'Stupid Woman'

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Under which definition of example should I not see it as a parallel or equivalent illustration to "stupid woman"?

 

4: a parallel or closely similar case especially when serving as a precedent or model.

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There is no point is not an on topic reason for you to carry on about how much you are not offended by "kid" less you are relating it back to "stupid woman" somehow. 

I am relating it, agreed. However just because I'm relating it to the topic doesn't automatically mean it's equivalent. 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

Seems to me, after lecturing us all on what we are allowed to be offended by, you and Dimreepr have no problem bringing Raider's age up in your rebuttals. ( even the "bananas in Pyjamas ' children's show comment )
You can't have it both ways

 

You both subscribe to the snowflake argument ((I'm all right jack), I wondered if that was testable), It takes more than a snowflake to challenge the norm.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You both subscribe to the snowflake argument ((I'm all right jack), I wondered if that was testable), It takes more than a snowflake to challenge the norm.

People have been using the exact same talking points against what they label to be PC culture my whole life. Below is a Bush speech from 1991, nearly 30yrs ago, and much of what he says has been posted almost verbatim by posters in threads like this one. The only difference being that people keep pretending to issue is new or specific to millennials. It is just easier to repeat talks points one heard some pundit say than give an issue true consideration. 

 

[MigL]

On the contrary Dimreepr.
Neither Raider nor I are easily offended.
You seem to think we should all be 'snowflakes'.
( Or am I confusing you intended meaning ? )

As Ten oz said in a previous post ( and I did a few pages ago ), you slip up and make an unwanted comment, you are informed it's not welcome, you apologise and stop making that kind of comment. End of story.
No need to carry on calling a ( hopefully decent ) person a sexist bigot.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The only difference being that people keep pretending to issue is new or specific to millennials.

Where did someone do that?

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Where did someone do that?

Lots of places. Just pick up a newspaper or read comment sections. Here is an example.

Quote

Critics warn of a resurgent political correctness that threatens to suffocate free expression and leaves young people unprepared for the real world. We see it as a sign of something else: a demographic changing-of-the-guard that has been approaching ever since the first Millennials came of age—one that will set the tone in any public arena for years to come.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/11/16/america-revisits-political-correctness/#6f1de2102de7

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Lots of places. Just pick up a newspaper or read comment sections. Here is an example.

I mean here on this forum. Otherwise, it's like picking a bad argument from somewhere else and asking picking that apart instead of addressing our arguments.

 

[zapatos]

--

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I mean here on this forum. Otherwise, it's like picking a bad argument from somewhere else and asking picking that apart instead of addressing our arguments.

 

This whole discussion is predicated on what someone said who is not on this forum.

Edited January 10, 2019 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

On 1/9/2019 at 3:34 PM, Raider5678 said:

4: a parallel or closely similar case especially when serving as a precedent or model.

Equivalent is a synonym of Parallel. Link

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Equivalent is a synonym of Parallel. Link

On 1/9/2019 at 3:34 PM, Raider5678 said:

4: a parallel or closely similar case especially when serving as a precedent or model.

 

 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

People have been using the exact same talking points against what they label to be PC culture my whole life. Below is a Bush speech from 1991, nearly 30yrs ago, and much of what he says has been posted almost verbatim by posters in threads like this one. The only difference being that people keep pretending to issue is new or specific to millennials. It is just easier to repeat talks points one heard some pundit say than give an issue true consideration

 

Indeed, they think because they aren't offended no one else is allowed to be.

[Ten oz]

@Raider5678 equivalent is a synonym for  "similar" as well. It is time to stop being stubborn and let this go. You attempted to play semantics to re-frame what you posted and it has failed. Nothing about my use of the word "equivalent" was out of context or inaccurate and your replies have only proved as much. This is off topic. If you meant something else with your "similar case" or equivalent analogy as it relates to "stupid woman" just post it rather than wasting time denying what you have already posted. 

Quote

 

similar

SYNONYMS

comparable, like, corresponding, homogeneous, parallel, equivalent, analogous, matching

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/similar

 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, they think because they aren't offended no one else is allowed to be.

I don't think it is exclusively about whether or not one is offended. I think many people are aware that their own thoughts and behaviors lean towards what would become unacceptable if the more progressive voices are listened to. All battles for equality are power struggles where those benefiting from the status quo have something to lose. I think many rhetorically lash out against feminist movements like #metoo forfear of losing their own privilege more so than any honest disagreement rooted in which type of language offends them.  

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think it is exclusively about whether or not one is offended. I think many people are aware that their own thoughts and behaviors lean towards what would become unacceptable if the more progressive voices are listened to. All battles for equality are power struggles where those benefiting from the status quo have something to lose. I think many rhetorically lash out against femionist movements like #metoo forfear of losing their own privilege more so than any honest disagreement rooted in which type of language offends them. 

2

privilege is always bought.

and offended by poverty.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@Raider5678 equivalent is a synonym for  "similar" as well.

Yet it has a different meaning overall. Context is the key. You've come full circle here. Raider was not off topic. What he said was relatable to "Stupid Woman" without being equivalent.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You attempted to play semantics to re-frame what you posted and it has failed.

 

Your attempt to understand him, even after all attempts to clarify...has failed. He did not change what he intended to get across.

I understood him the first time. If you did not that was fine. Raider clarified. Repeatedly and consistently IMO. I don't see the game you are suggesting.

 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think many people are aware that their own thoughts and behaviors lean towards what would become unacceptable if the more progressive voices are listened to. 

If by that you mean the extreme left I absolutely agree. Many are aware (and should be concerned)

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yet it has a different meaning overall. Context is the key. You've come full circle here. Raider was not off topic. What he said was relatable to "Stupid Woman" without being equivalent.

Your attempt to understand him, even after all attempts to clarify...has failed. He did not change what he intended to get across.

I understood him the first time. If you did not that was fine. Raider clarified. Repeatedly and consistently IMO. I don't see the game you are suggesting.

 

As it applies to him being "smart enough" not to be "butthurt" if someone called him "kid" it makes no difference. The implication is obvious. Raider was clearly implying that those who get offended by such things are "oversensitive" and he finds it "ridiculous". Whether I refer to his analogy as parallel, similar, or equivalent matters little.

The topic of this thread deals with Corbyn's use of "stupid woman". Raider's "similar" (equivalent) analogy was him being called "kid". If the analogy is "similar" as Raider insists than so too are his insults "similar". If it is "ridiculous" as he says to be offended by "kid" than similarly it would be ridiculous to be offended by "woman". That is how analogies work. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As it applies to him being "smart enough" not to be "butthurt" if someone called him "kid" it makes no difference. The implication is obvious. Raider was clearly implying that those who get offended by such things are "oversensitive" and he finds it "ridiculous". Whether I refer to his analogy as parallel, similar, or equivalent matters little.

The topic of this thread deals with Corbyn's use of "stupid woman". Raider's "similar" (equivalent) analogy was him being called "kid". If the analogy is "similar" as Raider insists than so too are his insults "similar". If it is "ridiculous" as he says to be offended by "kid" than similarly it would be ridiculous to be offended by "woman". That is how analogies work. 

Not always. I would say that generally analogies don't fully equate. Rarely would they in all respects.

He used himself as an example to not offend anyone. Apparently it didn't work.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not always. I would say that generally analogies don't fully equate. Rarely would they in all respects.

He used himself as an example to not offend anyone. Apparently it didn't work.

2

there is no legitimate argument as you so aptly demonstrate.

[Ten oz]

On 1/11/2019 at 5:53 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not always. I would say that generally analogies don't fully equate. Rarely would they in all respects.

He used himself as an example to not offend anyone. Apparently it didn't work.

Your implication is that I am offended by Raider's posts. While I do not feel that's accurate I do understand why you might such. I disapprove of the tone in Raider's posts. Some common synonyms for disapprove are dislike, think wrong, find unacceptable, object to, and etc. The sorts of things people find wrong or object to are very often things they also find offensive/ take offense to. The difference is nuanced enough that depending on ones own world view there may be no difference at all. So while I don't feel offended or that I have posted anything implying I might be offended I also understand that people will interpret my words their own way based on their own world view. No amount of protest on my part will change your interpretation. Likewise if one is offended by "stupid woman" no amount mansplaining will change that.  

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Your implication is that I am offended by Raider's posts. While I do not feel that's accurate I do understand why you might such. I disapprove of the tone in Raider's posts. Some common synonyms for disapprove are dislike, think wrong, find unacceptable, object to, and etc. The sorts of things people find wrong or object to are very often things they also find offensive/ take offense to. The difference is nuanced enough that depending on ones own world view there may be no difference at all. So while I don't feel offended or that I have posted anything implying I might be offended I also understand that people will interpret my words their own way based on their own world view. No amount of protest on my part will change your interpretation. Likewise if one is offended by "stupid woman" no amount mansplaining will change that.  

 

 

What wording would you have used if you wished to get the exact same sentiment across? Or if you prefer...what wording should he have used?

Is it wrong for him to hold that sentiment? Keeping in mind he was not directing it at anyone, is it OK for him to convey it here?

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

What wording would you have used if you wished to get the exact same sentiment across? Or if you prefer...what wording should he have used?

Is it wrong for him to hold that sentiment? Keeping in mind he was not directing it at anyone, is it OK for him to convey it here?

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Your implication is that I am offended by Raider's posts. While I do not feel that's accurate I do understand why you might such. I disapprove of the tone in Raider's posts. Some common synonyms for disapprove are dislike, think wrong, find unacceptable, object to, and etc. The sorts of things people find wrong or object to are very often things they also find offensive/ take offense to. The difference is nuanced enough that depending on ones own world view there may be no difference at all. So while I don't feel offended or that I have posted anything implying I might be offended I also understand that people will interpret my words their own way based on their own world view. No amount of protest on my part will change your interpretation. Likewise if one is offended by "stupid woman" no amount mansplaining will change that.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

 I didn't expect you to be offended personally in any case, just perhaps offended on others behalf, as you took issue with it for some reason known best to you.

 

For the record, I would tend not to use the two words together, "stupid woman", unless I was sure my audience would know exactly what I intended by it.

[iNow]

FWIW, this thread has even caused me to be more thoughtful in my comments and descriptions.

Just this morning, I was watching an extended interview with Stacy Abrams, the Democrat who ran for governor in Georgia this year and lost amid some extremely questionable election tactics by her opponent, the man who also happened to be the Secretary of State and in charge of the election process. 

I’d not previously heard her speak at length. I’d only heard sound bites and read snippets in articles. Longer forms like this provide a much better chance to form an accurate picture and she was incredibly thoughtful, kind, and well informed. Super smart. 

I turned to my wife and found myself about to say, “Wow. She’s a really impressive woman,” but I caught myself in the moment and instead said, “Wow. She’s a really impressive person.” While I’m disappointed about having the initial thought, I’m glad I had and acted upon the second.

I share this here because I’ve been pretty decidedly on one side of this thread throughout, and even I still find myself sometimes slipping into unconscious bad habits... even I find myself with opportunities to try and to be better. 

In short: Yes. Stacy Abrams is a woman, but her impressiveness is as a person... as a human... not as a representative of a gender. 

 

Here’s the interview in case you’re curious about that: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/firing-line/video/stacey-abrams-4x42pr/

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

FWIW, this thread has even caused me to be more thoughtful in my comments and descriptions.

Just this morning, I was watching an extended interview with Stacy Abrams, the Democrat who ran for governor in Georgia this year and lost amid some extremely questionable election tactics by her opponent, the man who also happened to be the Secretary of State and in charge of the election process. 

I’d not previously heard her speak at length. I’d only heard sound bites and read snippets in articles. Longer forms like this provide a much better chance to form an accurate picture and she was incredibly thoughtful, kind, and well informed. Super smart. 

I turned to my wife and found myself about to say, “Wow. She’s a really impressive woman,” but I caught myself in the moment and instead said, “Wow. She’s a really impressive person.” While I’m disappointed about having the initial thought, I’m glad I had and acted upon the second.

I share this here because I’ve been pretty decidedly on one side of this thread throughout, and even I still find myself sometimes slipping into unconscious bad habits... even I find myself with opportunities to try and to be better. 

In short: Yes. Stacy Abrams is a woman, but her impressiveness is as a person... as a human... not as a representative of a gender. 

 

Here’s the interview in case you’re curious about that: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/firing-line/video/stacey-abrams-4x42pr/

If you read the BBC regularly, they emphasise the fact the subjects of their articles are women. It's annoying. I  think they demean women by emphasising their gender. I can see they are doing it as a means of positive discrimination but I think the effect is negative on them because it implies they are frail and need a lift. In the case of your example, she's an impressive politician.

Edited January 13, 2019 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If you read the BBC regularly, they emphasise the fact the subjects of their articles are women. It's annoying. I  think they demean women by emphasising their gender. I can see they are doing it as a means of positive discrimination but I think the effect is negative on them because it implies they are frail and need a lift. In the case of your example, she's an impressive politician.

No need to dump on her...

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No need to dump on her...

You've lost me.