(July 4, 2016 at 3:32 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 3:12 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Except, she wasn't calling for bullying, but solidarity.

Awesome, and I was happy to show solidarity by censoring any posting of male nipples I had on my agenda - which was none.  However, that did not seem to be what the ask was.

The ask seemed to be that the staff enforce that on everyone, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Well, as I've said, I didn't want to reopen the argument, but that can be rephrased as "she asked the staff to show their commitment to equality" as well. And as I've said already, I think both sides have valid points. That includes your own point here; I don't think that equality should necessarily entail wood-chopping. I understand the staff's sommitment to non-censorship, and I applaud it. But I do think that the reaction was unbecoming this forum, though. That is my point here, that the response -- a "dogpile", to use your word -- was a bit unsavory. The fact that others continue bringing it up even as they bemoan its longevity is also a bit odd, in my book.

For the record, I think I was the first to offer my own refusal to show my titties. Ain't no one got time for that.

(July 4, 2016 at 3:42 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: It was an analogy. Obviously it's not about bullying but that's irrelevant to the analogy.

Limiting freedoms is unfair.
Bullying is unfair.
Limiting the freedoms of both sexes is twice as unfair as limiting the freedoms of one sex.
Bullying both sexes is twice as unfair as bullying one sex.

Obviously it's not about bullying, the point is both limiting freedoms and bullying is an example of unfair treatment and being unfair to everyone is not fair. It's unfair to everyone.

I get the analogy. I'm pointing out that it's not really a good one, because it contains an appeal to emotion which is inherent in using the term "bullying".

You shifted the emotional context of her point without acknowledging it.

I, for one, have no idea why anyone even cares about this. This is not some complex issue to talk about. It was an idiotic thing to ask of the staff and that's about it. People who show this much idiocy should lose all credibility at once, IMO.

Let the outrage commence.

#BadEP

The emotion contained within the analogy does not discredit the analogy. Limiting freedom should be emotional too, after all, should it not?

I did acknowledge her point. She thinks limiting freedoms for both sexes is fair because then both sexes are equally discriminated against. As I have been trying to explain, discriminating against both sexes instead of one is twice as unfair. I've been addressing the point the whole time.

(July 4, 2016 at 4:02 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: The emotion contained within the analogy does not discredit the analogy. Limiting freedom should be emotional too, after all, should it not?

I did acknowledge her point. She thinks limiting freedoms for both sexes is fair because then both sexes are equally discriminated against. As I have been trying to explain, discriminating against both sexes instead of one is twice as unfair. I've been addressing the point the whole time.

This may be arguing semantics, but is "discrimination against both sexes" a thing?

(July 4, 2016 at 3:58 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I, for one, have no idea why anyone even cares about this. This is not some complex issue to talk about. It was an idiotic thing to ask of the staff and that's about it. People who show this much idiocy should lose all credibility at once, IMO.

Let the outrage commence.

#BadEP

I don't think being idiotic once should make someone lose all credibility. Everyone is an idiot sometime. But laying down not just a bunch of false accusations but also a very serious and very criminal entirely false accusation based on nothing is indeed something that should make someone lose all credibility at once, IMO.

(July 4, 2016 at 4:04 am)Alex K Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 4:02 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: The emotion contained within the analogy does not discredit the analogy. Limiting freedom should be emotional too, after all, should it not?

I did acknowledge her point. She thinks limiting freedoms for both sexes is fair because then both sexes are equally discriminated against. As I have been trying to explain, discriminating against both sexes instead of one is twice as unfair. I've been addressing the point the whole time.

This may be arguing semantics, but is "discrimination against both sexes" a thing?

So are you arguing against the idea itself or its phrasing?

(July 4, 2016 at 4:05 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 3:58 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I, for one, have no idea why anyone even cares about this. This is not some complex issue to talk about. It was an idiotic thing to ask of the staff and that's about it. People who show this much idiocy should lose all credibility at once, IMO.

Let the outrage commence.

#BadEP

I don't think being idiotic once should make someone lose all credibility. Everyone is an idiot sometime. But laying down not just a bunch of false accusations but also a very serious and very criminal entirely false accusation based on nothing is indeed something that should make someone lose all credibility at once, IMO.

Well, in my book, certain things can make you lose all credibility. That's not to say credibility can't be won back, though.

(July 4, 2016 at 4:04 am)Alex K Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 4:02 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: The emotion contained within the analogy does not discredit the analogy. Limiting freedom should be emotional too, after all, should it not?

I did acknowledge her point. She thinks limiting freedoms for both sexes is fair because then both sexes are equally discriminated against. As I have been trying to explain, discriminating against both sexes instead of one is twice as unfair. I've been addressing the point the whole time.

This may be arguing semantics, but is "discrimination against both sexes" a thing?

Probably not. I worded that badly. Yeah it's semantics. I'll rephrase: Limiting both sexes' freedoms and therefore limiting the freedoms of about twice as many people is about twice as bad as limiting the freedom of one sex.

I paraphrase myself and reiterate so many times to try and get the point across I often end up ballsing up by saying something that doesn't make sense, lol. It doesn't discredit all the times I said it correctly though

(July 4, 2016 at 4:07 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Well, in my book, certain things can make you lose all credibility. That's not to say credibility can't be won back, though.

Certain things, yes.