Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

laklak · **#61** by **laklak** » Nov 24, 2015 5:17 am

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Doubtdispelled · **#62** by **Doubtdispelled** » Nov 24, 2015 9:37 am

Boyle wrote:I don't think DD has ever said anything on this forum that anyone other than Forty Two disagreed with.

Forty Two · **#63** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 1:54 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Given that my threads almost always create vigorous discussion, and lots of traffic

Has it not occurred to you to realise that this might be because some here strongly object to you filling the forum with pointless negative and stupid shite articles about feminists and feminism which, to their great credit, they are doing their best to counter with much more considered commentary?

I have considered that, but unfortunately that idea must be dismissed. The reason it must be dismissed is that for the most part it's folks bitching and moaning about the topic having been brought up in the first place, and derails into lengthy discussions of my posting history and motives and all that. Only a comparatively few actually try to address the issue, which I am always happy to do.

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Has it not occurred to you to wonder why so much of what you say is challenged and thoroughly discredited?

I would say that a lot of what I say is challenged because (a) people are pissed off that the subject matter is brought up at all, and (b) people think that if an issue like this (articles from Jezebel and The Atlantic discussing a claim that pockets or lack thereof are sexist) is somehow putting feminism in a bad light, and people get pissed off at that - that's one ideology folks don't want to see in a bad light. It's o.k. to discuss issues that may put those ideologies in a bad light, but for some reason people come White Knighting to the rescue of feminism (as if that's an "ism" about which related issues cannot be discussed).

Now, "discredited" is a strong word. Some people claim to have "discredited" my views -- but, sometimes they claim to do that before my view has even been made known. Then sometimes they attribute a view to me, and claim that it is my view, even when I have disavowed it. Then, also, some people just make declarations that I'm wrong, and declare victory on that basis, without any real "discrediting" actually happening.

So, I think you assume a lot in your question. But, to give you a good faith answer - I think the main thing is that people see an issue like this one -- where someone is claiming pockets are a sexist plot of the patriarchy to help oppress women -- as something so ludicrous that they really don't want it associated with feminism. So they bark at me for opening up a thread on it here, even though it appeared quite happily on Jezebel.com and in The Atlantic and in other mainstream publications as well. I mean, it's o.k. for it to be in mainstream publications, but not here where we can discuss it.

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Could it be because you are a bigot, a disgrace to the word 'man', and are probably no more than a serial troller who wishes to stir up as much controversy as possible?

No. I've never said anything bigoted here. But, if you'd like to explain why you think these things, feel free. It seems that feminists write articles such as the ones in the above OP, and then I grab them and post them to a discussion board to talk about those ideas -- be critical of them -- analyze them -- discuss them. It's fine for them to write the articles, but I'm a bigot and a disgrace for posting them to discuss them?

How does it "stir up controversy?" These articles were written and published in very well-read publications. They have their own comment sections, and is isn't the first place in the world where these issues have been discussed. Feminism and sexism, and things said/written by feminists, are all things that are rather hot-button issues these days. Presidents are talking about 1 in 5 statistics and 77 cents on the dollar rates of pay. Candidates are pandering to the progressive and feminist votes, and campuses are erupting with protests over various bizarre (to me) issues. The controversy is there, doubtdispelled. Talking about the controversies is not "stirring them up."

It seems as if it's you that gets stirred up. Could it be that you keep seeing feminists publish article after article of bizarre insanity, and it upsets you if a light is shined on these things. You'd prefer they not be discussed, such that we can all pretend that nobody takes these kinds of ideas seriously? These ideas spoil a narrative you find appealing, perhaps?

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Perish the thought.

It's interesting that when, as is the case at the moment, there are threads here introduced by others which also generate discussion about facets of sexism and feminism, you are noticeably lacking in participation.

Well, I can't participate in every thread, and the form is large, so I don't always see every thread. Sometimes I take several days off in a row and I may miss new threads. But, if you have one to recommend, please do.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

It's almost as though you are in love with the sound of your own voice.

You have a fantastic imagination. All these ideas about me that you've invented in your head....

Doubtdispelled wrote:

You remind me so much of another poster we had who banged on about feminism to the exclusion of almost anything else, TMB.

I don't bang on about feminism to the exclusion of almost anything else. I've been involved in many different subjects over the last several months. Feminism isn't even a majority, let alone "almost all."

Doubtdispelled wrote:
He was a one trick pony too,

Well, this is a forum discussion board, right? People come here to discuss topics they are interested in. Perhaps some people are more interested in a given topic than other topics. Some might be into economics, and eschew progressive identity politics altogether. What in the world could it possibly matter to you what someone else likes to talk about?

This is the puzzling thing about some of you -- you and a few others who like bark at me in thread after thread that you don't like -- telling me I have a nefarious motive for bringing up various topics. Why don't you just go to the threads you like to talk about? You pointed out that I don't go to many other threads on this forum, and that's true. Some of them I don't feel are worthy topics of discussion. When that's the case, I just simply move on to another post. I would not think of doing such total toolbaggish thing and pissing all over a thread, harping and carping about how it was created to cast a bad light on feminism, or for some other nefarious, evil motive. I wouldn't do that, because that's a dick move, and in immature, puerile move, by a person who needs to grow up. It's something that people do when they want to shut down conversation they don't like, rather than participate in conversation they prefer.

If I saw a person create a thread for the purpose, so I thought, of "stirring up controversy" or taking pot shots at feminism -- and I didn't wish to either participate in the controversy or defend feminism, then I'd move on to another thread. Some of you can't seem to resist, though. "Oh, nos! A threadz about a feminist proposal to tax men at a higher rate than women! That thread was created to shed a bad light on femnism! Not all feminists! Not all feminists! Troll Troll! He's a Troll! Bad motive! Evil motive! Shun him! Shut the thread down! Make the conversation about his motives! Let's talk about why we think he started the thread! Bigot! Bad man! Bad Man!"

Why do you do that sort of thing? "You're a disgrace of a 'man'! Bigot!" It has nothing to do with the topic. You're plainly not interested in the topic. You seem to say you don't like me or talking to me, and you state or imply that you think what I say is way off base but you don't want to talk about it. So, why are you on this thread, and not one that you are interested in with people you like?

I'm not even really clear what your position is on the substantive issue. I'll look to see if you wrote something on another post, but I am curious -- do you agree with the writers of the articles in the OP? Do you disagree? Why or why not?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

who was also capable of filling his posts with many, many words,

Well, that's the medium we're working with here. I could fill it up with pictures and symbols, if you prefer, I guess.

Doubtdispelled wrote:
most of which all ended up saying the same things over and over again, and all of which did not amount to a hill of beans.

If that's true, and you were actually interested in discussion, rather than to come here and basically namecall (calling me a disgrace of a man and a bigot, etc.), then you wold point out the obvious deficiencies in my argument (hopefully without inventing an argument I did not make, of course). But, I guess "not a hill of beans" is a good argument for some.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

I send kudos to those of you who are willing to spend the time, thought, and consideration, attempting to stem the flow of idiocy to which we are being subjected.

So, your intent is to stop certain topics from being created, and there are others who are doing that work, yes?

Idiocy? Maybe the articles are idiotic. I happen to think the views expressed by the authors are idiotic. Is that what you mean? That the authors of the two articles in the OP have expressed idiotic opinions? Me too, if that's what you think.

If you think the "idiocy" is the act of opening a thread to discuss the articles in the OP, then you might want to explain why you think that's idiocy. Why? Articles in the vaunted publication The Atlantic, and popular, influential (according to Forbes Magazine) website Jezebel, concern the topic of sexism relative to women's clothing and the absence of pockets. You think starting a thread about this topic on a discussion forum, which contains myriad threads about myriad issues from the sublime to the absurd and everything in between, is "idiocy?"

Or, is it my view ABOUT the articles that you find idiotic? If so, let's have that discussion. What specifically have I said that you oppose, and what's your rationale? I am certainly willing to listen.

Shrunk · **#64** by **Shrunk** » Nov 24, 2015 1:59 pm

Shrunk · **#65** by **Shrunk** » Nov 24, 2015 2:06 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote::oops: My bad for completely missing it

I got it!

The interesting thing, though, is that now you have been told it was a joke, I suspect you now realize it was a joke and will henceforth treat it as such. You won't, say, continue to spew verbiage in attempt to impress upon Boyle the many, many times with which Doubtdispelled has been disagreed.

There is a lesson to be learned there, methinks.

Forty Two · **#66** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 2:14 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:Then you think wrong, I've certainly disagreed with things she's said. It also helps that she strays from the proverbial one-note samba, something I'm sure we'd all be glad if 42 tried.

Two points on this: my threads and participation in threads covers a wide range of topics, sexism, racism, etc. News and current events. Palestine and Israel. The 2016 Presidential Election. Muslim clock maker scandal. Paris shootings. What's the last film you watched? Funny pictures. 100 Most beautiful faces. Police power to view internet history. The Bogeyman of ISIS. Should the World Adopt Islam's view of things. Reducing legal burden of proof for certain crimes. Fight over Confederate Flags. Bernie Sanders. Syria and the Law of War/Imminent Threat, Sex Robots. The Clinton Email Scandal. Justin Trudeau. Climate Change Deniers. South Park Raping and Murdering Donald Trump. Political Correctness on College Campuses. Republican Lunacy. Ashley Madison Hack. Queen Elizabeth II. Evolution of the 5 Senses. Obama and George Bush. Islam Timeline. The frivolity of fashion. Hillary Clinton's proposal on student loans. Orthodox Jews on airplanes. Gay marriage. The list goes on.

So, the first point is -- I think you are full of shit when you accuse me of being a one-note samba. In reality, there are many notes, but you are objecting to one of the notes being played.

Two, the second point is -- why in the world does it matter if you, me or anyone else participates in a wide array of subject matter for discussion or only one or two kinds of topics? What if I just came here to discuss stamp collecting, or atheism? One note samba? But, if I came here to discuss feminism and not much else? That's a problem?

In other words, one you're wrong, and two, you're not even identifying an issue that is a problem. There is no shortage of threads for people to discuss. The creation of a thread on how to make baby oil from real babies, or something, doesn't limit anyone's ability to participate in threads they like. The focus of one particular member on a given area or subject matter has no impact on the ability of other members to focus on what they like.

All you're doing is barking about the topics someone else chooses to discuss. Well, I'm sure there are things you're interested in which I couldn't care less about. So what? Should I start carping on about how you're starting threads I don't think are worthy of discussion? Should I start harping about how you don't post in a wide enough array of subject areas? What the hell does it even matter?

Forty Two · **#67** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 2:18 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Given that my threads almost always create vigorous discussion,

That's a good one

If they don't, then what are you worried about? Nothing kills a thread faster than a lack of posting to the thread. Why breathe life in them by continuing to post?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

and lots of traffic,

Most train wrecks do.

Is this thread a train wreck? O.k., if so, I'm listening? Why?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

I would imagine rationalskepticism.com would be pleased with that.

Normal people aren't pleased with train wrecks.

What's wrong with the topic of this thread?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Or, perhaps they could create a Doubtdispelled section and a Forty Two section, and we could compare whose threads are more interesting. Yours might be "Noncontroversial Stuff Pretty Much Everyone Agrees About." (NSPMEAA, for short).

Yes, DD never stirs the pot

How is it even "stirring the pot" to create a thread about sexism in women's clothes (a la pockets), and reference an article about that topic in The Atlantic and in Jezebel?

How is that "stirring the pot?" What is wrong with talking about this?

Cito di Pense · **#68** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 24, 2015 2:22 pm

Forty Two wrote:I think the main thing is that people see an issue like this one -- where someone is claiming pockets are a sexist plot of the patriarchy to help oppress women -- as something so ludicrous that they really don't want it associated with feminism. So they bark at me for opening up a thread on it here, even though it appeared quite happily on Jezebel.com and in The Atlantic and in other mainstream publications as well. I mean, it's o.k. for it to be in mainstream publications, but not here where we can discuss it.

Do you think someone's making a claim that some aspect of culture is sexist necessarily has something to do with feminism? If so, do you think that everything anyone says anywhere is necessarily political speech?

Forty Two wrote:How is it even "stirring the pot" to create a thread about sexism in women's clothes (a la pockets), and reference an article about that topic in The Atlantic and in Jezebel?

Because you end up spending far more time defending yourself against the charges of stirring the pot than you do actually discussing the issues you purportedly show up here to discuss. It's obvious which you're better prepared to be doing, and why. I'll easily grant that no one actually has to take you up on your offer.

Forty Two · **#69** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 2:32 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
I never said Jezebel was a "news" site.

I never said you did. We were instead playing the game where someone stupidly tries to attach undue significant to the amount of traffic a site gets. Cracked gets way more traffic then Jezebel, so clearly that must mean its a reliable news site or something. As opposed to being.......clickbait.

Look -- it's not just the traffic. It's the kind of traffic. The site gets about 30 million unique views per month, and has been around for almost a decade. It is considered by others as influential -- I cited Forbes.

You don't find it a well-trafficked or influential site. Fine.

Who the fuck cares? Holy hell, man. The idea is the idea. And, I posted two motherfucking articles -- not just Jezebel - for fuck's sake. The god damn fucking Atlantic also had an article about this very same topic.

And, the source doesn't change the message. So carping that the the right source, in your opinion, didn't write the article says nothing about the substance of the issue presented. Do you agree or disagree with the assertions made in the articles? Why or why not? is there something I said about the articles in the OP that you agree or disagree with? Why or why not?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote: I said it was a prominent feminist publication, and it is.

Its clickbait. Which is why it has such high traffic, which would account for it being "well known" (one of the meanings of prominent) as opposed to say being "important" (another meaning of promiment).

what would you consider a good publication that is worthy of citation?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote: You forgot to tell me how irrelevant The Atlantic is, too.

I've never heard of it before now. Today is the first time I've ever knowingly looked at that site.

Your ignorance is showing. Try being a little better read. Next thing you'll admit to being ignorant of The Nation or The New Statesman.

What sites do you like?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:It's nice to know that you and Eshuis don't consider Jezebel.com to be a viable feminist source.

Its nice of you to strawman people.

Oh, I'm wrong? O.k., so you DO consider it a viable feminist source?

If I strawmanned you, then state your fucking position. Stop acting like such a capon and state what you fucking believe.

Strawman! You Strawmanned me! O.k. -- fine -- I withdraw my assertion that you don't consider Jezebel.com a viable feminist source. What are you saying about it? You poo pooed the webtraffic analysis and its monthly views. You've called it clickbait, and compared it to Cracked.

Fine -- then tell me why you're bitching about my citation to Jezebel and The Atlantic in the OP? What's the problem?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote: When one of you actually posts a link to anything that supports your arguments, we'll be sure to discuss the popularity and prominence of the source you give..... so, be sure to double check that before you post.

Poor baby. Wah wah wah.

Don't you have some more White Knighting to do? Feminists need you to rescue them from their articles being discussed on an open discussion forum.... :coffee:

Cito di Pense · **#70** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 24, 2015 2:37 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Forty Two wrote: I said it was a prominent feminist publication, and it is.

Its clickbait. Which is why it has such high traffic, which would account for it being "well known" (one of the meanings of prominent) as opposed to say being "important" (another meaning of promiment).

what would you consider a good publication that is worthy of citation?

The Atlantic Monthly is a good publication, but you might have to face the fact that some of what anyone might publish online is just click-bait.

You might have to face the fact that anything you don't have to pay to read may have little value as currency in an argument, and that paying for what you read is no guarantee that it's worth anything, especially away from the sciences and engineering, where it might possibly be tested.

Shrunk · **#71** by **Shrunk** » Nov 24, 2015 2:39 pm

I don't think Forty Two needs to be taught anything about click-bait.

Cito di Pense · **#72** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 24, 2015 2:42 pm

Shrunk wrote:I don't think Forty Two needs to be taught anything about click-bait.

That means we should expect to hear him expound ably on the notion of click-bait.

Forty Two · **#73** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 2:42 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Forty Two wrote:I think the main thing is that people see an issue like this one -- where someone is claiming pockets are a sexist plot of the patriarchy to help oppress women -- as something so ludicrous that they really don't want it associated with feminism. So they bark at me for opening up a thread on it here, even though it appeared quite happily on Jezebel.com and in The Atlantic and in other mainstream publications as well. I mean, it's o.k. for it to be in mainstream publications, but not here where we can discuss it.

Do you think someone's making a claim that some aspect of culture is sexist necessarily has something to do with feminism?

Do I think that someone making a claim that some aspect of culture is sexist necessarily has something to do with feminism? No, and whether it has anything to do with feminism has nothing to do with the propriety of discussion of the topic.

Do you think that someone's making a claim that some aspect of culture is sexist might have something to do with feminism?

Cito di Pense wrote:

If so, do you think that everything anyone says anywhere is necessarily political speech?

Since my answer to the first question was no (not necessarily), then I don't have to answer this. But, since the question you asked here doesn't logically follow from the first in an "if so" fashion, I'll answer it anyway. No, of course not. Not "everything anyone says anywhere is necessarily political speech.

However, do you think that there are things that people say that are political speech? And, don't some things that people say involving culture and sexism also involve political speech?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Forty Two wrote:How is it even "stirring the pot" to create a thread about sexism in women's clothes (a la pockets), and reference an article about that topic in The Atlantic and in Jezebel?

Because you end up spending far more time defending yourself against the charges of stirring the pot than you do actually discussing the issues you purportedly show up here to discuss.

That's not my fault. Address your complaint to those making the spurious and irrelevant claim that I'm stirring the pot. I'd not defend the spurious charge if it was not made against me. Why don't those folks just discuss the issue, instead of taking up time making spurious allegations?

Cito di Pense wrote:

It's obvious which you're better prepared to be doing, and why. I'll easily grant that no one actually has to take you up on your offer.

What offer?

Cito di Pense · **#74** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 24, 2015 2:46 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

Forty Two wrote:How is it even "stirring the pot" to create a thread about sexism in women's clothes (a la pockets), and reference an article about that topic in The Atlantic and in Jezebel?

Because you end up spending far more time defending yourself against the charges of stirring the pot than you do actually discussing the issues you purportedly show up here to discuss.

That's not my fault.

I beg to differ with you. That you're so eager to blame other people for your troubles here at RatSkep is very telling.

Forty Two · **#75** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 2:48 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Forty Two wrote: I said it was a prominent feminist publication, and it is.

Its clickbait. Which is why it has such high traffic, which would account for it being "well known" (one of the meanings of prominent) as opposed to say being "important" (another meaning of promiment).

what would you consider a good publication that is worthy of citation?

The Atlantic Monthly is a good publication, but you might have to face the fact that some of what anyone might publish online is just click-bait.

O.k., fair enough. So, do you think these particular articles are "click bait?" And, if so, Why do you say this article in particular is click-bait?

What is your view on the argument(s) made in the articles themselves?

Cito di Pense wrote:

You might have to face the fact that anything you don't have to pay to read may have little value as currency in an argument,

Yet, almost every source cited on this forum comes from sources you don't have to pay to read. Do we automatically discount all citations from non-pay sources as click bait? If not, then what is the metric to be used?

Cito di Pense wrote:
and that paying for what you read is no guarantee that it's worth anything, especially away from the sciences and engineering, where it might possibly be tested.

Certainly, which is why we post articles to discuss their merits. We can't know with certainty whether a given article is click bait or has great or less "currency" in an argument, can we? If you think we can, how can we? How is this determined? And, is this metric used in all threads?

If not, then isn't it really the case that arguments stand or fall on their own merit, and we can start a thread to discuss an issue raised in Jezebel and The Atlantic to discuss the arguments made therein IRRESPECTIVE of the respectability, influence or audience of a given site?

so, I'll say again -- what's your view of the arguments made in the articles?

Sendraks · **#76** by **Sendraks** » Nov 24, 2015 2:51 pm

Forty Two wrote:Look -- it's not just the traffic. It's the kind of traffic.

Did you provide a breakdown to the type of traffic it gets? Apologies if I missed that.

Forty Two wrote:You don't find it a well-trafficked or influential site. Fine.

More strawmanning.

Forty Two wrote:Do you agree or disagree with the assertions made in the articles? Why or why not? is there something I said about the articles in the OP that you agree or disagree with? Why or why not?

Nah.

Forty Two wrote:what would you consider a good publication that is worthy of citation?

Probably something that you'd never consider using as the basis of discussion.
Ba'dum tsh!

Forty Two wrote:Your ignorance is showing. Try being a little better read. Next thing you'll admit to being ignorant of The Nation or The New Statesman.

I am indeed ignorant of the Atlantic, although I see no compelling reason as to why I should be aware of it. I'm not familiar with the Nation either, again, why should I be? The New Statesman I have heard of.

Forty Two wrote:Oh, I'm wrong? O.k., so you DO consider it a viable feminist source?

Its a source.

Forty Two wrote:If I strawmanned you, then state your fucking position.

Nah. Why should I have to state my position as a response to your strawmanning. The most effective way of dealing with idiotic strawmanning is to point out what it is and leave it at that. Anything more is a waste of energy.

Forty Two wrote: You poo pooed the webtraffic analysis and its monthly views.

No I didn't.

Forty Two wrote: You've called it clickbait, and compared it to Cracked.

Because it is clickbait and Cracked is a good comparison of a clickbait site. They're designed to have high volumes of traffic through the use of hyperbole riddled headlines.

Forty Two wrote: Fine -- then tell me why you're bitching about my citation to Jezebel and The Atlantic in the OP?

Was I? I can't see that I was. Could you quote where I did?

Forty Two wrote:What's the problem?

You'd have to let me know what the problem was first.

Forty Two wrote: Don't you have some more White Knighting to do?

I've been wondering how long it would be before you delivered one of the choice phrases uttered by misogynists and MRA types the world over. Go go Captain Transparent Agenda!!!

Forty Two · **#77** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 2:53 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

Forty Two wrote:How is it even "stirring the pot" to create a thread about sexism in women's clothes (a la pockets), and reference an article about that topic in The Atlantic and in Jezebel?

Because you end up spending far more time defending yourself against the charges of stirring the pot than you do actually discussing the issues you purportedly show up here to discuss.

That's not my fault.

I beg to differ with you. That you're so eager to blame other people for your troubles here at RatSkep is very telling.

Well, my alternative is to just let dishonest people who are attributing imaginary motives to me make their false allegations and have them go unrebutted. They are the ones asking me questions, Cito. Would it be better if I just not respond to their posts and carry on with the substantive discussion?

My goal is to talk about the issue about which I started the thread. If you have a suggestion as to how I can do that in light of the barrage of tone trolling, motive-attacking, and general efforts to stop certain kinds of topics from being created, then I'd like to give it a try.

How about this? If you're interested, then let's discus the topic -- the articles in the OP and the arguments made therein.

Sendraks · **#78** by **Sendraks** » Nov 24, 2015 2:56 pm

Forty Two wrote:Well, my alternative is to just let dishonest people who are attributing imaginary motives

Cito di Pense · **#79** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:You might have to face the fact that anything you don't have to pay to read may have little value as currency in an argument,

Yet, almost every source cited on this forum comes from sources you don't have to pay to read. Do we automatically discount all citations from non-pay sources as click bait? If not, then what is the metric to be used?

I didn't say we automatically discount everything we read for free. I said that whatever you're reading for free may have little value in an argument. I'll give you a few guesses about why that is.

In answer to your questions about the Jezebel article (or whatever you quoted in your OP), it's pretty obvious from the way it's written that it's intended as click-bait. It's pretty obviously intended to irritate people who have a particular (mistaken) view of feminism.

I'll grant you that a certain amount of material that gets quoted here in posts is merely due to somebody getting a little exercised about something that somebody else did or said that ended up getting a line or two in the news. Because, I have to tell you, bro, getting exercised about the kind of stuff you quoted in your OP is quite normal around here. Instead of being a response to click-bait about religious fundamentalism using a straw man caricature of atheism, it's a response to click-bait using a straw man caricature of feminism. The spanner in the works is that you're not really exercised about that, or you'd spend more effort discussing why you (personally) are. Why would you act like you want people to think you have a (mistaken) view of feminism that you do not, in fact, adopt?

Forty Two · **#80** by **Forty Two** » Nov 24, 2015 3:19 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Look -- it's not just the traffic. It's the kind of traffic.

Did you provide a breakdown to the type of traffic it gets? Apologies if I missed that.

In the link I provided, yes. But, you're just trolling, so it's no surprise you don't actually read the arguments against what you're saying before you post a retort.

Sendraks wrote:
Forty Two wrote:You don't find it a well-trafficked or influential site. Fine.

More strawmanning.

so, what do you find? It is a well-trafficked, influential site?

If I strawmanned you, then tell me what you think.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Do you agree or disagree with the assertions made in the articles? Why or why not? is there something I said about the articles in the OP that you agree or disagree with? Why or why not?

Nah.

Sendraks wrote:
Forty Two wrote:what would you consider a good publication that is worthy of citation?

Probably something that you'd never consider using as the basis of discussion.
Ba'dum tsh!

Sendraks wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Your ignorance is showing. Try being a little better read. Next thing you'll admit to being ignorant of The Nation or The New Statesman.

I am indeed ignorant of the Atlantic, although I see no compelling reason as to why I should be aware of it. I'm not familiar with the Nation either, again, why should I be? The New Statesman I have heard of.

Why should you be? So you wouldn't be a total idiot?

You never heard of The Nation? It's one of the oldest published political magazines in the western world. It's like saying you never heard of Scientific American, The Economist, or the Spectator. You may want to refrain from admitting that so publicly, and instead, give it a quick google and read something, so that you don't sound like such an unwashed provincial.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Oh, I'm wrong? O.k., so you DO consider it a viable feminist source?

Its a source.

O.k., so what is the problem with the Jezebel article being included in the OP on this topic? Is there one?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:If I strawmanned you, then state your fucking position.

Nah. Why should I have to state my position as a response to your strawmanning.

You could just state your position for its own sake. If I strawmanned you, it's because you haven't stated your position. So, I withdrew my statement of my understanding of your position, and leave it to you to state your position clearly. If you don't want to, fine.

Sendraks wrote:

The most effective way of dealing with idiotic strawmanning is to point out what it is and leave it at that. Anything more is a waste of energy.

Only if your goal is to do the troll dance and badger people instead of actually discussing the topic.

What's the problem with the Jezebel article? I don't want to strawman you, but you brought it up, so -- what's your argument? Do you have one? Or, is it just more douchey posting to rock the boat and piss on the thread?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote: You poo pooed the webtraffic analysis and its monthly views.

No I didn't.

O.k., I stand corrected.

Do you have a problem with the Jezebel article?
Do you have a problem with the site Jezebel?

What're you even arguing?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote: You've called it clickbait, and compared it to Cracked.

Because it is clickbait and Cracked is a good comparison of a clickbait site. They're designed to have high volumes of traffic through the use of hyperbole riddled headlines.

Is that what the article headline is here -- hyperbole? What's the problem with the article in the OP? Is there one?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote: Fine -- then tell me why you're bitching about my citation to Jezebel and The Atlantic in the OP?

Was I? I can't see that I was. Could you quote where I did?

I'll just ask.

Do you have a problem with the citation/reference of Jezebel and/or the Atlantic in the OP? If not, o.k. If so, what is the problem?

What's your position on the arguments made in the article? Why?

Do you disagree with something I said in the OP? If so, what, and why?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:What's the problem?

You'd have to let me know what the problem was first.

I don't think there is one. Do you?

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote: Don't you have some more White Knighting to do?

I've been wondering how long it would be before you delivered one of the choice phrases uttered by misogynists and MRA types the world over. Go go Captain Transparent Agenda!!!

More caponesque evasion.

Maybe just provide a list of topics you think I should be posting on. i'll see if any of them are of interest to me.

Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Re: Pockets Are Sexist, and So is the iPhone 6 Plus

Who is online