Other Equality - what is your opinion?

[/b/ board]

Do I smell someone being called a troll for no reason at all?












(I had to post this, pls don't kill me)

 

[The Gunrunner]

Oh no, arguing is very useful, but only if everyone engages properly. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

What is proper? Is proper saying " i couldnt get through this without laughing"?


I wasn't aware that improper was pointing out disagreeable behaviour and making a point out of it.

 

[Grey]

No matter how capably one might argue, some people have no desire to learn, change their mind, or examine their position. They want someone to attack or an excuse to become entrenched. They want a villain to hurl abuse at. They'll go through all manner of hoops to maintain their stance, up to and including blatant lies which - even if you can exhaustively demonstrate them to be lies - they will not recant.  Direct argument just makes them dig in deeper, but making art that conveys your argument can pierce the veil. Which is, happily, something you can do without engagement if you find you don't have the energy and patience for toxic rhetoric and derailing. 


Ultimately all you can do is learn to recognize who is simply ignorant and who is actively malevolent, ignore the latter, and strive to be a good example to the former. 


These threads usefully allow people to self-select into your ignore list, because they never actually do anything but complain online, and you can simply wait for history to drown them as it inevitably must. As much of a cynic as I am, I tend to hope there's truth in the sentiment that 'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'

 

[Alexandra]

Do I smell someone being called a troll for no reason at all?


<snip>


(I had to post this, pls don't kill me)

Never for no reason. Taking Poe's Law into account, I saw two options; trolling, or deliberate derailing, and made a call.

 

[/b/ board]

Never for no reason. Taking Poe's Law into account, I saw two options; trolling, or deliberate derailing, and made a call.

"Poe's law" what the hell is that? I (personally) only see someone being called a troll for having a different opinion...

 

[Muffinboi]

People, read this. It's a long read, but it's worth it.

 

[norway]

Oh damn this is one of those patriarchy things isn't it. 


You can't just call Poe's law or better known as any other opinion other than that ours is extremist and out to get us. 


It's not an attack, it's an argument. Opposition is not 'trolling', trolling is simply name calling and therefore defaces the value of an opinion. 

 

[thoughtless]

People, read this. It's a long read, but it's worth it.

This is generally what I was trying to get across in my post. Feminism is such a vast movement that it's very silly to simply say "feminism is bad" when there are many different types of feminism, and while some things stay consistent, it changes based on who exactly you're asking.

 

[Alexandra]

Oh damn this is one of those patriarchy things isn't it. 


You can't just call Poe's law or better known as any other opinion other than that ours is extremist and out to get us. 


It's not an attack, it's an argument. Opposition is not 'trolling', trolling is simply name calling and therefore defaces the value of an opinion. 

If someone is attempting to put words in someone else's mouth, then I will assume they are either a troll, or derailing. Either way, they are not being useful. Making stuff up, and disagreeing are two very different things.

 

[/b/ board]

Feminism is "almost"... useless in the US.


But feminism IS NEEDED in places like Iraq, Syria, etc.

 

[norway]

People, read this. It's a long read, but it's worth it.

Thanks. (I skimmed, I'll read more in depth when my computer isn't dying). I don't disagree entirely with that article, I'm a woman, I want my rights and am grateful for the women with class that got them with determination; my only opinion to this thread in general, is that everyone should be viewed based on their individual actions, not their gender. The wage gap is a myth, female oppression is minuscule compared to that of before, modern waves of feminism slams privilege but gets away with more than men do. Women should be able to do as they please, but the pursuit of vengeance just dilutes a cause and makes people look entitled. If you have to hurt and belittle anyone or thing else to get where you want to be, you're in the wrong. Such as this movement, and many others. 

If someone is attempting to put words in someone else's mouth, then I will assume they are either a troll, or derailing. Either way, they are not being useful. Making stuff up, and disagreeing are two very different things.

Make assumptions then. But the response of 'All lives matter bullshit, fuck that' says enough right there. That's an emotional response, it's not an argument, anyways. 


Why don't you offer your opinion, instead of just lurking and making accusations? Haven't actually heard what you think. 

 

[Alexandra]

Thanks. (I skimmed, I'll read more in depth when my computer isn't dying). I don't disagree entirely with that article, I'm a woman, I want my rights and am grateful for the women with class that got them with determination; my only opinion to this thread in general, is that everyone should be viewed based on their individual actions, not their gender. The wage gap is a myth, female oppression is minuscule compared to that of before, modern waves of feminism slams privilege but gets away with more than men do. Women should be able to do as they please, but the pursuit of vengeance just dilutes a cause and makes people look entitled. If you have to hurt and belittle anyone or thing else to get where you want to be, you're in the wrong. Such as this movement, and many others. 


Make assumptions then. But the response of 'All lives matter bullshit, fuck that' says enough right there. That's an emotional response, it's not an argument, anyways. 


Why don't you offer your opinion, instead of just lurking and making accusations? Haven't actually heard what you think. 

I'm not sure I have the time necessary to dedicate to describing my feminism, or unpacking some of the problems I have with the comments here; essays take time. As far as "emotional responses" go, if something impacts a person directly, expecting cold hard logic is incredibly optimistic. Certain inequalities having never affected you directly doesn't mean they don't exist, it means you're lucky. 

 

[norway]

I'm not sure I have the time necessary to dedicate to describing my feminism, or unpacking some of the problems I have with the comments here; essays take time. As far as "emotional responses" go, if something impacts a person directly, expecting cold hard logic is incredibly optimistic. Certain inequalities having never affected you directly doesn't mean they don't exist, it means you're lucky. 

I beg to differ, considering you've responded to every comment you've disliked here, I think you have more time than refute. 

 

[Grey]

Feminism is "almost"... useless in the US.


But feminism IS NEEDED in places like Iraq, Syria, etc.

This is closer to correct than not, but it's also a fallacy of relative privation. 


Let me give you an example - it's not perfect but I trust you won't make this semantic when it doesn't need to be; One person loses a hand, and another person loses an entire arm. The latter is measurably more injurious, but that doesn't make the loss of the hand less inherently harmful. 


So women all over the US have shared the negative experiences they've endured (from Twitter hashtags to blogs to books to political activism), from death-of-a-thousand-cuts casual emotional harm right to actual physical violence, and to say that these things are either unimportant or untrue is... well, I couldn't contemplate such a wilful cruelty. 


This does not, of course, mean that the immediately life-threatening circumstances some women in more troubled nations encounter are less awful than they are, but you have to think about the reach people have, right?


Not everyone has the means to impact events half a world away. Not everyone has the means to push their government to exercise what power they may have half a world away. Not everyone has the health, the wealth, or the knowledge to crusade for others, and so must accept someone more capable must. Societal change is incremental, bigger than any lifetime, and you won't get results fast either way.


Consider; you brought the plight of women in Iraq and Syria into this - what are you doing for them? If a person cannot help the women of Iraq, but can do something for the women of the USA, are they therefore to ignore both problems simply because they cannot impact the more severe one? By using the suffering women of other nations as a rhetorical club, whom do you aid? Do you think you might instead be doing harm? By telling people that their desire to see women in the USA treated more equitably is unimportant, do you achieve anything positive? 


There is a comprehensible fear behind the resistance to feminism - the fear that you are not as good a person as you want to believe. Trust me, I struggle with the idea that I have treated people poorly every day. I dwell on those things which I know I did wrong in the past, because I don't feel those wrongs can be redressed. Acknowledging that you did a harmful thing, even in ignorance, is a difficult and sometimes painful process. For a whole society to address their own failings is harder to still to imagine, because it makes people complicit by nature, and even if you feel that you have done no wrong, you may have to confront the idea that maybe you stood by and allowed wrong to be done.  And if it hasn't directly harmed you, it's very easy to pretend it doesn't exist, because change is hard, even the idea that you might need to change is challenging. 


When discussing these things with anyone, it's important to try and temper reason with empathy. It's important to listen. If something someone says makes you uncomfortable and uncertain of yourself, rather than crack jokes or trade insults, or derail the conversation, consider why it makes you want to do that. 


Please understand, I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, or that you're a bad person. Just think - should you discourage people from something good, simply because they are not doing something else which is good? Does completing one good deed not create the opportunity for another?

 

[thoughtless]

This is closer to correct than not, but it's also a fallacy of relative privation. 


Let me give you an example - it's not perfect but I trust you won't make this semantic when it doesn't need to be; One person loses a hand, and another person loses an entire arm. The latter is measurably more injurious, but that doesn't make the loss of the hand less inherently harmful. 


So women all over the US have shared the negative experiences they've endured (from Twitter hashtags to blogs to books to political activism), from death-of-a-thousand-cuts casual emotional harm right to actual physical violence, and to say that these things are either unimportant or untrue is... well, I couldn't contemplate such a wilful cruelty. 


This does not, of course, mean that the immediately life-threatening circumstances some women in more troubled nations encounter are less awful than they are, but you have to think about the reach people have, right?


Not everyone has the means to impact events half a world away. Not everyone has the means to push their government to exercise what power they may have half a world away. Not everyone has the health, the wealth, or the knowledge to crusade for others, and so must accept someone more capable must. Societal change is incremental, bigger than any lifetime, and you won't get results fast either way.


Consider; you brought the plight of women in Iraq and Syria into this - what are you doing for them? If a person cannot help the women of Iraq, but can do something for the women of the USA, are they therefore to ignore both problems simply because they cannot impact the more severe one? By using the suffering women of other nations as a rhetorical club, whom do you aid? Do you think you might instead be doing harm? By telling people that their desire to see women in the USA treated more equitably is unimportant, do you achieve anything positive? 


There is a comprehensible fear behind the resistance to feminism - the fear that you are not as good a person as you want to believe. Trust me, I struggle with the idea that I have treated people poorly every day. I dwell on those things which I know I did wrong in the past, because I don't feel those wrongs can be redressed. Acknowledging that you did a harmful thing, even in ignorance, is a difficult and sometimes painful process. For a whole society to address their own failings is harder to still to imagine, because it makes people complicit by nature, and even if you feel that you have done no wrong, you may have to confront the idea that maybe you stood by and allowed wrong to be done.  And if it hasn't directly harmed you, it's very easy to pretend it doesn't exist, because change is hard, even the idea that you might need to change is challenging. 


When discussing these things with anyone, it's important to try and temper reason with empathy. It's important to listen. If something someone says makes you uncomfortable and uncertain of yourself, rather than crack jokes or trade insults, or derail the conversation, consider why it makes you want to do that. 


Please understand, I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, or that you're a bad person. Just think - should you discourage people from something good, simply because they are not doing something else which is good? Does completing one good deed not create the opportunity for another?





 






 







 

This actually brings to mind something I said in another thread sorta-kinda related to this one.


This isn't the "Oppression Olympics" to find out which group is suffering more. No one gets a gold medal and has their problems solved for having more problems than another group while the other group slowly wastes away. Both issues need to be addressed, despite the fact that one group may be in more of a dire situation than the other.