Fr0d0 Wrote:objectifying women thread where 100% of the females said the males were wrong, but the majority of males vilified the females as wrong as the females couldn't make them understand.

just correcting you. it wasn't all of the females posting on that thread. unless you are talking about a different part then I am. I don't think I was being misogynistic. though, sometimes I can be, I'm not sure I really was in that case. but that isn't the point here. I suppose that only points out that she was far more alone.

in other news, I don't know how I feel about her being gone.

Quote: When a member can proudly call himself a homophobic misogynist and everyone seems to accepts it as a joke, well, that's not okay, and I don't want to be a part of it.

I don't recall ever proudly refering to myself as what I am. I am what I am and that's what I am. I had a short discussion with Adrian where I was looking for insight as to why I am homophobic.

It's not a joke.

If one is going to become all emo and quit a discussion forum, or any bullshit-session, because there happens to be people in it whom you do not like or folks point out flaws in your reasoning or you find your horse isn't as high as you thought, then I say good riddance.

I do wish her luck though, best of luck finding a group of Eilo clones who will agree with her racist, sexist blogs and accept her lashing out at white men as words of wisdom. Seriously, I wish her the best of luck.



Can we haz Saerules back now?

(October 26, 2010 at 9:24 am)Dotard Wrote: Can we haz Saerules back now?

If she decides to play by the rules, and quits asking for some kind of apology from the staff for doing their job, sure.

Yes a different part Cego.

If it's no joke Dotard are you saying you accept it's wrong?

As with racism, I think homophobia and sexism are natural to some extent: ie they perform a natural function. In society we recognise the injustice and move to correct it.. hence the controls on those sorts of behaviour.

(October 26, 2010 at 11:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If it's no joke Dotard are you saying you accept it's wrong?

Whether it be right or wrong would be entirely circumstantial. Wrong in some instances, right in others.

You seem to forget, right and wrong are not objective.

Perhaps it might make a good discussion in another thread. Dotard and I's conversation was very brief if I recall.

Very brief... One or two liners from both of us then it got dropped.

(October 26, 2010 at 11:19 am)Dotard Wrote:

(October 26, 2010 at 11:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If it's no joke Dotard are you saying you accept it's wrong?

Whether it be right or wrong would be entirely circumstantial. Wrong in some instances, right in others.

You seem to forget, right and wrong are not objective.

Racism, homophobia, and sexism are always wrong by conotation. Any decisions made regarding race, sexual orientation, or sex that are appropriate would just be judgment calls. For example not wanting a guy to hit on you if you are a straight male is not homophobic so much as just a decision based on orientation. Now the motivations for, and actions surrounding that decision can certainly change it from a simple decision to a homophobic mindset or act. I hope I made myself clear.

Rhizo

(October 26, 2010 at 11:34 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I hope I made myself clear.

Maybe. But not to me.

(October 26, 2010 at 11:34 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Racism, homophobia, and sexism are always wrong by conotation. Any decisions made regarding race, sexual orientation, or sex that are appropriate would just be judgment calls.

So.....

Not wanting a woman on a front-line fighting force or a professional footbal team is a "judgement call" and not wanting girls on my sons little league team is 'sexist'? It's ALL sexism. A decision based on gender and gender alone, no matter what for, is sexism. Period. I maintain there is no 'grey area' when it comes to the word "Sexism".

So my position is that sexism is not "always wrong", it's circumstantial.

Dotard,

Ok, point taken, given your definition of sexism, then you would be right, but a quick google, "define sexism" search shows that most definitions of sexism include a negative bias so that was what I was refering to; the word as it is used within our society that includes the negative connotations. Your concession to accept that all decisions based on the sex of a person are sexist is basically giving in to negative feministic forces spoken about in the article you mention in another thread.

I honestly can't think of an example of a decision based on race that would not be racist.

Rhizo