Misogyny and moderation, again – page yeast infection system 4 – straight dope message board

The difference between "n-bombs" and "hit that" is one of degree, not type–in both cases, it’s a matter of language being inherently dehumanizing and serve yeast infection system to make it impossible for members of the group to yeast infection system participate on an even footing: the well has already been poisoned. I’ll happily concede that the n-word’s legacy of violence and oppression makes is especially dehumanizing, but that doesn’t mean it is a special case and it and yeast infection system it alone can be moderated.

How are women unable to participate in that thread? Argue that the OP (in that thread)’s problem is that he views women he meets as yeast infection system sex objects. Perhaps that is why he cannot have a conversation with yeast infection system his wife, etc. How are you in any way unable to fully participate yeast infection system simply because you are insulted? I participate in all sorts of political threads where posters yeast infection system insult my strongly held beliefs or my motives.

Hate speech has always been the standard. I’m not going to list them, but those words that are commonly and indisputably understood to yeast infection system be hate speech. "Hit that" is not hate speech by any measure of that term. It’s a pretty shitty thing to say, but the mods will be busy indeed if that is yeast infection system the new standard.

Maybe I’m exhibiting just a touch of devil’s advocate here, manda JO, but in my view there’s an answer to that — and I say this while understanding your position (I think) and certainly respecting it. And the answer is that language — objectifying or not — is essential in all its variations and nuances to express yeast infection system ideas, and in that sense language **is** damn near sacred. Because the consequence of prohibiting certain words or expressive vernaculars yeast infection system outright is the orwellian consequence of trying to stamp out yeast infection system ideas, even when there is a valid reason to express those yeast infection system ideas because one wants to condemn them.

One example I could give is the editorial policy of yeast infection system the new yorker, acclaimed for the quality of its writing, which permits words and phrases that would send most mainstream yeast infection system editors straight to the fainting couch. The condition under which they are permitted is simply that yeast infection system they must be relevant, and not simply gratuitous — whether the relevance is serious social commentary or just satire yeast infection system and sarcasm. And this is the sense, I believe, in which the OP of the thread you object to yeast infection system is using such phrases. I’m not sure if he ever actually says "I’d hit that" or if that was inferred, but he certainly says equivalent things like "damn, I’d like to f**k the hell out of that". But note: he is trying to accurately express his mental state in yeast infection system a particular circumstance. He is not using the term gratuitously, as would, say, someone who just randomly blurts it out. If he were to write, instead, "I found that woman extremely attractive", he is not only failing to express the pertinent emotion, such a banal description isn’t even expressing the same idea!

As I said, I found the OP of that thread and the poster’s subsequent comments to be stupid and puerile and didn’t read much of it, but my objection to it is entirely different from yours. It’s not the particular words that I object to, because they’re actually part and parcel of the idea being expressed; it’s the idea itself that I find immature and annoying. Expressing the fact that one is a testosterone-infested horndog obsessed about sex is objectifying women every bit yeast infection system as much regardless of how bland the particular phraseology is.

Nate isn’t saying a woman is worth less as a person. Just that as a man, when he sees a ‘hot’ one, his brain inserts sexual fantasies for the obvious evolutionary reason yeast infection system to encourage him to act on them. This seems like something you would expect a lot of yeast infection system men to experience, whether or not they admit to it, because this would be an obvious trait that would get yeast infection system selected for by evolution. People denying it seem uncredible – it’s like a fat person claiming the reason they are yeast infection system fat is because they have a slow metabolism.

Anyhow, reducing men to just one drive (sex) is pretty ludicrous (or even insulting, but I don’t get to answer on behalf of men for that yeast infection system question). Humans are complicated and raising baby humans is complicated – evolution selected for much more than just "fuck early and often" in the case of human beings. A man’s sexual urges compete with all the other inherited urges yeast infection system and acts that keep him alive long enough to have yeast infection system sex in the first place, then all the inherited urges and acts that keep him yeast infection system alive and providing for his offspring. Then there’s the fact that individual men do not seem to yeast infection system have inherited equal portions of all of the above – some men are love-’em-and-leave-’em r-selection strategists and others are K-selection guys who stick around to provide their offspring with yeast infection system protection and resources. And all sorts of guys in between those two extremes.

So when a guy "admits" he thinks about banging every woman around him all the yeast infection system time I don’t really have a reason to doubt him. I would certainly prefer he exercise some tact when discussing yeast infection system it, and that he respects women as full people in their yeast infection system own right regardless of whether or not he actually gets yeast infection system to bang them or thinks about banging them all the yeast infection system time. And when a guy says he’s not continually distracted by the women around him (even if he, too, would like to bang more or all of them) I will take him at his word. Because for damn sure men are individuals just as women yeast infection system are, they’re going to vary in the level of their sex yeast infection system drive, and also in how well they handle their urges.

Remarkably, there are even men who are either asexual (it happens) or aren’t distracted by sexy women (or just women in general) because they’re thinking about banging other men – because, clearly, natural selection hasn’t eliminated homosexuality, either.

The issue at the time was that college students were yeast infection system adults and insults were not policed. If you called another student an asshole or a dickhead, well, as long as no laws were violated, then all was fair. And, at the time, if you called a black person a "nigger" that fell under the same rule of no punishment.

At that time the popular thing to do was to yeast infection system ban "hate speech" on campus whereby a student could face internal discipline for yeast infection system calling a black student such a racial epithet. There was not a person on the council or any yeast infection system faculty advisor that thought such speech was good or positive. Several people thought it might pose a constitutional problem as yeast infection system it was a state run university, and some thought that people should be free to use yeast infection system the slur under a wide belief in free speech.

However, the overwhelming majority of members and advisors wanted to have yeast infection system at least a modest punishment for using such slurs. However, how to write the proposal to make it understandable and yeast infection system fair caused issues. What is "hate speech"? The slurs were easy fruit to ban. However, what if a white student told a black student that yeast infection system the only reason he was there was because of affirmative yeast infection system action? Is that hate speech? Many said yes and others said no.

What if a student, even in class, proposed that blacks were better off under segregation? Hate speech? Some said yes, some no. Would a research paper that concluded, with citations that blacks were better off under segregation be yeast infection system an acceptable topic? Most said yes it would, but a strong minority said it would not. Therefore a few people would have banned the class discussion, but the paper would be okay. That seemed silly.

The measure did not pass when I was there because yeast infection system of these concerns. A few years later it passed by ignoring the real yeast infection system problem of constraints by just banning "hate speech" without definition. When I talked to faculty, they said many of the same things the mods said yeast infection system here, that they needed a broad rule to prevent "rules lawyering" and "we know it when we see it."

What is defined as hate speech now is so far yeast infection system afield of the original intention behind the policies that would yeast infection system be laughable if people were not being punished for it. Now, of course, this is a simple message board and the downside is yeast infection system that a poster might wrongfully get banned and have to yeast infection system get a real life, but the principle is there.

It cannot just be an ad hoc, the most vocal minority sets the policy, and people get dinged in these threads for things that yeast infection system are not generally applicable to similar situations. Yes, a law can be general and outlaw a general course yeast infection system of conduct, but such a thing should at least be applied across yeast infection system the board with that same generality.

I do not like if anyone feels insulted or denigrated, but such is a necessary thing to have open debate yeast infection system without the disfavored side having to choose words very carefully yeast infection system or else be punished. As slacker said above, what started as a laudable goal has devolved into preserving yeast infection system ideological purity.

More than one person, me included, has pointed out both that and how the subject could yeast infection system be discussed without going into that sort of detail, in any form. I don’t see why we should have to keep giving repeated yeast infection system examples, over and over, of how to do so.

Maybe he didn’t need to say that the hypothetical woman had her yeast infection system butt cheeks hanging out, but he did. Does he need your permission to do so? Do we need a drafting or stylistic committee to help yeast infection system posters draft threads? Or is it only in threads about women? Does he need permission from a minority of posters who yeast infection system form a group for this purpose?

I would say that in only a liberal utopia would yeast infection system your views be satisfied, but even in a liberal utopia there would be debates yeast infection system about the proper terms as they evolve daily. Or could we just go a different way and say yeast infection system that unless something is deliberately and universally recognized as insulting yeast infection system do we moderate it and let everyone else feel as yeast infection system they may because that is the cost of living in yeast infection system society and especially being a part of a debate or yeast infection system discussion?

Maybe I’m exhibiting just a touch of devil’s advocate here, manda JO, but in my view there’s an answer to that — and I say this while understanding your position (I think) and certainly respecting it. And the answer is that language — objectifying or not — is essential in all its variations and nuances to express yeast infection system ideas, and in that sense language **is** damn near sacred. …

A prominent–and recent–example of how disgraceful a strategy this really is might yeast infection system be the current US president’s use of "infested" with reference to black and brown people. Is it trump’s sacred right to speak of black-majority areas as "infested"?

Dismissing attempts to "thing" females as being trivial, while agreeing that turning people of color into things (by means of repeated use of "infested," "invasion," etc.) is wrong, is a not-uncommon response by some who consider the matter. There is an attraction, felt by some, to the idea that femaleness is, essentially, trivial. This idea is worth questioning.

Turning entire demographic categories of people into things, metaphorically of course, creates a feeling of power. We all enjoy feeling powerful. But part of being an adult is realizing that the yeast infection system particular sense of power derived from asserting primacy in this yeast infection system way is not actually respectable or healthy. Certainly there is nothing "sacred" about this technique for artificially boosting one’s feelings of superiority.

Another example (in addition to the current project of the trumpian right yeast infection system to "thing" black and brown people): the vogue some years back for hiring little people to yeast infection system work in pubs/bars and similar venues, for the purpose of being the objects thrown in a yeast infection system test of athleticism or strength of the thrower. Turning a demographic group—people of short stature—into things, brought enjoyment and pleasure. Ask yourself: what sort of pleasure was that, exactly? The pleasure of throwing? If that’s all it was, then why not just throw pieces of furniture or such?

"Dwarf-tossing" and referring to certain racial/ethnic groups as "infestations" and describing a woman as a collection of body parts yeast infection system that you want to make use of ("hit"): these are methods of asserting that one is a member yeast infection system of the dominant group.

A prominent–and recent–example of how disgraceful a strategy this really is might yeast infection system be the current US president’s use of "infested" with reference to black and brown people. Is it trump’s sacred right to speak of black-majority areas as "infested"?

Dismissing attempts to "thing" females as being trivial, while agreeing that turning people of color into things (by means of repeated use of "infested," "invasion," etc.) is wrong, is a not-uncommon response by some who consider the matter. There is an attraction, felt by some, to the idea that femaleness is, essentially, trivial. This idea is worth questioning.

Turning entire demographic categories of people into things, metaphorically of course, creates a feeling of power. We all enjoy feeling powerful. But part of being an adult is realizing that the yeast infection system particular sense of power derived from asserting primacy in this yeast infection system way is not actually respectable or healthy. Certainly there is nothing "sacred" about this technique for artificially boosting one’s feelings of superiority.

Another example (in addition to the current project of the trumpian right yeast infection system to "thing" black and brown people): the vogue some years back for hiring little people to yeast infection system work in pubs/bars and similar venues, for the purpose of being the objects thrown in a yeast infection system test of athleticism or strength of the thrower. Turning a demographic group—people of short stature—into things, brought enjoyment and pleasure. Ask yourself: what sort of pleasure was that, exactly? The pleasure of throwing? If that’s all it was, then why not just throw pieces of furniture or such?

"Dwarf-tossing" and referring to certain racial/ethnic groups as "infestations" and describing a woman as a collection of body parts yeast infection system that you want to make use of ("hit"): these are methods of asserting that one is a member yeast infection system of the dominant group.

RELATED POSTS