How do you even argue with this?

Fundumpsters · 2014-03-12T01:43:22+00:00

It doesn't matter how things REALLY ARE, only how we interact with them.

= "It doesn't count as cheating.. I was on vacation.. why are you so upset?!"

apackofwankers · 2014-03-12T01:59:36+00:00

This is very postmodernist thinking, and widely adopted by femenists.

Basically, postmodernists take the position that reality is whatever people say it is, and that truth and falsity are just labels assigned by society.

You cant reason with these people. It is the ultimate form of solipcism.

The only way to deal with these people is by demonstration. Ask them if they agree that this is your hand, then ask them if they believe it is solid. Then slap them.

cozycoffeecake · 2014-03-12T01:56:40+00:00

Her: Reality is defined by the people living it, given that it's just a consensus of the majority's perception of things. So who knows what "reality" will have to say on the matter in a few generations.

What she is really saying here is:

" [My] Reality is defined by the people [person] living [in] it (aka: her), given that it's just a consensus of the majority's [my] perception [whatever I believe at the time] of things [convenience and/or emotional whim]. "

And thus, it is ill-advised to argue with her and any other deeply convicted feminist, because they are extensions of fallacious logic inspired by whimsical emotions and delusion.

slkrk · 2014-03-12T05:32:03+00:00

How do you even argue with this?

You don't.

Crackerjacksurgeon · 2014-03-12T02:31:53+00:00

Lol.

It's pointless to discuss gender relations with someone who confuses sociology with biology and introduces infinite shades of pink where there is only black and white.

Blaw40 · 2014-03-12T05:15:29+00:00

Lol transmen. Just deranged men who mutilated themselves. I'd seriously verbally abuse a bitch if she told me that men could give birth.

toothbrush_your_anus · 2014-03-12T07:29:23+00:00

tl;dr facts don't real, i am going to feel outraged as hard as i can at you and then you will disappear just like my dad

machimus · 2014-03-12T01:22:28+00:00

Sounds almost religious, to me...

Faith, by definition, is when you believe what you want to believe rather than what is demonstrated to be true.

Unfortunately, you shouldn't try to use logic with that, or else just admit up front you'd rather believe what you want and save us all a lot of time.

ArtilleryCamel · 2014-03-12T01:00:04+00:00

Your arguing different points.

Shes saying societies perception is what defines a man which is true in a sense. Legally people can change from being man to woman in some countries.

Your saying chromosomes define what is a man which is also true.

Man is just a label so it is up for perception lets say the entire planet decided to redefine man as flies and women camels that would hold up.However the scientific definition of male you cannot change.

nyrp · 2014-03-12T02:07:17+00:00

Why argue with a woman who thinks she's a man. So many mountains to conquer. Life's too short.

carolinadreams · 2014-03-12T02:25:56+00:00

You are arguing with crazy, you can't have a meaningful exchange with someone if there are not commonly agreed terms, or if at will they arbitrarily redifine a word and exist that which was meant by the first meaning still holds true.

2014-03-12T08:54:11+00:00

And for a time, the world WAS flat where it mattered, to the people who had ideas about it.

ok, Eppur si muove... your hole still bleeds.

rogueman999 · 2014-03-12T13:13:59+00:00

How do you even argue with this?

I'm gonna go with the unpopular opinion here and try a somewhat less circlejerky way of skinning this kitty.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/

This deals with how we can misuse words to each argue on two completely different concepts. In this particular case, there's a good chance OP and zahhakk argued about two different meanings of "gender" - as was actually alluded to in the exchange:

Genetic code = sex

Biological sex NEED NOT EQUAL gender.

So, to argue with these people you first have to establish what you are arguing about. A good technique is to simply stop using the word "gender" and its immediate synonyms, which will force you to define your positions - and hopefully start a conversation which leads somewhere.

Johnny10toes · 2014-03-12T14:24:34+00:00

but reality doesn't give a shit about your feelings

Haha

bsutansalt · 2014-03-12T20:29:04+00:00

I really don't know how to respond. I had a similar issue described here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1zv20y/no_one_has_ever_claimed_to_be_an_mra_and_been_a/

For the moment I'm still mulling over how to respond.

foghorn19 · 2014-03-12T10:43:51+00:00

Reality is defined by the people living it, given that it's just a consensus of the majority's perception of things. So who knows what "reality" will have to say on the matter in a few generations.

Anyone who seriously believes this is invited to jump off the top of a tall building and find out if a consensus of perception will nullify the force of gravity.

2014-03-12T05:44:21+00:00

Men have XY, women have XX and you're arguing with an idiot instead of doing something constructive.

That is all.

sir_wankalot_here · 2014-03-12T02:04:49+00:00

You can't so you don't bother

JourneymanTRP · 2014-03-12T06:14:53+00:00

Unpopular opinion here, but standing your ground is what this sub is all about.

I agree with a lot of the points she makes. Not about "Man" being strictly a social label, thats bullshit.

But as far as reality goes.. theres no doubt that the best way to understand an object is to look at it from a different viewpoint than only yours.

The question is which is better, a purely objective view, or a view that summarizes all other subjective views?

The reason I agree with the other person is that with all the subjective experiences and feelings involved, you will be given a better grasp of the reality of something that invokes a strong emotional response.

That's just one small angle of looking at the whole entire topic, mind you, but I think it works well to illustrate my point.

Endevour · 2014-03-12T08:32:06+00:00

That last line really gives some insight to how differently we percieve the world.

Blake55 · 2014-03-12T08:42:19+00:00

That is legit wack. When you lose touch with reality that hard, there is just no going back. Probably thinks other planets didn't exist until people saw them?

2014-03-12T11:16:52+00:00

What can one say to convince another that perception isn't reality?

You don't. That's the whole trick. Let these idiots life with their stupidity, what does it bother you? You know what's real and because of that you have the ability to impact your life. These idiots never will.

FrostyGoingHisOwnWay · 2014-03-12T11:19:24+00:00

You're talking to someone who thinks truth is subjective and not objective, if this is their world view there is really not much you can do to change it.

It's something atheists battle with fairly regularly with theists, you hear this quite a lot, "What is true for you, is not true for me". These people are very weak critical and logical thinkers who are unable to model reality and question their own beliefs, they take ideas from other sources and simply parrot them.

I generally do not waste time with those people, not just because I think they can't be convinced of the truth, but rather that even if I did manage to convince them of the truth it wouldn't be because they've learned to think for themselves. The moment someone else comes along and tells them something convincing they'll be back to believing something stupid.

I'll never, ever, give a man a fish. Sometimes I'll take the time to teach a man to fish for himself, if I think he's fundamentally capable of that skill.

lillojohn · 2014-03-12T11:36:46+00:00

I still believe that reality is based on the person. But the truth is always obsolute.

cherrypoptart27 · 2014-03-12T13:59:36+00:00

Hit her with some Ayn Rand. This is a classic example of the "mystic of muscle" mentality and the belief that one can divorce the concepts of cause and effect, and the idea that "the majority" and not observable fact determine reality. This is the bane of our society and will be our undoing if these liberal fucks are given any kind of authority.

AdmiralVonJackass · 2014-03-12T17:04:57+00:00

She is testing your ideas. What you are saying might be true, but she doesn't know for sure. People that possess a weak sense of logic decide what they believe based on the confidence and style of the speaker, and how skillfully he can mould his pitch to the social tone of the listener. People of strong logic care little for the speaker or the tone, but rather how the idea resembles reality.

Inelukie · 2014-03-12T14:46:31+00:00

I hate to say it, but I somehow agree with her. There seems to be some kind of disconnect between you two talking to each other.

If you meet a random person on the street, how to you identify their sex/gender? By doing genetic screenings? Probably not. So, you are right about biology, she is right by saying "people identify other peoples genders not by genetics, but by looking at other factors".

Feminists want to have everyone treated equally. It is necessary by logic to ignore small differences for that goal. You might be able to find differences in races, still we all agre you shoulnd't be racist, right? Feminists want people of all genders to be treated equally--> ignore the differences or it won't work.

About the reality part: There is a factual reality around us. But what we do with it is entirely up to people.

Why do we have countries instead of tribes, seperated by bloodlines? Why do we seperate by gender, but not by other factors as height, physical fitness or other things? Why do we prefer certain working hours, 9-5 for example?

Even we seperate alphas from betas, something most people wouldn't agree on. This is exactly what she is talking about. Around your personal frame is some kind of societal frame. Both are non-factual. It's merely a story on "how things are". A dog is a dog? No, he is one individual animal, which we grouped into something a "species". You are not the same as I am. Even though be both are humans. Names for things are not the things themselves.

Title	How do you even argue with this?
Author	ArtilleryCamel
Upvotes	19
Comments	50
Date	March 12, 2014 12:21 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/206pzb/how_do_you_even_argue_with_this/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/how-do-you-even-argue-with-this.12489 https://theredarchive.com/post/12489

Comments