Utopia Talk / Politics / My comment got deleted under 60 seconds

Aeros Member	Fri May 26 13:38:47 On this article http://www...texas-alamo-drafthouse-1008043 "All I said was that people are not mad about an all women event. They are mad at the double standard surrounding articles like this one. That the same arguments presented in this article can be applied with equal merit to banning black people from a game of thrones screening, or women from a UFC fight night." I guess this qualifies as hate speech now.
pillz Member	Fri May 26 14:02:35 lol
Sam Adams Member	Fri May 26 14:41:32 Its ok to be racist and sexist so long as you do it against white men.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri May 26 14:47:46 Men already have Superman, Batman, and The Joker. What more do you guys want?
Forwyn Member	Fri May 26 14:49:09 I must have missed the part where women are barred from seeing Superman, Batman, or The Joker - or from working the projector, or serving drinks for those films.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 26 14:54:42 Wrong sam. You can not be sexist or racist towards white men to begin with, and that makes perfect sense once you read the works of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida. Probably some others, but start with those. You will learn that "Reason" is just another western european tool to oppress and hold power. Science resting on the concept of reason is a colonial cultural construct of oppression meant to rape and pillage with impunity and under the guise of "reason" and "logic".
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri May 26 14:55:12 I did not say you had exclusive rights to one of them for a single evening. I meant that you have them within your reach where you can sit home alone and watch them on DVD.
Forwyn Member	Fri May 26 15:56:23 Ah. Well then, I guess the Civil Rights Act has been repealed, or has a loophole as long as the discriminated has alternatives.
McKobb Member	Fri May 26 20:34:37 Who is going go buy the popcorn!
hood Member	Fri May 26 20:52:10 Nim had me thinking he was serious for almost half his post. Good job. And of course Hot Rod would be the only person who hates equality and freedom.
jergul large member	Fri May 26 20:59:06 "They also encouraged someone else to host a private men-only event if they so desired." Limited entry venues for 1-off events are entirely acceptable.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri May 26 21:11:19 [Nim]: "Wrong sam. You can not be sexist or racist towards white men to begin with, and that makes perfect sense once you read the works of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida. Probably some others, but start with those. You will learn that "Reason" is just another western european tool to oppress and hold power. Science resting on the concept of reason is a colonial cultural construct of oppression meant to rape and pillage with impunity and under the guise of "reason" and "logic"." (This will sound combative, but it leads to supporting your position on the article, just not supporting your naming of people that you think might be against your position) Nietzsche does not say anything about it being okay for repression to be reversed onto the powerful. He says the opposite actually: that it's not okay ("psychological absurdity") and that this sort of behavior (that of the article) is an example of slave morality — "morality" and virtues reclassified in order to turn slaves into masters and masters into slaves (reversing masters/slaves as opposed to ending slavery; in slave morality, slavery is inflicted upon the newly-despised group; see "On the Genealogy of Morals", First Essay; see also Hegel's "The Phenomenology of Spirit", from which much of Nietzsche's ideas on the subject of slave morality were drawn). This slave morality is clear in the words of "creative manager Morgan Hendrix": "That providing an experience where women truly reign supreme has incurred the wrath of trolls only serves to deepen our belief that we're doing something right". Pay attention to "where women truly reign supreme" — a slave morality logic because these pseudo-feminists do not want equality (wherein no one is ruled), but instead they want to be the masters over a new inequality. Slave morality also appears in the article author's sarcastic words: "a grave injustice some men feel is being committed against the fragile male species" — a sexist remark which indicates that men should "[be tough]" and simply accept unequal discharges of power (the pseudo-feminist's narrative that a history of female victims makes it okay to create male victims in modern day). I haven't read the complete works of Foucault and Derrida, but I'd say from what I've read (read from their own works, not of commentaries *on* their works) that it would be a stretch that this article was how they wanted "morality" to turn. Of the two, I'd defend Derrida the least because he uses too many words to say too little, but for Foucault, for instance, this article would be similar to Nietzsche's thoughts on bad conscience: by creating a segregated space, this theater is gratifying itself by using its powers unjustly against a new "subject": men. The space is being segregated in a private capacity which limits the injustice somewhat, but the intent is still one of mastery rather than equality. And Kant does not fit within your list at all, though that means that he is probably the only one of this list that you should have listed. Nietzsche was largely opposed to Kant and made fun of him often (see, for example, "Twilight of the Idols" (itself summarized in "History of an Error"), which lays out how Kant, among others, was carrying forward the errors of Plato into and beyond Enlightenment thinking). Kant was very much advocating *for* "reason" and "logic" in the Enlightenment sense (the Enlightenment sense, because reason and logic receive different treatments (postmodern treatments, actually) now in the sciences), albeit with huge amounts of error (like his belief that reality was beyond human perceptions), and he is often used as a polar opposite example to postmodernism (i.e., Kant's defining of "Enlightenment" set the stage for modernity, which postmodernism critiques). You were onto something with the references to post-colonialism in the last sentence, but while postmodern thinkers from your list have had some specific commentary on the subject, there exist far better names to critique from your perspective — for example, Edward Saïd, who was critical of Foucault and who did actually say that Western powers "made subtle use of reason, and recruited science and history to serve its ends" (from "Imperial Fictions"). Saïd also downplays the realities of depictions, saying, "The things to look at are style, figures of speech, setting, narrative devices, historical and social circumstances, [*not*] the correctness of representation nor its fidelity to some great original" ("Orientalism" introduction). That is, he focused more on "why"/"how" someone was representing something rather than on admissions that the representations might actually be true (very topical in criminality discussions which refuse to see the current reality and instead focus on idealized social outcomes, like embracing criminality in the hopes that criminals will learn a more positive social relation). But Saïd can't be entirely discarded because he does make good points on how "othering" can change perceptions. It's more useful to see how people have taken Saïd's tones of guilt and shame and made those weapons of "bad conscience" ("bad conscience" being a facilitator of slave morality). TLDR: This article was definitely an example of dysfunctional post-colonialism and pseudo-feminism, but I would argue against discarding postmodernism-associated names like Hegel, Nietzsche, and Foucault. In particular, I think that if you read Nietzsche you would actually agree with most of the things that he said and would find him useful in critiquing the idiocy found in these articles (topically start with "On the Genealogy of Morals": "First Essay" — about 33 pages). To encourage you to read him, it might help to mention that Seb (whom you should not associate with postmodernism so much as with imperialist re-interpretations of post-colonialism) outright disagreed with many of the things that Nietzsche says ;p
Turtle Crawler Admin	Fri May 26 22:26:33 Be as racist/sexist to white men as you want, just don't do it in our fucking country.
jergul large member	Sat May 27 07:41:09 "TLDR: This article was definitely an example of dysfunctional post-colonialism and pseudo-feminism, but I would argue against discarding postmodernism-associated names like Hegel, Nietzsche, and Foucault. In particular, I think that if you read Nietzsche you would actually agree with most of the things that he said and would find him useful in critiquing the idiocy found in these articles (topically start with "On the Genealogy of Morals": "First Essay" — about 33 pages). To encourage you to read him, it might help to mention that Seb (whom you should not associate with postmodernism so much as with imperialist re-interpretations of post-colonialism) outright disagreed with many of the things that Nietzsche says" A thesis grade contribution in the truth-posttruth discord. You are the greatest troll ever CC.
jergul large member	Sat May 27 07:41:31 contribution to*
Cherub Cow Member	Sat May 27 19:08:20 Not sure how I'm trolling, but okay! ;D
Forwyn Member	Sat May 27 23:26:09 http://imgur.com/vf9EBWI
Cherub Cow Member	Sun May 28 00:27:45 lol
MrPresident07 Member	Mon May 29 09:32:43 Aeros and Dukhat have switched accounts.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 04 15:48:02 Thanks CC for yet again providing details, you are obviously well read, far so than me, but I am afraid you have misunderstood what my point was. I was not denouncing any of the names or ascribing the totality of post modernism to any of them. I was merely providing an incomplete list and roadmap of how the SJW movement ended up where it is and the "archeology" of the ideas. I try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater either. Kant makes it in to that list partly because of what you mention, his idea about reality and reason. These are the first steps away from enlightenment ideas, a shift from objectivity to subjectivity. Someone who says reasons is not able to know reality is not really arguing for reason. His ideas would influence people like Heidegger and would come to influence Foucault and Derrida.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 04 16:09:17 The SJW movement (which seb is a part of ) is more or less the product of the ideas of post modern thinkers, I would add Marx into that lot. I think an issue might be the contemporary use of "post-modernism" that for people like me has come to mean all the crappy ideas of post-modern thinkers in one big basket called "SJWs".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 04 17:17:50 Not surprised that jergul would mistake one of the few attempts at polite discourse for trolling. There are more things wrong with you that there are words for them.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jun 04 21:40:12 [Nim]: "I was not denouncing any of the names or ascribing the totality of post modernism to any of them. I was merely providing an incomplete list and roadmap of how the SJW movement ended up where it is and the "archeology" of the ideas. I try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater either." Oh I see! That actually makes sense because misled SJWs definitely move through that list, they just come to crazed conclusions when they become nihilists. I know I bring up Nietzsche a lot, but .. from "Will to Power": "we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these 'values' really had" ( http://nie...r/the_will_to_power_book_I.htm ). Sort of summary of Nietzsche's points on this subject: • Plato set the stage for people treating reality as an illusion from which no actual "evidence" could be drawn (this error allows the birth of religions as well as other ascetic (sense-denying) errors) • Thinkers like Kant brought that error into modernity, thinking that reality was somehow un-knowable to humans • Kant-inspired nihilists think that not only is reality un-knowable, but reality may not even exist • Nietzsche does not advocate for nihilism, but he thinks that people might need to move through it to understand their own errors (Nietzsche claims that he has moved beyond nihilism)
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jun 04 22:41:45 Oops! Didn't mean to submit yet; continuing: • He advocates for highly self-critical sense-use, error-evaluation, and *not* denying reality (reality may be difficult to interpret with our limited senses, but that does not mean that it does not exist or cannot be rationalized with our senses). So SJW-types learn Nietzsche-inspired postmodernism and get caught at the nihilistic step, thinking that reality is entirely unreachable, which makes "reality" mold-able to their absurdities. They learn about the errors perpetrated by science (which there do exist many) and think things like.. • that science can be disregarded altogether, or • that representations of science are the reality (like belief in a perfectly straight line (an error which disregards the wave-nature of matter) or that words, symbols, and images themselves are reality), or • that because science is symbolic, that that means that reality must equally be symbolic or non-existent (like understanding that perfectly straight lines do not actually exist (true) but then deciding that the reality that lines represents must also not exist (false)) TLDR: SJWs use postmodernism to facilitate a nihilistic disregard of reality and fail to go through the rigors of proof and error analysis before attempting to empower their beliefs. They repeat all the old errors but with a new disguise which subjectively favors their position (like saying that racism can only exist from a place of power — a specious claim; true to them as long as they wish to avoid taking responsibility for their own power and racism). .. [Nim]: "I think an issue might be the contemporary use of "post-modernism" that for people like me has come to mean all the crappy ideas of post-modern thinkers in one big basket called "SJWs"." True. The same thing has kind of happened to "feminism" as a title. Feminism as a theory isn't that objectionable (its goal of equality), but pseudo-feminists like the OP article people hijack equality goals for misandry and domination. Same thing for postmodernism: SJWs hijack postmodern principles and use them in highly *un*critical situations, like guilt and debt culture (SJW buzz word: "advocacy") to gain power by domination. In both cases (feminism and postmodernism), I've heard speakers say that the extensive negative results of each make the umbrella terms pretty irredeemable (e.g., "Red Pill" Karen Straughan talking of feminism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfgbIM3gvyI )... but yeah, I think that's "baby with the bathwater". I throw "pseudo" in front of "feminists"/"feminism" to clarify my meaning, and I might have to start doing that for SJWs ("pseudo-postmodernists").
hood Member	Sun Jun 04 22:54:22 Calling them pseudo is doing a disservice. It draws a distinction between the two identity classes, where you have the "real" feminists (or sjw, whichever) that have reasonable expectations, rationalizations, thoughts, and ideas, and the "not real" feminists who have distorted ideas etc. I think that it's important to point out that these are in fact the same group; I like to call them the crazy ones. To put it politically, we have right wingers, left wingers, centrists, and then the crazies: far right and far left. Those who are of one side have to acknowledge that those far groups are a part of their tribe and that they must be managed and mitigated. When we say the feminist who calls for all males to be subservient to women for "equality" isn't a real feminist, we're allowing those who are more rational to ignore the duty of managing the crazy people. I am male. I fully recognize that there are members of my tribe who are completely worthless. I cannot deny they are male, I simply have to pick up the slack. Feminists, SJWs, right wingers, leftists, everyone must do the same. You may not be responsible for the actions of others, but you sure as hell should feel accountable.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 05 00:41:24 "You may not be responsible for the actions of others, but you sure as hell should feel accountable." Not sure about *accountable* — people should not feel accountable for the actions of a choice-less initiation group (like an incidental, sex-based or race-based group); someone born into that group should not feel the need to defend that group's actions, at least not in an individualistic society. And if someone is identified with a group by another person via some larger insinuation (e.g., not just "You are female" but "You are female, which means [this] and/or [that]"), then "if you label me, you negate me" comes to mind, where the simple act of being identified with a group reduces the choices of an individual within that group (it imposes Sartre's brand of "bad faith" onto that person — obvious extremes of this forced identity being sexism and racism). That does not mean that people should not identify as "male" or "female", but as per "larger insinuation", it does mean that it can be dishonest to assign symptoms or accountability to a person based on a limited attribute (e.g., sex), and a person should not be expected to over-extrapolate such personal subjective states to an entire group to force accountability upon them — this "negates" the group and produces falsely universal attributes. However, this may be your meaning and I would agree: the rules change when someone willingly identifies with a group — like in collectivist societies. Collectivist societies/groups would argue the opposite of individualistic societies/groups (e.g., Far Eastern cultures, military units, and even isolated suburbs). Someone who says, "I am a feminist" (without limiting modifiers such as "an *individualist* feminist" or "a feminist who is opposed to misandry and slave morality") *now* may be forced to answer for the entire "feminist" group, which, being an impossible task, is why those kinds of broad identifications can be problematic. It makes it easier for observers, though, just as a person proudly wearing a British uniform in the U.S. Revolutionary War period would hold a pretty incontrovertible associative status for observers (though not completely incontrovertible, considering possibilities like spies and collaborators). Then there exist choice-surrendered areas, like a person forced into leading a cultural group can probably be held to varying degrees of accountability for decisions which that group makes, given that that person would likely make similar decisions him or herself (e.g., born into a religious family and thus able to agree with the family's "morals" without checking those morals against personal, independent consciousness). In short: things like "individualism v collectivism" and choice and involvement in an identity really help narrow down whether there should be accountability. .. "It draws a distinction between the two identity classes, where you have the "real" feminists ... and the "not real" feminists" Use of "pseudo-" definitely can get close to the no true Scotsman issue I talked about in that takfir thread ( http://www...hread=80254&time=1495889275257 ). In that light, maybe I should stop using it :/ I think it still works in limited scenarios just because when I use the "pseudo" prefix I identify why it applies, and that reason is usually based on the "pseudo" group moving away from the most general definitions of the umbrella group. For instance, while one of the most broad definitions of feminism would include a push for "equality", a pseudo-feminist would not be interested in equality but instead matriarchy. Similarly, while a very general definition of postmodernism would include an imperative to critique the idea of "universality", a pseudo-postmodernist would attempt to apply absolutist or essentialist definitions to others... Arg.. Still, I think you're right, and I'll have to stop with that term... "Pseudo" gets way too close to "no true Scotsman". Probably it's more useful to just recognize that peeps like the OP article peeps really *are* feminists, in which case the same slave morality argument could identify them further as "dysfunctional feminists" or something — just not "pseudo-"... Thanks! :p
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 02:29:03 CC Its just a question of refusing to accept guilt by association. 8 billion humans? Some are asshats? What a bomb.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 03:22:57 Well CC, I don't think feminism can be reduced to it's goals, any movement really. Often when I have come to criticize feminism and the underlying (non-scientific) gender theory the goal is where most people will instinctively retreat. Feminism is a lot of crazy (non-fringe) things that are nested deeply within post-modern rhetoric. "Deconstruction" is probably one of the most used and abused post-modern concepts among third wave feminists and SJWs. The principle thinkers of the SJW/postmodern movement, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Rorty where all far left, philosophy professors and deeply skeptical towards our ability to know reality. Which essentially is where the SJW movement is still operating from. The guy who smashed people in the with a bikelock? Philosophy professor. I try not to draw too many conclusions here :) In part their thoughts were a response to the collapse and defeat of Marxism in the face of ever dominant western capitalism and liberalism - post modernism has to a large degree been driven by continental European thinkers. So while rightwing collectivism did not survive it's failure and was morally and physically destroyed, leftwing collectivism survived and found refuge within the rhetoric of the 4 gentlemen mentioned earlier. The left was not untouched, as an economic model Socialism had failed, all the big predictions of Marxism had failed to come true. So the battle would be shifted towards the superior "morals" of the left... and here we are today!
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 04:20:27 Nim: You are starting to sound like Bloodbags. I think you should know that.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 04:25:17 "The SJW movement (which seb is a part of )" Really? And how do you define this movement exactly? "is more or less the product of the ideas of post modern thinkers" Actually I disagree with them. My position comes from the strident individualism of the Liberal thinkers. Essentially I'm a Whigg. You have completely lost the plot mate. This idea that there is a sinister group of phiosophers that have got together to put together the "SJW" movement is bonkers. SJW is a catch all term that internet trolls have created to describe everyone who thinks they are asshats. The Feminists. The anti-racists. Basically anyone who tells them that they are not allowed to create scapegoat groups to look down on to make them feel better. "SJW waaa" is the credo of loosers. Nim, you are a lot better then them. I'd keep your distance.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 04:32:58 Cherub Cow: "that representations of science are the reality (like belief in a perfectly straight line (an error which disregards the wave-nature of matter) " Please don't talk about physics in this way again. That's horrendous abuse of even the simplistic grasp you are aiming for, while at the same time indulging the flaw you are trying to engage in. I.e. by arguing that a straight line cannot exist because matter is wave-like, you mistakenly imply that wave like behaviour of matter means straight lines cannot exist (which is false, e.g. a wave can also travel in a perfectly straight line); but more importantly the "wave like nature of matter" is as abstract concept as a straight line. The wave doesn't constitute a spacial boundary in any case - it's a probability wave - essentially a mathematical construct. Matter is wave like and particle like in behaviour depending on context - but both are abstractions - indicating neither model describes the actuality.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 04:33:52 hood: "I think that it's important to point out that these are in fact the same group;" *blinks* did you just call the idea that women are equal to men as crazy?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 04:39:38 I still have an incomplete understanding of philosophy, but I am working on it! This is a second time you have gone to some length to be explicitly polite in your disagreement. I appreciate that and what to highlight it again. This place is a toxic soup for the most part and for the past two years I have really just wanted sane dialogue, no goal of trying to convince the other, just settle with trying to understand the other person. I have not read Derrida, Foucault, I have read what others have written of them. Maybe this is a mistake, but it is mistake we all commit in a number of areas where we rely on the summary of others. There are just too many subjects and too little time! I think my personal issue with them is the ambiguity, a lack of clarity bordering on paradoxical at time. I will read what Foucault predicted about the Iranian revolution and see how he got the important things wrong and celebrate Islamism as a break with the west and compared Khomeini to a saint! Then read that he did understand some important things about Iran (that Jergul does not). For instance Foucault understood that Shiism was the central and important identity in Iran, not ethnicity and that the revolution would not open the field for leftwingers and secularists. Yet at the same time he seemed to be one of the first "you are an islamophobe" type of people, dismissing the worries of others regarding the direction of Islamism as "orientalism". He may not be patient zero, but his ideas on this topic has influenced European thinking. His views on Iran and in extension Islam may have been incomplete, but they are problematic as they have influenced the SJW movement and modern non-muslim apologetics of Islam. It all seem to be rooted in a disdain and skepticism for all things western, that seems to be one of the central premises. If one was to read Foucault, what would you recommend?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 04:47:35 >>Actually I disagree with them.<< You are the guy who defended "gender theory" and tried to shame me for using the term "hermaphrodite" to describe transsexuals. Forgetting that not too long ago that was the scientific medical term for it. Maybe I have misunderstood everything you have ever said. It is not apparently obvious to me given our extensive discussions on the topics of Islam and feminism. It all ends with me being sexists, Islamophobic and wanting to create a world where my children will be put into concentration camps. You do your best to "deconstruct" everything I say and reduce it to the lowest motives possible. This is what SJWs do. Maybe you should stop doing that?
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 05:05:40 Seb I had no idea bloodbags was a habitual drug user. Before my time really. I overlapped her with less than a month. ========== My fundamental thoughts are that men have to come to terms with their own limitations to afford gender equality. Sequential versus parallel is bound to lose out in an ever more complex world - and there is not much we can do about it. The pattern seem rather hard-wired. In practical terms it merely means men become mentally exhausted far easier than women, and when exhausted, we simplify beyond the absurd. Ultimately, we are trying to do too much shit and fail miserably at it. While women carry on. Which we resent spitefully. So, 6 hour work day for a start. We as a gender might do better if we did a whole lot less.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 05:08:49 >>This idea that there is a sinister group of phiosophers that have got together to put together the "SJW" movement is bonkers.<< lol you see? Every time seb, something extra has to be added to what I say so that you can have a point. Somehow CC managed to not do that. Apparently now I have peddled some conspiracy theory. Instead of what I actually said, that the SJW movement has drawn heavily on the works of post modern thinkers. Seriously I am trying my best to not place you next to Jergul and dismiss you all together, perhaps because I do know that you identify as a liberal. But every interaction seems full of frustration on my end and a count down to when you will directly or indirectly call me a nazi. You seem dead set in that direction despite my best efforts to explain, myself, my personal life and what I am saying. If I have misunderstood you about how well you align with SJW it is because you have time and time again given me the SJW treatment. There are legitimate criticism you can throw at me, but this is not what you do, you question my motives and constantly add things to what I say and "reconstruct" them. And no I don't think my command of the english language is the problem, because I have had the same discussion with others, been criticized without having my motives questioned. You might be a liberal, but you are using post modern rhetorical tools to bludgeon opponents into moral inferiority and "win" arguments by a retroactive non sequitur. "Oh well you are a nazi, so the discussion only served to show that you are a nazi".
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 05:14:28 Foucault study list: Dostojevskij, Beckett, Mead, Durheim, Neitzsche, De Sade, Kafka, Kant, and Heidigger. That should cover the basics of getting where he is coming from. He was crazy btw.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 05:25:59 seb I think that if you do want a civilized discourse we should start with the claim you just made. I do not think there is an evil sinister plot originating from philosophy department of academia. I think movements are guided by ideas and the SJW movement is heavily influenced and guided by post modern thinking. Ideas detrimental in their practice and if you believe CC often misguided and misunderstood ideas. He is probably correct to some degree. I don't think Foucault and Derrida were immoral people with sinister intentions, I have no reason to believe that. What I do know is that movements get out of hand and cultish tendencies are universally a problem. Do you still think I am peddling conspiracies?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 05:26:52 *can get out of hand.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 05:31:26 She*
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 05:33:34 You might have reason to believe Foucault was pretty amoral (at best) if you checked up on it.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 05:34:28 Or is it that you do not believe in a historical-biographical approach to understanding?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 05:42:29 No, it is the fact that amoral and immoral are different things. You should probably learn the difference before you trip on your "wisdoms" right into the holes you have dug.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 05 05:48:38 But more importantly dimgul, the point I was trying to make was that I do not assume sinister and immoral motives to be able to disagree with ideas.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 05:52:43 Amoral (at best) is what I wrote. Who am I to judge if sado-masochistic unfaithfulness is - or is not - immoral in any meaningful sense of the word? Of course you assume sinister and immoral motives. It pretty much is your modus operadi in this forum. Anyway, chop-chop. To your reading list. You have a lot to get through to get a clue.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 06:25:52 Nim: "You are the guy who defended "gender theory" and tried to shame me for using the term "hermaphrodite" to describe transsexuals. Forgetting that not too long ago that was the scientific medical term for it." You do not need to be a post modernist to understand that gender and biological sex are different things. The fact you think that there is such a thing as "SJW" other than a catchall term for internet trolls to describe things they are reactionary against is telling. The people you describe as "SJW" would not all agree to share a philosophy, nor would they say that philosophy has the slightest thing to do with post modernism, much less say that they are part of a single movement. You sound like a deranged conspiracy theory nut, which is what you are rapidly turning into.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 06:27:38 Jergul: It's far from clear that there is a strong innate capability for parallel working in female brains. Any measurable effect is just as likely to come from practice - e.g. in general workplace tasks have historically allowed people to focus sequentially; whereas domestic tasks often require parallel information processing.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 06:29:15 "You do your best to "deconstruct" everything I say and reduce it to the lowest motives possible. This is what SJWs do." Nim, what you are describing is not deconstructionism. It's simply logical thought as applied by scientists (both empiricists and rationalists) for centuries.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 06:31:35 Basically you are turning into one of those tiresome people who finds their thinking and the implications of their thinking being critiqued as being offensive. If you are proposing radically different treatment for groups of people based on their identity, not their individual actions - then to my mind yes, you are displaying discriminatory behaviour. I'm sorry if you'd rather not think of yourself as a discriminator, but that's the behaviour you are displaying - so I'm going to call you on what you say, not on what you would like to think yourself as being. Boo hoo, snowflake.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 05 06:35:36 The distinction between Gender and Sex is way older than post modernism by the way. Technical accuracy is all I'm asking for. Facts, logic, analytical approach, reduction, induction - the fact that postmodernists also use these kinds of tools does not make them "post modern", you are essentially taking aim at the entire of the enlightenment and classical thought. Not surprising given the weird bunch of emotive losers you seem to have fallen in with.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 05 06:44:37 [jergul]: "Its just a question of refusing to accept guilt by association. [/] 8 billion humans? Some are asshats? [/] What a bomb." I'm not sure that I follow your meaning here. I agree that your hypothetical "bomb" would be obvious, but I didn't make that vague statement. And I can't tell if you intend to say that [all? some? specific?] people should *accept* guilt by association? So anyways, not knowing your meaning.. :p .. [Nim]: "The guy who smashed people in the with a bikelock? Philosophy professor. I try not to draw too many conclusions here :)" Yeah don't draw too many! That professor, Eric Clanton, was just an adjunct professor (like a substitute) at "Diablo Valley College", which is just a community college. Apparently he only finished his Masters in philosophy, which is a friendly way of saying that he couldn't find anything substantive to write about for a PhD ( http://dai...bike-lock-attacks-in-berkeley/ ). Though I see your point if you mean that we could speculate about how many opportunistic-anarchists have gotten further than him in the education system .. like educators who share his ideology but who didn't quite go black bloc like he did. Fun fact: he may have brought a firearm to the protest, in which case he'll get significant jail time for his attacks. .. [Nim]: "The left was not untouched, as an economic model Socialism had failed, all the big predictions of Marxism had failed to come true. So the battle would be shifted towards the superior "morals" of the left... and here we are today!" This kind of reminds me of Adorno and Horkheimer's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" (1944) because it has a similar theme. This book basically talks about how Marxism failed to live up to its "proletarian revolution" prediction, and it speculates that alternate types of fascism (including from the left) will take the place of Nazism. It's very critical of capitalism, so naturally it has inspired waves of socialist fascists. Still, it makes good points about how Hollywood and media in general have been instrumental in fabricating a new morality for consumers ... It ends up being funny that postmodernism is critical of narratives, yet a lot of the supposed "objective" narratives that left-fascists take for granted were new inventions from Hollywood (that is: another failure on these students' parts to learn some of the lessons of postmodernism). And instead of a working class revolting, it appears that bourgeoisie groupthink has overthrown the working class, displacing labor to the third world and placating first-world workers with reproducibility/consumption. .. [Seb]: "Please don't talk about physics in this way again. That's horrendous abuse of even the simplistic grasp you are aiming for, while at the same time indulging the flaw you are trying to engage in. [/] I.e. by arguing that a straight line cannot exist because matter is wave-like, you mistakenly imply that wave like behaviour of matter means straight lines cannot exist (which is false, e.g. a wave can also travel in a perfectly straight line); but more importantly the "wave like nature of matter" is as abstract concept as a straight line. The wave doesn't constitute a spacial boundary in any case - it's a probability wave - essentially a mathematical construct. Matter is wave like and particle like in behaviour depending on context - but both are abstractions - indicating neither model describes the actuality." It's not possible to debate someone who recognizes that wave forms are indeed "mathematical construct[s]" while not understanding that straight lines are also such abstracted constructs — i.e., they do not exist except symbolically or in simulation. The amount of things that a person would have to believe in in order to believe in a straight line amounts to extreme absurdity (e.g., a perfectly-spherical or perfectly-cubic point particle (not even slightly oblate or misshapen?), a perfectly uninterrupted path through space, a perfect stacking of these perfectly cubic or spherical particles into an unwavering linear form, etc..). Or more simply: You flatly said that you do not think that math is a language, and I told you that with that being the case, I cannot help you with these topics (you would need to be a paying student for several years, probably). So I'm well-aware of your position on straight lines. We didn't get anywhere when I tried to explain these things to you before, so I don't intend to waste effort again. .. [Seb@Hood]: "*blinks* did you just call the idea that women are equal to men as crazy?" Oh no, Seb... Hopefully Hood doesn't have to take too long to explain how poorly you interpreted his meaning (he obviously did not say that — do Hood a favor and re-read his post). .. [Nim]: "I think my personal issue with them is the ambiguity, a lack of clarity bordering on paradoxical at time." Paradox is definitely a major theme in their works. It's a major part of the "Dialectic of Enlightenment", actually. Hate to throw more reading at you, but Cleanth Brooks' "Language of Paradox" might help. Brooks is kind of like Jacques Derrida in subject except Brooks is *not* a sophist (he comes from a literary background so he can actually write), so he gets Derrida-like ideas across much more cleanly :) .. [Nim]: "It all seem to be rooted in a disdain and skepticism for all things western, that seems to be one of the central premises." Shame to hear that about Foucault (I'm not familiar with those writings). That does sound like a similar trend of university thinkers being more or less atheist yet cutting breaks for Islam because of a perceived victim-hood. .. [Nim]: "If one was to read Foucault, what would you recommend?" "Discipline/Surveil and Punish"! :D You don't even need to read the whole thing, really. His "Panopticism" section (about 33 pages) is pretty short and covers everything. The rest is just different applications of the same idea (Panopticism), though in the other sections he does explain how it has been used historically, which can be interesting (like the spectacle of punishment). .. [Seb]: "Actually I disagree with them." [Nim]: "You are the guy who defended 'gender theory' and tried to shame me for using the term 'hermaphrodite' to describe transsexuals. Forgetting that not too long ago that was the scientific medical term for it." Referring to "[Seb disagrees] with them": See, Nim! Told you so! ;D ..but anyways, Seb, Nim had already said that it's inspiration *from* postmodernists and not necessarily the postmodernists themselves. .. [Nim]: "lol you see? Every time seb, something extra has to be added to what I say so that you can have a point." It's not just you, Nim. That was an observation I had when debating Seb in earnest (late 2016, early 2017). But while Seb may be right to say that "what you are describing is not deconstructionism" (Seb does take words apart and put them back together in less meaningful ways, however), Seb would be incorrect to say that Seb's is laboratory thinking; this is more like thinking you'd see from someone who thinks that they know how a scientist thinks because they watched "Big Bang Theory". Seb constantly distorts, misrepresents, or altogether invents things that other people say, either willfully, due to an inconsistent reading comprehension, or some other unknown issue. Seb also tends to assemble arguments with specious reasoning and sophist distractions (a metaphoric example: if you posit that a real-life Katniss Everdeen could hit an apple at 30 yards, Seb might counter by saying that such a task is impossible due to differences in the falling phase and the rising phase of the arrow as a function of time, distance, and bow power, not to mention that by probability a linear arrow with a width of 1  1/4" inches would be unable to hit an apple of average diameter of only 7.6 cm! I.e., this is a long way of disguising a reasoning fallacy with red herring "sciencey" artifacts in order to contradict a truth which others may know intuitively even without those artifacts). The result is having to constantly repeat and re-clarify things which were already broken down to the simplest of levels (i.e., re-explaining things which would have been clear to a reasonable person debating in good faith) — spending more time explaining your meaning than moving forward with ideas. It's almost like what I presume would happen to people who finish a single-major STEM undergrad, gain a non-research career for years, and then in career obscurity assume that that years-old single-major degree (as well as casual, Wikipedia/surface-level autodidacticism) meant that they were an authority on all subjects despite their never having done published research in a functioning laboratory. There exist some screwed up lab Principal Investigators (PIs) out there, but I suspect that none would let a PhD student rise to that level of error unless the field was highly segregated at the individual level (like the PI didn't care about his or her students and never/rarely spoke with them about their methodology or research directions). Then again, it's sometimes difficult to assume those sorts of character projections over the Internet, and maybe disguising an ad hominem as a hypothetical would be just as disingenuous as this supposed character-type.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 08:18:10 Seb If not innately hardwired, then in practical terms hardwired during while the brain is particularly plastic (say for fun before the age of maturity). http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24645100 From an evolutinary perspective - men are great hunters, but would function horribly if hunting while being hunted (hence in warfare why counter-attacks are particularly effective even with inferior forces - and why snipers are truly a breed a part - unless female, then they are a dime a dozen). An increasing complex society is actually reverting to our natural state - all kinds of crap going on, and we understand very little of it. It destroys men. Who need to work less and spend more time around the digital campfire.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 05 08:24:51 CC I think it is up to an individual to decide if he or she accept guilt by association in a given context, and argue, or not, as the fancy strikes him or her. There are way to many fucktards who think it is their God given right to "call [insert name] out" at the drop of their fickle fancy. In sum: Everyone chooses their own battles. Reason dictates that it must be so. The right to self-define belonging is an innate human right. On reading your last post. Yepp, the troll is strong in you. I mean that in a good way :).
hood Member	Mon Jun 05 09:24:37 @ CC regarding accountable: Fair enough, I can see the reasoning behind your argument there. Perhaps I didn't choose the best word for my intention, but I agree with your paragraph on it. With respect to non-choice groups like male or female, perhaps aware is a better word? One must be aware that there are others who are not like you and could quite easily be complete assholes and accept that your group will take heat for the misdeeds of those bad actors. Regarding "pseudo": Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with why you want to draw a distinction between those you called pseudo and those with less controversial ideas. And I don't think we should abandon drawing distinctions at all; it's a disservice to the people like yourself, who view feminism as the simple goal of having man and woman treated equally in society, to ignore any difference. By identifying why you called them pseudo is quite reasonable. But I'm glad to have helped, and I believe that if the narrative could change from "fake feminists and real feminists" to "these feminists are zealots, maybe we saner feminists should look into that as they damage our reputation," it could go a long way to focusing the dialog to reasonable outcomes. And, obviously, apply to not only feminists. @ Seb: Oh fuck off. I haven't gotten to some of the longer posts beyond CC directly addressing me; will read those later.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 06 05:30:57 seb, wrong again. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. The contemporary usage of the word is nested in the unscientific "gender theory" and originates in a discredited psychologist who applied this "theory" with catastrophic results for the children involved. >>You sound like a deranged conspiracy theory nut, which is what you are rapidly turning into.<< Coming from you this is a compliment, I mean you are not even wrong about these things.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 06 06:02:36 >>Though I see your point if you mean that we could speculate about how many opportunistic-anarchists have gotten further than him in the education system .. like educators who share his ideology but who didn't quite go black bloc like he did.<< Indeed this is a good point. I think the heavy tilt to the left in academia and specially in the humanities is an issue in and of itself. So people like "professor bikelock" will inevitably be a reality given the activist temperament of the left and echo chamber reality of these departments. >>Jacques Derrida in subject except Brooks is *not* a sophist (he comes from a literary background so he can actually write), so he gets Derrida-like ideas across much more cleanly :)<< I recently saw a video of John Searle explaining why Foucault (his friend) in his written work was so obscure. Foucault explained that in France, if you are clear people think it is childish, they will not take you seriously. Searle went on to say that Foucaults thoughts were much more crystallized when talking and that he enjoyed this about American academia, but his limited English was an obstacle for serious work. I am deeply skeptical towards Foucault partly because many people I respect reject him, but also his predictions about Iran, being an Iranian myself there is a personal experience that plays a role. I do have a bias and aware of it while I will add your reading recommendation on my list :-) It may be true to say that what seb does is not "deconstruction" by the true meaning (even though even that is ambiguous), but it is deconstruction the way your average SJW is doing it. Which basically seems to be to reduce your argument to the least flattering version and then assume that this is the true and only version. Though the onus here was on me to explain that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 06 08:07:56 Your summary of sebs method is flawless. I will add this, he seems unaware of how detrimental it is to his cause. Either people will agree with him or they wont. The people that do not can be divided into two groups. The people who disagree with him, but lack the ability to argue back, but they can "sense" he is full of shit. Those people will walk away with unconvinced resentment. Then there are those that see right through it and engage him, those people walk away with a taste of shit in their mouth. More importantly with these people seb will destroy whatever currency his PhD from "top 10 uni in the world" had and total collapse of any moral high ground he thought he had. These things do not matter for seb, he puts very little effort and value in actually understanding the other person position. Which is why I challenged him to summarize my position, knowing he will not be able to and surprise surprise, he didn't even attempt to. There is literally nothing I can say that seb will not completely misunderstand. lol recently in thread I told Aeros "watch out you are making sam adams look moderate", seb read this as me buddying up Sam Adams. Someone else fits your description of the "know nothing know it all", jergul. To me it is also obvious that both suffer from an inflated ego as well. As evident by Jerguls first post in this thread, this is all about "winning" for them (The Trump way), no care for the damage they cause on their way to prize.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 06 08:13:32 Nimi haha. I really got your goat. Sorry about that, but I figured that as a Persian you could spare at least one :).
jergul large member	Tue Jun 06 08:18:20 [article]: "They also encouraged someone else to host a private men-only event if they so desired." [jergul's first post in this thread]: Limited entry venues for 1-off events are entirely acceptable. [nimi]: As evident by Jerguls first post in this thread, this is all about "winning" ========== Rofl. How was my post all about "winning"? Nice appeal to authority by coopting CCs trollish vexation with seb. Smooth. Moron.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 08:29:51 Hood: "It draws a distinction between the two identity classes, where you have the "real" feminists (or sjw, whichever) that have reasonable expectations, rationalizations, thoughts, and ideas, and the "not real" feminists who have distorted ideas etc. I think that it's important to point out that these are in fact the same group; I like to call them the crazy ones." I don't see any way to read this paragraph in a way that allows there to be a feminist who isn't, as you describe it "a crazy one" You may be expressing yourself incredibly poorly. CC: See above. "this is more like thinking you'd see from someone who thinks that they know how a scientist thinks because they watched "Big Bang Theory"." Hmm, no, Cherub. PhD, post doc, publication record. "it's inspiration *from* postmodernists" I see, and the classical Liberals were influenced by post-modernist thinkers they predated by over a century by way of? "a metaphoric example:" A straw man you mean? And this from someone who just argued that the "wave nature of matter" disproved the possibility of straight lines? Nim: Your own source: "However, examples of the use of gender to refer to masculinity and femininity as types are found throughout the history of Modern English (from about the 14th century)." John Money probably formalised stuff that has deeper roots. "The contemporary usage of the word is nested in the unscientific "gender theory"" In what way do you feel it is unscientific to talk about a distinction between behaviour and biological sex? You can't deny transexuals actually exist can you? "These things do not matter for seb, he puts very little effort and value in actually understanding the other person position." Your position doesn't have any internal coherency Nim, and when I point out the contradictions inherent in it, you complain I'm misrepresenting you rather than demonstrating that you are believing opposite things at the same time. "seb read this as me buddying up Sam Adams. " I hadn't even noticed your comment to Aeros. I was talking about the things you agree with Sam on re guilt-through-association towards Muslims and a naive belief that the most proximate cause for Islamic Terrorism is Islam rather than the many other factors.
hood Member	Tue Jun 06 08:52:51 Seb, I'm not going to bother engaging with you aside from a casual fuck off. You're retarded and have no fucking idea how to actually interpret what people say. It is an astonishingly common problem for you. Fuck off. As a side note: my phone kept suggesting autistic for astonishingly. It might be on to something.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 10:03:58 Hood: The only reason not to engage is when you have nothing to say because your realise you've said something un-defendable.
hood Member	Tue Jun 06 10:56:49 You are very small minded if that is the only reason you can think of. For one, foreknowledge that you will continue to be willfully blind to any clear evidence contradicting you makes it uninteresting to engage. A second, because I'm so gracious, would be that I'm tired of telling you just how incompetent your reading comprehension is. I'm not going to argue about just how blatantly stupid you are, I'll just tell you that you are. It's less of a hassle. So, you're fucking stupid and you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 11:29:52 Hood: "to any clear evidence contradicting you makes it uninteresting to engage." Hey, it's your quote - if you can't explain it - as I've invited you to, then what evidence do you feel I am ignoring? You basically said there is no distinction in feminism between reasonable and not reasonable, they are one group, and you call them the crazies. Honestly, I don't see any other way to read it, and you don't seem to want to explain what it is you actually meant.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 11:31:37 The fault is your inability to convey what it is you mean. Or possibly there is an idea that there is a third group of people who are not "feminists", but do believe in equality between men and women. But that just brackets anyone who believes in equality between men and women but wants to talk about it in an organised way as a political philosophy as "crazy". That seems even more abstruse.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 06 11:32:56 Not enganging you is more a matter of avoiding to step in dogshit. Besides everything has been said and you have been wrong about everything. It was fairly clear back when you said "the new testament does not support gay hatred" which is a very rudimentary mistake to make if one is engaging in a discussion about religion, it more or less disqualified you from speaking on the matter. But it didn't stop you and being interested in a meeting of the minds and mistakenly having had some respect for you I tried to explain, at the expense of my own sanity it turned out. And so we ended up in some absurd alt-reality where I, the first gen immigrant born in Iran, who married a kurd in a Islamic ceremony and who has spent 7 years working with immigrant teenagers (Afghan boys most recently) is some neo-nazi islamophobe. All things I have been open about on this board and which you have gotten wrong btw. Hood is much too kind calling you an idiot, idiots can't know any better, you are a malevolent sociopath.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 06 11:36:15 Ironically I am sitting her at my mother in law surrounded by Muslims. Trying to control my urges to not kill them!!
hood Member	Tue Jun 06 11:56:12 "The fault is your inability to convey what it is you mean." Really? CC understood what I meant. I believe Nima does as well, although he hasn't shown direct confirmation. But hey, if you want to pull a Sam Adams, purposefully misquote or quote out of context, and then use that quote as an ACTUAL argument and not just trolling, I mean.... Enjoy? Have at it? My ego is not so large that I feel compelled to make you understand what I said. I'm perfectly content with the words I have already said on the subject and their clarity to a normal, fully competent person. I'm simply not going to translate everything I say into autism just so that you can understand.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 06 12:06:33 I just assume that whatever seb is reponding to is a heavily distorted version of what was actually said. But yes, I got it.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 12:10:37 Nim: ""the new testament does not support gay hatred"" You fucking retard. You were the one that said that - you were arguing that Christianity disavowed the old testament and couldn't be linked to gay hatred. You even absurdly argued that your experience on adventists meant you knew that the old testament judicial and moral laws were discarded despite adventists being one of the stronger ones. Your self delusion knows no bounds.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 12:20:13 Hood: "eally? CC understood what I meant." No, CC pretended to because he/she is on a Trolling expedition. You say the quote is out of context. Well, what context? What I see is a bunch of people railing at an imagined grouping composed of illusory people (SJW's) that don't exist. SJW is a term invented to describe people who passionately believe things the people who invented it didn't like: initially feminism. "SJW" It's not a movement. Nobody says "Hey, I'm a Social Justice Warrior", except perhaps now when pissing all over the trolls moaning about it. They might say "I'm a third wave feminist" but then also be stridently against Islam because of the obvious reasons, and dismiss the notion that a transexual woman is a woman. Equally someone might be passionately pro gay rights who dismisses feminism of all types out of hand. Or pro gay rights who is staggeringly racist. So what do you actually mean by SJW? Define it. In any case, your post very clearly seems to be saying that there is no distinction between SJW's and "other feminists", or do you think you have implied a "third" category. If anything that context seems to make your paragraph even more inexplicable. Start again: what are you trying to say?
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 12:24:52 Hood: You then go on to say: "When we say the feminist who calls for all males to be subservient to women for "equality" isn't a real feminist, we're allowing those who are more rational to ignore the duty of managing the crazy people." Firstly, where are these feminists who call for all males to be subservient to women - and why the fuck is it *their* job to manage crazy people? Is it then *your* job to go out and personally manage misogynists? Isn't that basically the kind of behaviour you describe as "SJW"?
hood Member	Tue Jun 06 12:48:43 You truly don't understand simple English. And if you think cc is just trolling, you're again pretty dumb. Cc goes into this much depth in movie reviews. Seriously, movie reviews. You think this is just simple trolling? All evidence points to the depth of arguments presented as a consistent representation of the persona. Or do you say that cc pretended to understand in an attempt to make yourself feel better about being called out yet again? I will give you points on persistence though. That you still think I'm actually going to debate content with you is impressive.
hood Member	Tue Jun 06 13:09:10 Well, I caught up on this thread. My only real response is to chuckle at Seb.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 06 13:44:08 hood: Yeah, CC likes to hopelessly overanalyse things and uses that at times to gently troll. We had a long, very amusing conversation on five times three remember, where CC put an insane amount of effort trying to pretend it was imported into English from 14th century Italian. Bottom line, you can't explain what you mean. You kind of want to dismiss feminism, but you also kinda don't want to be seen to be doing so. So you make up this ridiculous idea that there is only one category of feminist and that they must be associated with this utter straw man of "feminists who believe in female supremacy".
hood Member	Tue Jun 06 13:50:42 "Bottom line, you can't explain what you mean." I can. I simply do not want to explain things to you. It isn't worth my effort. I find much more satisfaction in your whining than in having to repeat an explanation 5+ times just for you to still not get it. If I had this problem with everyone on the forum, it might be me. But, quite clearly, other people understand the ideas I communicate. And quite clearly, other people share the same opinion as me on your comprehension abilities. In the absence of absolute proof, high degrees of agreement are the best one can hope for. And I'm doing pretty good here.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: