699,150 posts

Prime example of postmodern discourse and it's inability to cope with rational debate. This is why we talk right past our detractors.

Reddit View
May 31, 2013
24 upvotes
http://np.reddit.com/r/Game0fDolls/comments/1fbt7l/why_i_am_not_a_feminist_even_if_patriarchy_does/ca9kybz?context=10


Post Information
Title Prime example of postmodern discourse and it's inability to cope with rational debate. This is why we talk right past our detractors.
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 24
Comments 16
Date 31 May 2013 05:51 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit askTRP
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/174923
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1ff012/prime_example_of_postmodern_discourse_and_its/
Similar Posts
Comments

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

They weren't interested in a debate, only trying to bait you into saying something they could use against you to rationalize their hatred for their perceived thoughts on what this subreddit is about. Good job, but I don't know how you have the patience to put up with people like that.

[–]ProtectTheCommunity 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm studying a STEM major and every professor who I've got to know better has always expressed their dislike for post modernism. Every single one. They say it's all emotional BS and nothing about the truth and logic. Keeping in mind that I've got to know some of the best professors in my field [mathematics].

[–]TRP Vanguardnicethingyoucanthave 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

When he asked, in this comment "do you think that it is okay to force your wife to have sex with you when she doesn't want to?" I cannot for the life of me understand why you didn't simply answer, "no"

I get what you're saying about contractual obligations. But he's assuming that you mean "contract = violent force." Why not just clear that up for him?? Seems like you're allowing the misunderstanding to persist.

You can believe that your wife has a contractual obligation without believing that you have the right to employ physical force to execute that contract. After all, I have a contractual obligation to my employer, but my employer doesn't have the right to beat me with a stick. If I fail in my obligation, they simply fire me.

Similarly, you can believe that your wife has a contractual obligation and that if she fails in that obligation, your remedy is divorce or annulment.

Why not say that instead of dancing around it.

[–]soyanon 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

You can believe that your wife has a contractual obligation without believing that you have the right to employ physical force to execute that contract. After all, I have a contractual obligation to my employer, but my employer doesn't have the right to beat me with a stick. If I fail in my obligation, they simply fire me.

Similarly, you can believe that your wife has a contractual obligation and that if she fails in that obligation, your remedy is divorce or annulment.

One million times this. Why is everyone going on about "rape"? If I get married and my wife no longer (or never begins to) have sex with me, then she is like an employee who doesn't show up to work. I don't need to violently force her into doing anything, I just need to be able to kick her to the curb (without getting legally raped myself). That's all we ask.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Because:

Having an abstract conversation that does not have anything to do with my personal morals does not require me to divulge my morals, and avoiding divulging my morals cannot be considered evasive unless the rules of discussion are changed.

This isn't about rape, in case you haven't noticed. This is about modern vs postmodern debate.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 10 points11 points  (53 children) | Copy

A quick breakdown of what's going on here:

As is common, the discussion of rape and theredpill came back up. I attempt to clear the air by explaining the question of one's own right to contractually surrender bodily autonomy- which from a thinking perspective is an interesting question- one that I think requires some real thinking to really come to any conclusions, and one that has interesting implications in other examples of surrendering bodily autonomy.

My contribution is purely theoretical and detached. Who I am in relation to the subject has zero bearing on it. Yet, those who want to disagree with the red pill find it within themselves to use the very existence of a conversation about rape as an endorsement thereof.

This is a classic example of what is taught in today's schools as acceptable debate. The insults and mischaracterizations of me are their only weapon, as logic or reason were simply left out of their educations.

Their only hope is to say "rape" louder and longer than any voice of reason can come back with.

In modern debate, using insult and ad hominem is the mark of the loser of a debate.

In postmodern debate, whoever is offended first is decidedly the winner.

[–]jess_than_threee 13 points14 points  (40 children) | Copy

I'm posting this on an alt because you banned me preemptively from your subreddit, before I was even aware it existed (literally, the first time I wandered over here to see what it was about, I noticed I was banned). Which is certainly ironic. You've probably been too busy to unban me like you claimed you were going to, and that's fine - but I'm not an especially patient lady, so here we are.

In any case, I'd like to make some points to combat the incredible misinformation you're spreading here.

In postmodern debate, whoever is offended first is decidedly the winner.

Who's "offended" in the linked thread? Frankly, I see you claiming to have been insulted first - so I suppose that's you?

More to the point, I'd like to stop to laugh about your use of "postmodernism", as the favorite bogeyman of the MRAs. I get it, it's a really easy strawman to beat the shit out of, but nothing in the thread you linked has any real relation to it. Here - do some reading for yourself; you'll see. Speaking personally, I fucking hate postmodernism, and I think anguilax feels the same - but hey, why argue against what someone is saying when you can argue against something else that's easier to bash, instead?

Cannot accept that personal opinion or belief has no bearing on reality:

http://i.imgur.com/3MNaiL0.png

You've missed the point entirely (which doesn't surprise me in the slighest, at this point) - or rather, more likely, you're avoiding the point, and reframing the argument. You keep saying things like "my opinions have no effect on reality", but what you're carefully ignoring is the fact that nobody was saying that in the first place. We weren't asking you about the state of affairs in the world as it exists, or about the historical basis of anything in particular. We were asking you what you believed, and how you felt, because that's what we were interested in knowing about.

I'm wondering if you had a lot of problems with opinion papers in school. Given this remark,

This is what comes out of our colleges, folks.

I wonder if that's why you (as you seem to imply) didn't "come out of our colleges". (Is that something to be proud of?)

Moving on...

At this point I was banned.

This makes it sound as though you were banned for that comment, and probably by me. That's entirely inaccurate. I won't post a screenshot of the modmail unless the other individuals involved okay it, but you know who banned you, and you know why:

You are boring and extremly evasive. This is a space for arguing in good faith.

 

They [your words] have the effect of making me wade through a bunch of nonsense not put forward in good faith.

 

Here at GameZero, we try to maintain a certain level of discussion. Having a discussion with someone who's blatantly dodging that discussion isn't what we want here. We want people who are conductive to discussion and respectful (within reason) to their opponents. This has nothing to do with the content of your posts, or you being "wrong". Its about what we want to foster here. Is that clear?

You were also banned for about an hour in total.

So, let's get to the meat of this. You've still completely refused to answer some simple questions about what you yourself believe. I told you I'd be more than happy to continue the conversation on your turf, so allow me to more or less repeat them - and add a few, for clarity's sake.

These are pretty simple and straightforward questions, which can largely be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", with (if you like) any amount of additional explanation expanding or clarifying your response. They aren't, as you've tried to claim in modmail, complex questions that require acceptance of an untrue proposition (or one you don't agree with) in order to answer them either way.

So, if you'd be so kind:

  • Do you believe that, in a philosophical sense and irrespective of legality - ethically, say - marriage entails consent to sex?

  • Do you believe that it should be considered acceptable for a man to force his wife to have sex with him if she doesn't want to?

  • Do you think it's right, or just (if you'd rather), that that's legally considered rape?

  • Do you think that what's currently considered "marital rape" shouldn't be a crime?

  • If the law changed tomorrow, and "marital rape" wasn't a thing at all, and men were considered to be entitled to have sex with their wives whether they wanted it or not, and men couldn't be prosecuted for exercising that entitlement - if, in a nutshell, it was legally considered that marriage did entail consent to sex - would you be okay with that? Would you feel that that was an acceptable state of affairs, or would you have a problem with it? Would you consider that legislation just, or unjust?

(Added in edit:) If you do feel that husbands are (or should be considered to be, in your ideal world) entitled to sex from their wives, who have (or should be considered to have) a responsibility to provide it to them:

  • Do you feel that it works the other way around, too? Do (or should) wives have the right to force themselves on their husbands against the latter's will, as much as the other way around?

  • Where are the lines drawn as to what constitutes "sex"? Is a husband entitled to oral? Anal? Are there any mitigating circumstances or contexts?

Thanks in advance. Genuinely curious as to your views on this subject. <3

Edit: Forgot a bullet point I had wanted to include, then added another one as well. This was the previous, unedited version of the comment, to forestall accusations of funny business.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy

I unbanned you per our conversation. I did it last night but apparently either the page didn't work or you were on my list twice.

By the way, if you were banned without contributing it's because we banned the moderator list on thebluepill. If you were moderating the blue pill, you most certainly have heard of us, so that's a lie.

[–]Jess_than_three 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

You can't be "on the list twice". It doesn't work that way.

And no, I'm fairly certain you banned me before that. Regardless, this is what I know: the first time I opened up this subreddit, I was preemptively banned.

But whether I'm misrembering the exact timeline of events isn't the point, is it? The point is that you complained about being censored, as a person who preemptively bans people who have never posted in your subreddit. Little hypocritical, don't you think? What happened to "If I'm wrong my words will have no effect, no need to censor me"? That's the way it works, isn't it?

But this is all ranging very far afield. I said I'd be happy to continue the discussion on your turf, and I have. The ball's in your court, but you're continuing to be evasive. Should I take this to mean that you have zero intention of answering the simple and specific questions above?

You're doing a great job demonstrating how the disagreements between your camp and, well, everyone else, are because feminism and postmodernism.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

You can't be "on the list twice". It doesn't work that way.

And no, I'm fairly certain you banned me before that. Regardless, this is what I know: the first time I opened up this subreddit, I was preemptively banned.

Then it was a technical error on my part.

But whether I'm misrembering the exact timeline of events isn't the point, is it? The point is that you complained about being censored, as a person who preemptively bans people who have never posted in your subreddit. Little hypocritical, don't you think?

Not at all. I banned en masse a group of users who had publicly made their intentions clear to troll our sub. Believe it or not, we don't exactly care to waste time on trolls.

What happened to "If I'm wrong my words will have no effect, no need to censor me"? That's the way it works, isn't it?

I unbanned you, why are you still going?

but you're continuing to be evasive. Should I take this to mean that you have zero intention of answering the simple and specific questions above?

That's a disingenuous question. I have answered every question, you simply have no idea how to ask it. You're asking if I believe in marriage is the same as asking if I believe in vegetarianism. Yes, vegetarians exist, no I am not a vegetarian. My belief, I would hope, best reflects reality.

If you ask me what they should eat, I would say by definition, they should eat things that aren't meat. But that's not my opinion.

Then you ask me what I think they should eat. I just told you what vegetarianism is, my personal opinion is so irrelevant that it's not even a question that can be asked! I would answer, well I think meat is delicious, so I eat meat. But that makes me not a vegetarian... so the question is nonsensical.

You're doing a great job demonstrating how the disagreements between your camp and, well, everyone else, are because feminism and postmodernism.

Yes, this is fantastic stuff. It's like chasm between us and no meaning can jump it.

[–]Jess_than_three -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

Nope, you've continued to miss choose to pretend you don't understand the point. I asked some very concrete questions, and the upshot of them is to discern things like whether you have a problem with what's currently legally defined as marital rape in contexts where it isn't defined as rape, and whether you would prefer that it was defined that way (ie,as not-rape) here and now in the Western world. Your evasiveness and clumsy attempts to reframe the issue as though I'm asking you about what you believe is factually true (which even a cursory glance at the questions I've asked shows to be not at all the point) are incredibly disingenuous.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy

whether you have a problem with what's currently legally defined as marital rape in contexts where it isn't defined as rape

Rape is a description of a crime that can only define itself- i.e. if there is an event that happens that does not meet the criteria of rape, it is not rape.

Currently, nonconsensual sex in marriage is considered rape. That sounds reasonable based on the understanding that since 1975, there was a removal of implied consent on the marriage contract.

and whether you would prefer that that was the case here and now in the Western world.

I've explained a multitude of times, my preference is not to get married. I have absolutely no opinion on what private contracts other people get into with eachother. This means- since you need me to spell it out- that in my romantic relationships, consent is acquired on a per instance basis.

Your evasiveness and clumsy attempts to reframe the issue as though I'm asking you about what you believe is factually true (which even a cursory glance at the questions I've asked shows to be not at all the point) are incredibly disingenuous.

Your inability to understand what I'm saying doesn't make me disingenuous. I'm explaining to you how contracts work, and why my opinion doesn't make fuck all of a difference beside the idea that I wouldn't enter a relationship contract.

[–]WingedBalmung 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm going to make god's work here for a bit since I want this point straight at last.

His opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) is that he doesn't have one since it's not relevant because he wouldn't enter a relationship contract.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Basically- My opinion is that I don't see benefit in relationship contracts. So I really don't care what other people put in theirs.

Back to my vegetarian analogy- my opinion is to eat meat, but that wouldn't be vegetarian. Asking me what I think vegetarians should eat is nonsensical.

[–]Jess_than_three 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

You're still evading the rather specific questions I've posed. I'll ask another, bluntly, and phrased specifically to prevent your jerkoff word-games where you pretend not to recognize that for example "what is currently defined as marital rape" refers to a behavior, a thing that happens, and not a legal definition of that circumstance.

Do you or do you not have a problem with a man forcing himself on his wife, as long as his doing so is not legally prohibited?

Do you think that it should be the case that individuals forcing themselves on their spouses is legally prohibited? Do you support or do you oppose that legal definition? Do you agree or disagree with it?

Do you think that marital rape is wrong (as in, a wrong thing for someone to do) only because it's illegal, and if forcing an unwilling spouse to have sex with you was not illegal, would you be okay with that or would you find it reprehensible?

If you were in a position where the government was in the process of reworking marriage, coming up with Marriage 2.0, and all preexisting marriages had been annulled and no more would be granted until the legislation was passed (so it wouldn't change any preexisting "contracts"), and for whatever reason you were in a position to cast the deciding vote - in secret, say, so there would be no fear of retribution one way or another - on whether Marriage 2.0 was going to include a prohibition on forcing your spouse to have sex with you when they didn't want to, or whether on the other hand marriages under Marriage 2.0 would entail ongoing consent to sex - which way would you vote?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I'll ask another, bluntly, and phrased specifically to prevent your jerkoff word-games

I guess where I come from, the specific meaning of words is very important to a debate.

Do you or do you not have a problem with a man forcing himself on his wife, as long as his doing so is not legally prohibited?

I have answered this a number of times.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Game0fDolls/comments/1fbt7l/why_i_am_not_a_feminist_even_if_patriarchy_does/ca9olt6

http://www.reddit.com/r/Game0fDolls/comments/1fbt7l/why_i_am_not_a_feminist_even_if_patriarchy_does/ca9noo8

http://www.reddit.com/r/Game0fDolls/comments/1fbt7l/why_i_am_not_a_feminist_even_if_patriarchy_does/ca9nzla

Do you think that it should be the case that individuals forcing themselves on their spouses is legally prohibited?

As per my comments above, I do not believe non-consensual sex should be legal.

Do you support or do you oppose that legal definition? Do you agree or disagree with it?

The legal definition of consent? That was the debate- whether somebody can legally consent to surrender their bodily autonomy.

Since 1975, you cannot with sex. Today, you still can in the army. Should you be able to? I think sure, you should be able to consent to anything you want. But drugs are still illegal so I don't think



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter