Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Boyle wrote:I don't think DD has ever said anything on this forum that anyone other than Forty Two disagreed with.
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: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?
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Has it not occurred to you to wonder why so much of what you say is challenged and thoroughly discredited?
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?
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.
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:
You remind me so much of another poster we had who banged on about feminism to the exclusion of almost anything else, TMB.
Doubtdispelled wrote:
He was a one trick pony too,
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.
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.
SafeAsMilk wrote::oops: My bad for completely missing it
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.
SafeAsMilk wrote:
I would imagine rationalskepticism.com would be pleased with that.
Normal people aren't pleased with train wrecks.
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
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.
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?
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.
Shrunk wrote:I don't think Forty Two needs to be taught anything about click-bait.
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?
Cito di Pense wrote:
If so, do you think that everything anyone says anywhere is necessarily 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.
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.
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.
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:
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,
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.
Forty Two wrote:Look -- it's not just the traffic. It's the kind of traffic.
Forty Two wrote:You don't find it a well-trafficked or influential site. Fine.
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?
Forty Two wrote:what would you consider a good publication that is worthy of citation?
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.
Forty Two wrote:Oh, I'm wrong? O.k., so you DO consider it a viable feminist source?
Forty Two wrote:If I strawmanned you, then state your fucking position.
Forty Two wrote: You poo pooed the webtraffic analysis and its monthly views.
Forty Two wrote: You've called it clickbait, and compared it to Cracked.
Forty Two wrote: Fine -- then tell me why you're bitching about my citation to Jezebel and The Atlantic in the OP?
Forty Two wrote:What's the problem?
Forty Two wrote: Don't you have some more White Knighting to do?
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.
Forty Two wrote:Well, my alternative is to just let dishonest people who are attributing imaginary motives
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?
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.
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.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests