![]() |
|
Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#46 | ||
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/op...ary-ideas.html Quote:
*I actually organized a dinner once where McElroy spoke about some of the strange turns of feminism. She's a marvelous intellectual and none of the women in my audience felt threatened. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 772
|
Your kidding right? You've had a dinner party with Wendy McElroy? I love her work! I've binged-read half of her articles.
Her version of individualist feminism is what feminism was supposed to become... Before it mutated into the current form of a one eyed hunchback with the 3 wise monkey tramp stamp. edit: Oh and just to clarify how ridicules it is - What Wendy does in her treaties about the political use of rape - telling rape victims that their rape is a trauma that can heal, that it doesn't make them into life long victims, doesn't define them, and even that it's probably not going to be the worst thing that will happen in their lives... It is probably the most important & empowering thing they are going to hear, especially with so many voices telling them otherwise, and that such voices respond by considering it "invalidating".... Last edited by it; 09-16-2015 at 09:14 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 772
|
It gets worst:
Quote:
Last edited by it; 09-16-2015 at 10:03 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Check the source...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Check the winky face.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Tr, yah, in a previous life I coordinated dinner speaker events with not only McElroy but (WSJ politico) John Fund and (occasional Limbaugh substitute) Walter Williams. I was part of an overall freedom movement until I decided large parts of it were nonsense and I walked away.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 | ||
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Quote:
The case for boycotting Israel and therefore Israeli speakers from participating in campus and other events is something that crops up a lot in the UK. The point there is rarely about wanting to block what is being said, so much as it is making a political statement about the wider culture the speaker nominally represents. It's a little like people boycotting South African sports during the Apartheid era. There are arguments for and against but they are not really arguments of free speech and acceptance of alternative views. The Farrell lecture is a difficult one. I can totally understand why some people at that campus would not to host someone with such extreme views, and one supported by others of even more extreme views. I know I wouldn't want him or his ilk anywhere near me :P But - that kind of response is a double-edged sword. Without the protest, and without the likelihood of such protest, I suspect his event would have had fairly low attendance and be fairly low impact. And if you're going down that route, then you really need to make sure your own house in order. Would those same people have objected to someone from the more extreme edge of the women's movement giving a lecture about how all men are inherently violent rapists and oppressors? I think sometimes it is a mistake to make a noise about it. The same argument that says we shouldn't give, to go back to racism for example, fascistic political parties the oxygen of publicity and the legitimacy of debate by including them in the political debate scene, also really makes the case for not boycotting them in the first place. I have very conflicted feelings on both of the examples you cite. I can see the arguments for and against boycotting them. Overall, I am in favour of college and university students shaping the ethos and contours of the intellectual space they inhabit. The downside of that is that most of those students are in their teens and early 20s and kids of that age who engage in politics tend to be very fierce about it. That's natural - it's a big part of becoming politically engaged and learning where you stand on things and what really matters to you. But it does mean that the responses to this sort of thing often lack nuance.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Ah. Yeah, no, that's bullshit. If you have a problem with the word rape - or are likely to be traumatised by someone arguing against the term 'rape culture' then that is a lecture or debate you should avoid.
There is a point at which attempts to validate experience and outweigh the social and legal paradigm of victim-blaming becomes in itself victim-making. Noone who has been raped should be made to feel like they are to blame, and anybody who has been raped has the right to feel about that however the fuck they do feel about that - but this kind of stuff encourages someone in that position to take it deep and make it a part of themselves at an identity level. If anything this kind of approach, to me, seems potentially damaging to people who are vulnerable and young. I also have a real problem with the way people get offended or hurt by the use of a particular word, regardless of the context in which it is used. It's a bit like that whole furore with Benedict Cumberbatch when he refered to 'coloured' actors. The comment he was making was a progressive and inclusive one - but he thoughtlessly used a word which is outdated and to many people offensive. Everyone focused on his use of that word, instead of what he was saying. Similarly, the word nigger was once in common currency and is naturally present in the literature from that time. If you're going to study that literature, you're going to encounter it. I hate the use of 'the n word'. I have a similar issue with feminists who get really upset if a guy refers to women as 'birds' or calls them 'love'. If the content of what someone is saying is inoffensive then why take deliberate offence at a clumsy or unconscious use of a particular word? Why get offended if someone is a little behind the times - or just didn't get that memo. I routinely have to think about what is the currently acceptable term for people with disabilities, for example. And I'm conscious about this stuff and take a reasonably high degree of responsibility for my use of terminology and the impact it could have on others. The reality is that on this the goal posts are ever-changing. Each generation reinvents the lexicon. That's ok - but we shouldn't be crucifying people for just for employing the wrong word, nor should we be cultivating a sense that we are all just bouncing around from one PTSD inducing trauma to the next in which a word alone can trigger a psychological breakdown. Words can be weapons. I do believe that. They can cause great harm. They are the foundation of some of the worst acts of cruelty we as humans engage in. They shore up hatred and inequality and they sow the seeds of violence against those who are different from us. But only if that's what they are used for. The people who fought against racism and oppression in America's civil rights movement used language and terminology that would make us deeply uncomfortable today.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by DanaC; 09-16-2015 at 12:13 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
I habitually use the word retarded, not as a factual description but in the same way that Sarah Silverman used the word "gay." I don't actually feel bad about it, but I know I have to stop, so I've been trying. It's the only other word that has been elevated to "R-word" levels of anagrammatical euphemism. But I haven't figured out what to replace it with.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 772
|
Quote:
Quote:
I had my own experience with that regarding the first topic, where opinions that would be considered extreme left wing or extreme right wing here within Israel appear equally right wing to those with the political beliefs regarding the middle east in places like the UK/France/Sweden, while from an Israeli perspective the opinions about the middle east and their implications are only distinguishable from Nazism by the lack of sexy uniforms Which brings me to the next and best example: Godwin's law. The reason it exists as a phenomena in the first place is because almost any stance is extreme and fanatic relatively to someone else's further down the spectrum, and there's no agreed upon zero. Likewise, in the interview I linked above, one of the dominant complaint made by the one representing "radical feminism" was the attribution of radicalism and extremism to her stance to began with - from her perspective it's not an extreme, it's something she is used to getting school credits for. The point been, where the norm is will generally be relative to the bubble of information and perspectives you are used to consider and encounter, very much dependent on your own subjective norm. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 772
|
Quote:
Personally my favorite is "batshit crazy", I adopted it off of pen & teller. When something seems so delusional it seems insane, and you don't have to feel bad for making fun of someone or something for been stupid without their control, since batshit crazy kind of suggests more of willful ignorance IMO. Also it's really fun to say when you are pissed off. Try calling someone or something batshit crazy without wanting to throw your hands at the air dramatically, I dare yea. I.E. The PC censorship in colleges has gone batshit crazy (It might be offensive to batman, IDK). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Oh I'm good for names/nouns, my favorite is "shitwit."
But saying, "Well THAT'S batshit crazy," doesn't have the same dismissiveness. It's that great frowning throaty Southern "arr" syllable in retarded that just can't be replicated. "Moronic" comes closest, I guess. I should re-watch some Ron White, I bet there's something useful there. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 772
|
A really interesting comment I found on a relevant PBS idea channel discussion:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 772
|
...Personally, I am finding myself at odds with a lot of that conversation, and a difficult time to not find the idea of PTSD as a disability to be repulsive and offensive in itself (yet - should be allowed to be said). I've have been diagnosed with PTSD, with a first and second opinion annoyingly agreeing, but have never actually thought of it as a disability, and can't even bring myself to think of it as such. Unlike physical disabilities, panic attacks and flashbacks don't prevent me from doing anything I want, they just means there's a bit more shit to go through while your on the way.
I openly seek and sometimes create discussions where I know I might be triggered into panic attacks, not because I find feeling like I can breath exhausting and want to take occasional breaks, but precisely because these are topics that have a lot of weight and personal involvement for me. My own nerves - however raw - are my own responsibility. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|