exorania (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, I mean, there's this hot chick at work but when I got out my plonker and was giving it a good old tug she got all uptight about it and complained about sexual harassment. I don't get it. I wasn't causing her any harm. In fact she ought to be flattered that I find her hot enough to turn me on. It's all the fault of those feminazis, innit. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Innocent Bystander, Im pretty sure you would agree that being looked at is not the same as being stared at while someone masturbates at you -_- In any case, imagine a hypothetical society where walking up to and masturbating in front of whichever sex a person is interested in was the norm to express sexual interest, like everyone did it, and if the person wasnt interested they just said go away and the rejected party would . Would you still say that whoever is the recipient of this practice is being sexually harrassed? Im asking this because I want to show there is a vast difference in witnessing something sexual, and being physically involved in something sexual against your will. Even if we would be repulsed by seeing someone do what I just mentioned, that is a societal factor, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. --Exorania (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- FSM, another walking piece of evidence that TAA's most vocal fans are either neuroatypical, or severely socially sheltered.
Youre right, disagreeing with you makes me neuroatypical. I see some small irony there --Exorania (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Exosomething, there's a difference between "looking at", "staring at" and "undressing someone with one's eyes". I don't know how old are you and from which planet you've fallen, but here's a tip: the direction of one's look and for how long it lingers is a type of social signal, part of what is called "non-verbal communication". It doesn't matter what amount of "meaning" it carries relative to words, the absolute amount is not zero. Insisting that it's irrelevant won't make it so, it will make people avoid you. (And, by the way, non-verbal communication is something both computer geeks and neuroatypicals are considered to be bad at, so antics such as TAA's are entirely unsurprising to some.)
- Where I come from, staring at someone in certain places and times of the day can get you beaten up, or at least having to defend yourself in a fight. I'd love to see Kincaid in a fight against the people I'm thinking of, though I guess it would be rather short. :D--ZooGuard (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
And you think it is right to be beaten up for looking at someone? The people on this site are more fucked up than I thought. I realise looks carry meaning, originally I clearly didnt explain my position well. Whether or not it is right to be offended about someone looking at you though is another question. Privacy about your COVERED body is stupid, it is who you are and people seeing that should not offend you, if you dont want to be seen that is your problem, because you can in turn see everyone else. Nobody's rights are imposed upon, its the persons own insecurities that make it awkward. I see that society is not at the stage of accepting that, but since this is rational wiki, I thought perhaps the people on rationalwiki would realise how irrational being offended at being looked at is. The less invented concerns we have, the more we can focus on real concerns. --Exorania (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- What about touching people? Is that the same? It does no harm, right? & If they have a problem with it, well that's just their problem not yours. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, your body is yours and yours alone to do whatever you want with I believe. Someone touching it without your consent is messing with your own control over your body. Whereas, someone looking at it does not. --Exorania (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
True Scotsmen[edit]
I don't think the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to the Feminism section of the article.
- No True Scotsman would be saying something like, “TAA isn’t a TRUE atheist because he wrote bad things about rape victims.
- TAA’s critics aren’t denying that he’s an atheist. His critics are saying that they have different views on rape and he doesn’t represent them.
I’ll give other examples.
- The late Myra Hindley didn’t represent me or the majority of English women though she was English and female.
- The late Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t represent most American men either.
TAA doesn’t represent American men despite being one, he doesn’t represent atheists worldwide despite being one. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I say, I say that's a joke, son. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've taken the NTS link out. Possibly a joke, but confusing nevertheless. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Always glorious when this site wears its biases on its sleeve. --Revolverman (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jokes that people can understand get taken out to make RationalWiki more sophisticated, example. Then the jokes that are allowed are so sophisticated few readers can understand them. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is critical thinking a necessary part of Atheism? TAA has decided he's the ultimate arbiter of what is correct. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Jokes that people can understand get taken out to make RationalWiki more sophisticated, example. Then the jokes that are allowed are so sophisticated few readers can understand them. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Always glorious when this site wears its biases on its sleeve. --Revolverman (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've taken the NTS link out. Possibly a joke, but confusing nevertheless. Wéáśéĺóíď
"TJ."[edit]
Why are you insistent on being on a buddy-buddy basis with the subject of the article? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I feel as if you don't have a sufficient understanding of English-speaking culture. Insisting on only using someone's last name is awkward and forced, and insultery sounds more scathing when it's more personal anyways. (talk to a) Nihilist 17:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what? Do you read newspapers and books? In English? Because I see few articles in, say, Foreign Affairs that use "Barack" or "Vladimir," and most of the books I've read on, say, political theory tend to use "Marx" or "Gramsci," not "Karl" and "Antonio." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I guess i forgot this was a formal article on Foreign Affairs/a book on political theory. (talk to a) Nihilist 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be a jerk. The overwhelming majority of our articles refer to people by their last name, insultingly or not. You have yet to make a case for why this should be different. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe that should be changed; but fine, i concede. I should pick my battles better. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not to defend either position, but the use of first names at a site that largely uses last names either says "he's our friend, and we know him", or "this is an amusing source of derision", like when papers DO use first name. "you're not worthy of formal treatment." Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 15:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not to defend either position, but the use of first names at a site that largely uses last names either says "he's our friend, and we know him", or "this is an amusing source of derision", like when papers DO use first name. "you're not worthy of formal treatment."
- Maybe that should be changed; but fine, i concede. I should pick my battles better. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be a jerk. The overwhelming majority of our articles refer to people by their last name, insultingly or not. You have yet to make a case for why this should be different. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I guess i forgot this was a formal article on Foreign Affairs/a book on political theory. (talk to a) Nihilist 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what? Do you read newspapers and books? In English? Because I see few articles in, say, Foreign Affairs that use "Barack" or "Vladimir," and most of the books I've read on, say, political theory tend to use "Marx" or "Gramsci," not "Karl" and "Antonio." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)